Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 127–148 | Cite as

To Discount or Not to Discount: An Assessment of Perceptions, Beliefs, and Intentions to Use Electronic Auctions with Discounts

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

In the digital economy, electronic auction systems are becoming more prevalent in facilitating the transactions between buyers and sellers. Auction websites, such as eBay and Amazon, as well as more sophisticated platforms, such as Moai and FrictionlessCommerce have increased transaction volume by offering tailored auction protocols to specific customer groups. meet2trade is a generic electronic market platform that supports various auction mechanisms. This study examines the impact of a discount in a second-price, sealed-bid mechanism on bidding behavior and market outcomes. Emphasis is thereby placed on bidders’ system-based perceptions, beliefs about usage and institutional-based trust, and intention to use such an auction. Ninety students were recruited to participate in an experiment held at a Western European university. The experiment observed user behavior in second-price auctions with and without a discount. The results demonstrate that although discounts do affect bidding behavior and economic outcomes, they do not influence bidder’s intentions to use such auction mechanisms. Instead, we found that intention to use is influenced by institutional and usage beliefs that are shaped by system-based perceptions, which in turn provide specific advice to market engineers on the technical aspects influencing system adoption.

Keywords

Electronic auction systems Auction with discount meet2trade Auction assessment model Laboratory experiment 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ayres I, Cramton P (1996) Deficit reduction through diversity: how affirmative action at the CC increased auction competition. Stanford Law Rev 48: 761–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ba S, Pavlou PA (2002) Evidence of the effect of trust building technology in electronic markets: price premiums and buyer behavior. MIS Quart 26: 243–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Badin G, Crainic TG, Gendreau M et al (2001) Towards electronic marketplaces: a progress report. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on electronic commerce research, Dallas, TXGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakos Y (1991) Information links and electronic marketplaces: the role of interorganizational information systems in vertical markets. J Manage Inform Syst 8(2): 31–52Google Scholar
  5. Bakos Y (1998) The emerging role of electronic marketplaces on the internet. Comm ACM 41(8): 35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bapna RP, Goes A, Gupta et al (2004) User heterogeneity and its impact on electronic auction market design: an empirical exploration. MIS Quart 28(1): 21–43Google Scholar
  7. Beam C, Segev A (1998) Auctions on the internet: a field study. CITM working paper 98-WP1032, UC Berkeley, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. Bentler P (2004) EQS 6 structural equation program manual. Multivariate Software Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Benyoucef M, Keller R, Lamouroux S, et al (2000) Towards a generic e-negotiation platform. In: Proceedings of the sixth conference on re-technologies for information systems, Zurich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  10. Bollen KA (1989) Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  11. Corns A, Schotter A (1999) Can affirmative action be cost effective? An experimental examination of price-preference auctions. Am Econ Rev 89(1): 291–295Google Scholar
  12. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart 13(3): 319–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis FD, Venkatesh V (2004) Towards preprototype user acceptance testing of new information systems: implications for software project management. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 51(1): 31–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DeLone W, McLean E (1992) Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Inform Syst Res 3(1): 60–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gefen DE, Karahanna E, Straub DW (2003) Trust and TAM in on-line shopping: an integrated model. MIS Quart 27(1): 51–90Google Scholar
  16. Klein S (1997) Introduction to electronic auctions. Electronic Markets 7(4): 3–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Klein S, O’Keefe R (1999) The impact of web on auctions: some empirical evidence and theoretical considerations. Int J Electronic Commerce 3(3): 7–20Google Scholar
  18. Kolitz K, Weinhardt C (2006) MES—Ein Experimentalsystem zur Untersuchung Elektronischer Märkt. Service-Oriented Electronic Commerce—Proceedings zur Konferenz im Rahmen der MultikonferenzWirtschaftsinformatik, Bonn, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  19. Lattin J, Carrol J, Green P (2003) Analysis multivariate data. Brooks/Cole of Thomson Learning, Pacific Grove, CAGoogle Scholar
  20. Legris P, Ingham J, Collerette P (2003) Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Inform Manage 40: 191–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levecq H, Weber BW (2002) Electronic trading systems: strategic implications of market design choices. J Organ Comput Electronic Commerce 12(1): 85–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mäkiö J (2006) Parametric design of electronic markets—composing markets with market modeling language. PhD thesis, Universität Karlsruhe (TH), Karlsruhe, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  23. Mäkiö J, Weber I (2004) Component-based specification and composition of market structures. Coordination and agent technology in value networks. M. Bichler, Berlin, GITOGoogle Scholar
  24. Malone TW, Yates Y, Benjamin RI (1987) Electronic markets and electronic hierarchies: effects of information technology on market structure and corporate strategies. Commun ACM 30(6): 484–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McKnight DH, Choudhury V, Kacmar C (2002) Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology. Inform Syst Res 13(3): 334–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Milgrom P (2004) Putting auction theory to work. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  27. Neumann D (2004) Market engineering—a structured design process for electronic markets. PhD thesis, Universität Karlsruhe (TH), Karlsruhe, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  28. Neumann D, Mäkiö J, Weinhardt C (2005) CAME—a toolset for configuring electronic markets. In: Proceedings of the13th European conference on information systems, Regensburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  29. Pavlou PA, Gefen D (2004) Building effective online marketplaces with institution-based trust. Inform Syst Res 15(1): 37–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pinker EJ, Seidmann A, Vakrat Y (2003) Managing online auctions: current business and research issues. Manage Sci 49(11): 1457–1484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reich B, Ben-Shaul I (1998) A componentized architecture for dynamic electronic markets. SIGMOD Record 27(4): 40–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roth AE (1999) Game theory as a tool for market design. Technical report, Harvard University, Department of Economics and Graduate School of Business Administration, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  33. Roth AE (2002) Game theory, experimentation, and computation as tools for design economics. Econometrica 70: 1341–1378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rothkopf MH, Harstad RM, Fu Y (2003) Is subsidizing inefficient bidders actually costly?. Manage Sci 49(1): 71–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schmid BF, Lindemann M (1998) Elements of a reference model for electronic markets. Hawaii International Conference System Sciences, HawaiiGoogle Scholar
  36. Scott RW (2001) Institutions and organizations. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Seddon P, Kiew WY (1996) A partial test and development of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. Aust J Inform Syst 4(1)Google Scholar
  38. Smith V (1982) Microeconomic systems as an experimental science. Am Econ Rev 72(5): 923–955Google Scholar
  39. Strecker S (2004) Multiattribute auctions in electronic procurement—theory and experiment. PhD thesis, Universität Karlsruhe (TH), Karlsruhe, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  40. Ströbel M (2003) Engineering electronic negotiations. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  41. Ströbel M, Weinhardt C (2003) The Montreal taxonomy for electronic negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation Journal 12(2): 143–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Subramanian U, Zeckhauser R (2004) On the block: choose the best type of auction. Harvard Business Review December 1stGoogle Scholar
  43. Van Dinther C (2006) Adaptive bidding in single sided auctions under uncertainty. Birkhäuser, Basel, Boston, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  44. Varian HR (2002) When economics shifts from science to engineering. The New York Times. New York, NY August 29thGoogle Scholar
  45. Venkatesh V, Davis FD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manage Sci 46(2): 186–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Venkatesh V, Morris MG et al (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quart 27(3): 425–478Google Scholar
  47. Vickery W (1961) Counterspeculation, auctions and competitive sealed tenders. J Finance 16(1): 8–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Weinhardt C, Holtmann C, Neumann D (2003) Market engineering. Wirtschaftsinformatik 45(6): 635–640Google Scholar
  49. Weinhardt C, Neumann D, Holtmann C (2006) Computer-aided market engineering. Commun ACM 49(7): 79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Weinhardt C, van Dinther C, Kolitz K et al (2005) meet2trade: a generic electronic trading platform. The 4th workshop on e-business, Las Vegas, NVGoogle Scholar
  51. Wixom BH, Todd PA (2005) A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Inform Syst Res 16(1): 85–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wolfstetter E (1999) Topics in microeconomics: industrial organization, auctions, and incentives. Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  53. Wurman PR, Wellman MP, Walsh WE (1998) The Michigan internet auctionbot: a configurable auction server for human and software agents. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on autonomous agents, Minneapolis, MNGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.John Molson School of Business and InterNeg Research CentreConcordia UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Institute of Information Systems and Management (IISM)Universität Karlsruhe (TH)KarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations