Advertisement

Small Business Economics

, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp 71–97 | Cite as

Experience and gender effects in acquisition experiment with value messages

  • D. Di Cagno
  • A. Galliera
  • W. Güth
  • N. Pace
  • L. Panaccione
Article

Abstract

In the bargaining experiment, the privately informed seller of a company sends a value message to the uninformed potential buyer who proposes a price for acquiring the company. Participants are constantly either seller or buyer and interact over 30 rounds with randomly changing partners. How are overstating the value of the company, underpricing the received value message and acceptance of price offers affected by experience and gender (constellation)? We control via treatments for awareness of gender (constellation) and show that gender (constellation) matters and that the main experience effects apply across gender (constellations).

Keywords

Bargaining Price signals Learning Experiment Gender Winner’s curse Take-over bidding 

JEL Classifications

C78 C91 D83 J16 

References

  1. Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for lemons: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500. doi: 10.2307/1879431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arellano, M., & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at instrumental variable estimation of error component models. Journal of Econometrics, 68(1), 29–51. doi: 10.1016/0304-4076(94)01642-D.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arentz, J., Sautet, F., & Storr, V. (2013). Prior-knowledge and opportunity identification. Small Business Economics, 41, 461–478. doi: 10.1007/s11187-012-9437-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87(1), 115–143. doi: 10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00009-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bönte, W., & Piegeler, M. (2013). Gender gap in latent and nascent entrepreneurship: Driven by competitiveness. Small Business Economics, 41, 961–987. doi: 10.1007/s11187-012-9459-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brush, C. G. (1992). Research on women business owners: Past trends, a new perspective and future directions. Small Business: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management, 3, 1038–1070.Google Scholar
  7. Camerer, C. F. (2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments on strategic interaction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Casari, M., Ham, J. C., & Kagel, J. H. (2007). Selection bias, demographic effects, and ability effects in common value auction experiments. The American Economic Review, 97(4), 1278. doi: 10.1257/aer.97.4.1278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cooper, D. J., & Kagel, J. H. (2013). Other-regarding preferences: A selective survey of experimental results. In J. H. Kagel & A. E. Roth (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics (Vol. 2). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Crawford, V. (1998). A survey of experiments on communication via cheap talk. Journal of Economic Theory, 78(2), 286–298. doi: 10.1006/jeth.1997.2359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic literature. doi: 10.1257/jel.47.2.448.Google Scholar
  12. Daly, M. (1991). The 1980s: A decade of growth in enterprise. Employment Gazette, 99, 109–134.Google Scholar
  13. Di Cagno, D., Galliera, A., Güth, W., Pace, N., & Panaccione, L. (2016). Make-up and suspicion in bargaining with cheap talk: An experiment controlling for gender and gender constellation. Theory and Decision, 80(3), 463–471. doi: 10.1007/s11238-015-9497-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dreber, A., & Johannesson, M. (2008). Gender differences in deception. Economics Letters, 99(1), 197–199. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2007.06.027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Erat, S., & Gneezy, U. (2011). White lies. Management Science, 8(4), 723–733. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1110.1449.Google Scholar
  16. Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178. doi: 10.1007/s10683-006-9159-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gneezy, U. (2005). Deception: The role of consequences. American Economic Review, 95(1), 384–394. doi: 10.1257/0002828053828662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gneezy, U., Rockenbach, B., & Serra-Garcia, M. (2013). Measuring lying aversion. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 93, 293–300. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2013.03.025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greiner, B. (2004). The online recruitment system ORSEE 2.0—A guide for the organization of experiments in economics. In Working Paper Series in Economics (Vol. 10). University of Cologne, Department of Economics.Google Scholar
  20. Güth, W., & Kocher, M. G. (2014). More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 108(C), 396–409. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2014.06.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harsanyi, J. C. (1967–1968). Games with incomplete information played by Bayesian players. Management Science, 14, 159–182 (Part I, doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1040.0270), 320–334 (Part II, doi: 10.1287/mnsc.14.5.320), 486–502 (Part III, doi: 10.1287/mnsc.14.7.486).
  22. Ham, J. C., & Kagel, J. H. (2006). Gender effects in private value auctions. Economics Letters, 92(3), 375–382. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2006.03.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Houser, D., Vetter, S., & Winter, J. (2012). Fairness and cheating. European Economic Review, 56(8), 1645–1655. doi: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2012.08.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kagel, J. H., & Levin, D. (2014). Auctions: A survey of experimental research. In J. H. Kagel & A. E. Roth (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics (Vol. 2). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kahneman, D. (2013). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  26. Kartik, N. (2009). Strategic communication with lying costs. The Review of Economic Studies, 76(4), 1359–1395. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-937X.2009.00559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Loscocco, K. A., Robinson, J., Hall, R. H., & Allen, J. K. (1991). Gender and small business success: An inquiry into women’s relative disadvantage. Social Forces, 70(1), 65–85. doi: 10.1093/sf/70.1.65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Minniti, M., & Nardone, C. (2007). Being in someone elses shoes: The role of gender in nascent entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 28, 223–238. doi: 10.1007/s11187-006-9017-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ortmann, A., & Tichy, L. (1999). Gender differences in the laboratory: Evidence from prisoner’s dilemma games. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 39(3), 327–339. doi: 10.1016/S0167-2681(99)00038-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Posner, R. A. (2009). Antitrust law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Rosa, P., Carter, S., & Hamilton, D. (1996). Gender as a determinant of small business performance: Insights from a British study. Small Business Economics, 8(6), 463–478. doi: 10.1007/BF00390031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sutter, M., Bosman, R., Kocher, M. G., & van Winden, F. (2009). Gender pairing and bargaining—Beware the same sex!. Experimental Economics, 12(3), 318–331. doi: 10.1007/s10683-009-9217-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Samuelson, W. F., & Bazerman, M. H. (1985). Negotiation under the winner’s curse. Research in experimental economics, 3, 105–138.Google Scholar
  34. Verheul, I., & Thurik, R. (2001). Start-up capital: Does gender matter? Small Business Economics, 16, 329345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Valley, K. L., Moag, J., & Bazerman, M. H. (1998). A matter of trust: Effects of communication on the efficiency and distribution of outcomes. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 34, 211–238. doi: 10.1016/S0167-2681(97)00054-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Valley, K., Thompson, L., Gibbons, R., & Bazerman, M. H. (2002). How communication improves efficiency in bargaining games. Games and Economic Behavior, 38, 127–155. doi: 10.1006/game.2001.0855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Di Cagno
    • 1
  • A. Galliera
    • 1
  • W. Güth
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • N. Pace
    • 4
  • L. Panaccione
    • 5
  1. 1.Luiss Guido CarliRomeItaly
  2. 2.Frankfurt School of Finance and ManagementFrankfurt am MainGermany
  3. 3.Max Planck Institute on Collective GoodsBonnGermany
  4. 4.University Ca’ Foscari of VeniceVeniceItaly
  5. 5.University of Rome Tor VergataRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations