BIDDING BEHAVIOR IN A NATURAL EXPERIMENT: TV GAME SHOW “I DON’T KNOW, MY SPOUSE KNOWS”

Abstract

Behavioral finance deals with the financial decision making that violates the classical finance and economic theories, and underlying reasons for such anomalous behavior by economic actors. There are several environments in which financial decisions are made. Financial markets are the most popular one; but auction markets are somehow neglected by behavioral finance researchers. We examine bidding behavior in a TV game show, broadcasted first in Germany with the name “Mein Mann Kann”, and later adopted by a TV channel in Turkey as “I Don’t Know, My Spouse Knows”. It mimics an actual sequential open-outcry auction as a natural experiment. To our knowledge, this study will be the first one made regarding this show.  Results indicate no age, marital status difference in risk aversion, but significant difference between winners’ and losers’ bids where losers’ bids were higher, which is possible indication of loss aversion. Women and men are taking risks equally, contrary to the majority of research findings. The results expected to contribute to the behavioral finance and auction literature and may illuminate further research in both fields.

Keywords

• Behavioral finance,auctions,bidder behavior,risk aversion

BIDDING BEHAVIOR IN A NATURAL EXPERIMENT: TV GAME SHOW “I DON’T KNOW, MY SPOUSE KNOWS”

Abstract

Davranışçı finans klasik finans ve ekonomi teorilerinin aksine bulgular ve ekonomik aktörlerin bu normal dışı davranışlarını açıklamayla ilgilidir. Finansal kararların verildiği çeşitli ortamlar vardır. Finans piyasaları en popüler alandır. Ancak müzayede piyasaları davranışçı finans araştırmacıları tarafından ihmal edilmiştir. Daha önce Almanya’da “Mein Mann Kann” adıyla, daha sonra bir Türk TV kanalı tarafından adapte edilip “Ben Bilmem Eşim Bilir” adıyla yayınlanan yarışma programındaki pey sürme davranışı incelenmiştir. Doğal bir deney olarak aşamalı, açık katılımlı bir müzayedeyi taklit eden bu yarışma için bilindiği kadarıyla yapılan ilk araştırmadır. Riskten kaçma ile ilgili cinsiyet, yaş, medeni durum açısından bir fark gözlenmemiştir. Ancak kazanan ve kaybedenler arasında verdikleri teklif açısından istatistiki olarak önemli fark vardır ve kayıptan kaçmanın bir işareti olarak kabul edilmiştir. Önceki araştırmaların çoğunun aksine kadın ve erkeklerin eşit risk aldıkları görülmüştür.  Sonuçların hem davranışçı finans hem de müzayede literatürüne katkıda bulunması ve bundan sonraki araştırmalara ışık tutması beklenmektedir.

Keywords

• Davranışçı finans,müzayedeler,pey sürme davranışı,riskten kaçma

References

1. Agnew, J.R., Anderson, L.R., Gerlach, J.R., & Szykman, L.R. (2008). Who chooses annuities? An experimental investigation of the role of gender, framing and defaults. The American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 98(2), 418-422.
2. Al-Ubaydli, O., & List, J.A. (2012). On the generalizability of experimental results in economics, National Bureau of Economic Research Paper Series No:17957, 24 pages.
3. Andersen, S., Harrison, G.W., Lau, M.I., & Rutström, E.E. (2006). Dynamic choice behavior in a natural experiment, Copenhagen Business School Working Paper., 54 pages.
4. Antonovics, K., Arcidiancono P., Walsch R. (2005). Games and discrimination: Lessons from The Weakest Link. Journal of Human Resources, 40(4), 918-947.
5. Ariely, D., & Simonson, I. (2003). Buying, bidding, playing, or competing? Value assessment and decision dynamics in online auctions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(1-2), 113-123.
6. Augenblick, N. (2011). Consumer and producer behavior in the market for penny auctions: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Unpublished dissertation, University of Berkeley.
7. Beetsma, R.M.W.J., Schotman, P.C. (2001). Measuring risk attitudes in a natural experiment: Data from the television game show Lingo”. The Economic Journal, 111(October), 821-848.
8. Bennett R.W., Hickman K.A (1993). Rationality and “The Price is Right”. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 21(1), 99-105.

9. Berk J.B., Hughson E., Vandezande K. (1996). The Price is Right. But are the bids? An investigation of rational decision theory. American Economic Review, 86(4), 954-970.
10. Bernoulli, D. (1954). Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk (Translated from Latin into English by Dr. Louise Sommers 1738). Econometrica, 22(1), 23-36.
11. Binswanger, H.P. (1980). Attitudes toward risk: Experimental measurement in rural India. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62(3), 395-407.
12. Birley, S. (1989). Female entrepreneurs: Are they really any different?. Journal of Small Business Management, 27(1), 32-37.
13. Blavatskyy P., & Pogrebna G. (2008). Risk aversion when gains are likely and unlikely: Evidence from a natural experiment with large stakes. Retrieved from http://www.zora.uzh.ch.
14. Bloomfield, R., & Anderson, A. (2010). Experimental finance. Cornell University Johnson School Research Paper Series #23-2010, 22 pages.
15. Botti, F., Conte A., DiCagno D., D’Ippoliti C. (2009). Lab and framed lab versus natural experiments: Evidence from risky choice experiment. Research in Economics, 63, 282-295.
16. Brooks, R., Faff R., Mulino, D., & Scheelings, R. (2009). Deal or no deal that is the question: The impact of increasing stakes and framing effects on decision-making under risk. International Review of Finance, 9(1), 27-50.
17. Cornes, R., & Hartley, R. (2012). Loss aversion in contests. The University of Manchester Discussion Paper Series, EDP-1204, 28 pages.
18. Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 448-474.
19. Daghofer F. (2007). Financial risk-taking in “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire”: A comparison between Austria, Germany and Slovenia. International Journal of Psychology, 42(5), 317-330.
20. De Roos N., & Sarafidis Y. (2006). Decision making under risk in Deal or No Deal. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=881129.
21. Demaree, H.A., DeDonno, M.A., Burns, K.J., Feldman, P., & Everhart, D.E. (2009). Trait dominance predicts risk-taking. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(5), 419-422.
22. Eckel, C.C., & Grossman, P.J. (2002). Sex differences and statistical stereotyping in attitudes toward financial risk. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(4), 281-295.
23. Eisenhauer, J.G. (2006). Risk aversion and prudence in the large. Research in Economics, 60, 179-187.
24. Eriksson, K., & Simpson B. (2010). Emotional reactions to losing explain gender differences in entering a risky lottery. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(3), 159-163.
25. Ertaç, S., & Gürdal, M.Y. (2010). Deciding to decide: Gender, leadership and risk-taking in groups. Tusiad-Koç University Economic Research Forum Working Paper Series, WP1028.
26. Gertner, R. (1993). Game shows and economic behavior: Risk-taking on “Card Sharks”. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108, 507-521.
27. Gneezy, U., & Potters, J. (1997). An experiment on risk taking and the evaluation periods. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 631-645.
28. Gneezy, U., Niederle, M., & Rustichini, A. (2003). Performance in competitive environments. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3), 1049-1074.
29. Gode, D.K., & Sunder, S. (1993). Allocative efficiency of markets with zero-intelligence traders: Market as a substitute for individual rationality. Journal of Political Economy, 101(1), 119-137.
30. Harbaugh, W.T., Krause, K., & Vesterlund, L. (2002). Risk attitudes of children and adults: Choices over small and large probability gains and losses. Experimental Economics, 5(1), 53-84.
31. Harink, F., Beest, I.V., Dijk, E.V., & Van Zeeland, M. (2012). Measurement- induced focusing and the magnitude of loss aversion: The difference between comparing gains to losses and losses to gains. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(4), 462-471.
32. Harris, C.R., Jenkins, M., & Glaser, D. (2006). Gender differences in risk assessment: Why do women take fewer risks than men?, Judgement and Decision Making Journal, 1(1), 48-63.
33. Healy, P., & Noussir, C. (2004). Bidding behavior in the price is right game: An experimental study. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 54(2), 231-247.
34. Hibbert, A.M. (2008). Essays on risk aversion, diversification and participation, Unpublished dissertation, Florida International University.
35. Holt, C.A., & Laury, S.K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. The American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644-1655.
36. Johnson D.K.N., & Gleason T.R. (2009). Who really wants to be a millionaire? Gender differences in a game show contestant behavior under risk. Social Science Quarterly, 90(2), 243-262.
37. Johnson, J.E.V., & Powell, P.L. (1994). Decision making, risk and gender: Are managers different?. British Journal of Management, 5(2), 123-138.
38. Kachelmeier, S.J., & Shehata, M. (1992). Examining risk preferences under high monetary incentives: Experimental evidence from the People’s Republic of China. The American Economic Review, 82(5), 1120-1141.
39. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
40. Kahneman, D., Knetch, J.L., & Thaler, R.H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1325-1348.
41. Köbberling, V., & Wakker, P.P. (2005). An index of loss aversion. Journal of Economic Theory, 122(1), 119-131.
42. Koedijk, K., Pownall, R.A., & Statman, M. (2012). Aspirations, well-being, risk-aversion and loss-aversion, retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2021007.
43. Larkin, J.E., & Pines, H.A. (2003). Gender and risk in public performance. Sex Roles, 49(5-6), 197-210.
44. Levitt S.D. (2004). Testing theories of discrimination: Evidence from Weakest Link. Journal of Law and Economics, 47(2), 431-452.
45. Master, R., & Meier, R. (1988). Sex differences and risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management, 26(1), 31-35.
46. McGraw, A.P., Larsen, J.T., Kahneman, D., & Schkade, D. (2010). Comparing gains and losses. Psychological Science, 21(10), 1438-1445.
47. Metrick A. (1995). A natural experiment in Jeopardy!. American Economic Review, 85(1), 240-253.
48. Mulino D., Scheelings R., Brooks R.D., & Faff R.W. (2006). An empirical investigation of risk aversion and framing effects in the Australian version of Deal or No Deal. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=926040.
49. Novemsky, N., & Kahneman, D. (2005). The boundries of loss aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(2), 119-128.
50. Post T., Van den Assem M., Baltussen G., & Thaler R. (2008). Deal or No Deal? Decision making under risk in a large payoff game show. American Economic Review, 98(1), 38-71. DOI: 10.1257/aer.98.1.38
51. Pratt, J.W. (1964). Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica, 32(1-2), 122-136.
52. Rabin, M. (2000). Risk aversion and expected-utility: A calibration theorem. Econometrica, 68(5), 1281-1292.
53. Scheel, F., & Nagelschneider, J. (2015). Gender differences in decision making under risk. Evidence from TV game show. Die Betriebswirtschaft, 25-43.
54. Schneider, M., Day, R., & Garfinkel, R. (2015) Risk aversion and loss aversion in core-selecting auctions. Decision Support Systems, 79(Nov.), 161-170. DOI: 10.1016/j.dss.2015.09.007.
55. Schubert, R., Brown, M., Gysler, M., & Brachinger, H.W. (1999). Financial decision-making: Are women really more risk-averse?. AEA Papers and Proceedings, 89(2), 381-385.
56. Sözer-Oran, J. (2010). Teoride ve Pratikte Müzayede ( Auction in Theory and Practise), Marmara University, Nihat Sayar Foundation Publications, İstanbul.
57. Tseng, J.J., Lin, C.H., Lin, C.T., Wang, S.C., & Li, S.P. (2010) Statistical properties of agent-based models in markets with continuous double-auction mechanism. Physica A, 389(8), 1699-1707.
58. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039-1061.
59. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297-323.
60. Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944) Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press.
61. Wieland, A., Sundali, J., Kemmelmeier, M., & Sarin, R. (2014). Gender differences in the endowment effect: Women pay less, but won’t accept less. Judgment and Decision Making, 9(6), 558-571.