Satisficing search versus aspiration adaptation in sales competition: experimental evidence

In a duopoly market, aspiration levels express how much sellers want to earn given their expectations about the other’s behavior. We augment the sellers’ decision task by eliciting their profit aspiration. In a first experimental phase, whenever satisficing is not possible, sales choices, point beliefs, or aspiration levels have to be adapted. This allows us to compare “aspiration-based satisficing” to “aspiration adaptation”. In a second phase, testing the absorption of satisficing, participants are free to select non-satisficing sales profiles. The results reveal that most participants are satisficers who, in line with aspiration adaptation theory, tend to adjust aspiration levels and to keep sales behavior nearly unchanged.

[1]  Kai A. Konrad,et al.  The Merger Paradox and Why Aspiration Levels Let it Fail in the Laboratory , 2006 .

[2]  Stefan Napel,et al.  Aspiration adaptation in the ultimatum minigame , 2003, Games Econ. Behav..

[3]  V. Smith.  Rationality in Economics: Constructivist and Ecological Forms , 2007 .

[4]  Werner Güth,et al.  Satisficing and prior-free optimality in price competition: a theoretical and experimental analysis , 2008 .

[5]  W. Arthur.  Inductive Reasoning and Bounded Rationality , 1994 .

[6]  W. Güth.  Satisficing in Portfolio Selection - Theoretical Aspects and Experimental Tests , 2007 .

[7]  H. Simon,et al.  A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice , 1955 .

[8]  U. Fischbacher.  z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments , 1999 .

[9]  Colin Camerer,et al.  A Cognitive Hierarchy Model of Games , 2004 .

[10]  Werner Güth,et al.  An experimental analysis of satisficing in saving decisions , 2009 .

[11]  Arjen van Witteloostuijn,et al.  Maximising and satisficing opposite or equivalent concepts , 1988 .

[12]  R. Selten.  Features of experimentally observed bounded rationality , 1998 .

[13]  Miguel A. Costa-Gomes,et al.  Cognition and Behavior in Two-Person Guessing Games: An Experimental Study , 2003 .

[14]  Amnon Rapoport,et al.  Consumer Search: Not Enough or Too Much? , 2001 .

[15]  H. Simon.  Rational Decision Making in Business Organizations , 1978 .

[16]  Bela Balassa.  French Industrial Policy under the Socialist Government , 1985 .

[17]  Werner Güth,et al.  Bounded Rationality and Theory Absorption , 2004 .

[18]  Eldar Shafir,et al.  Forming beliefs about adjudicated outcomes: Perceptions of risk and reservation values , 1995 .

[19]  Huw David Dixon,et al.  Keeping Up With the Joneses: Competition and the Evolution of Collusion in an Oligopolistic Economy , 1998 .

[20]  Gregory A. Lilly,et al.  Bounded rationality: A Simon-like explication , 1994 .

[21]  S. Huck,et al.  Stackelberg Beats Cournot: On Collusion and Efficiency in Experimental Markets , 2001 .

[22]  Debraj Ray,et al.  Evolving Aspirations and Cooperation , 1998 .

[23]  R. Selten,et al.  Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox , 2000 .

[24]  Charles A. Holt,et al.  An Experimental Test of the Consistent-Conjectures Hypothesis , 1985 .

[25]  Alison King Chung Lo,et al.  Consumer Sequential Search: Not Enough or Too Much? , 2003 .

[26]  Colin Camerer,et al.  The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework , 1999 .

[27]  R. Selten,et al.  Aspiration Adaptation Theory. , 1998, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[28]  Shaul Markovitch,et al.  Systematic Experimentation with Deductive Learning: Satisficing vs. Optimizing search , 2004 .

[29]  Eva Ebenhöh,et al.  Modeling Non-linear Common-Pool Resource Experiments with Boundedly Rational Agents , 2005, MABS.

[30]  Ben Greiner,et al.  An Online Recruitment System for Economic Experiments , 2004 .

[31]  Jörg Oechssler,et al.  Cooperation as a Result of Learning with Aspiration Levels , 2002 .