APPENDIX
Table A1: Experimental studies of the acquiring a company game
Seller value
Paper
Design
5 values
Casari et al.
(2015: this study) 100 values
Baseline
Ball, Bazerman,
Role Reversal
Carroll (1991)
Extended Trial
100 values
100 values
Charness and
2 values
Levin (2009)
2 values
4 values
Cooper and Sutter
3 values
(2011)
Winner's Curse
Holt and Sherman
No Curse
(1994)
Loser's Curse
Lower bound of 1
Selton, Abbink,
Lower bound of 11
and Cox (2005)
Lower bound of 21
Control
Yes-No Decision 1st
Bereby-Meyer and Average Full
Grosskopf (2008) Feedback
Average Only
Gamble
Control
Varying k
Grosskopf,
Sym-Asym
Bereby-Meyer,
Sym-Asym Compar.
Bazerman (2007)
Exper 2: Control
Exper 2: Foregone
Control
High Motives
Carroll, Delquie,
Halpern,
Training (x4)
Bazerman (1990) Exper. Mngrs
Exper. Bankers
Tor and Bazerman
(2003)
Lower
bound
Upper
bound
38
21
0
0
0
0
20
0
20
0
240
120
100
100
100
99
119
99
119
99
90
1200
1.5
1
0.5
1
11
21
0
0
6
3
1
99
99
99
100
100
0
Value
Continuo
multiplier is
us set?
50%?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Equilibrium
bid
in choice set
11%
22%
0%
0%
0%
0%
20%
0%
0%
0%
No. repetitions
26
26
20
20
20
60
60
60
60
60
Y
5%
40
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
33%
50%
100%
0-1%
11-13%
26-27%
0%
0%
30
30
30
100
100
100
100
100
100
Y
Y
0%
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
0%
0%
0%
0%, 100%
0%, 51%
0%, 51%
0%, 51%
0%, 51%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100
100
100, 5 parts
100, 5 parts
100, 5 parts
100, 5 parts
80+20 switch
80+20 switch
1
1
1
1
1
0
100
Y
Y
0%
1
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Notes to Table A1: The subjects were undergraduate students except in the following studies. Ball, Bazerman, Carroll (1991) used 1st
year Master students; Bereby-Meyer and Grosskopf (2008) used Boston area people, varied in education and background; Grosskopf,
Bereby-Meyer, Bazerman (2007) used Boston area people, age 18 to 60; Carroll, Delquie, Halpern, Bazerman (1990) used 1st year
Master's students in OBHR class, 2nd year Master's students in advanced Marketing class, Managers in a weeklong seminar and
Master's graduates in investment banking; Tor and Bazerman (2003) used both graduate and undergraduate students. Other papers
used standard undergraduate students as subjects.
Table A2: Descriptive statistics on simulated median bids
5-value (easy task)
100-value (difficult task)
Individual treatment
Group treatment
Individual treatment
Group treatment
control part main part control part main part control part main part control part main part
Simulated median bid distribution
(percentages)
(Near) Optimal: bids that yield
highest expected profit
33.97
44.40
36.58
60.13
8.16
16.76
15.47
7.74
Suboptimal: bids that yield
positive expected profits
53.99
46.24
53.48
36.41
14.13
11.33
13.66
28.54
Winner’s curse: bids that yield
negative expected profits
12.04
9.36
9.94
3.46
77.71
71.92
70.87
63.72
36000
120000
36000
120000
36000
120000
36000
120000
Number of simulated observations
Notes: In the group treatment, Main part, the simulations were run on the individual proposed bids without regard for the experimental
group membership.
Table A3: Lottery choice task
Option
A
Option
B
Decision
node
Payoffs
Payoffs
Probability
of getting
150 tokens
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
150 or 0
150 or 0
150 or 0
150 or 0
150 or 0
150 or 0
150 or 0
150 or 0
150 or 0
150 or 0
150 or 0
150 or 0
150 or 0
150 or 0
150 or 0
Risk Preference
Expected
payoff of
option B
Range of CRRA If
switch from A to B at
the following decision
node
0
0
r<-1.73
0.05
7.5
-1.73<r<-1.1
0.1
15
-1.1<r<-0.73
0.15
22.5
-0.73<r<-0.47
0.2
30
-0.47<r<-0.27
0.25
37.5
-0.27<r<-0.1
0.3
45
-0.1<r<0.04
0.35
52.5
0.04<r<0.16
0.4
60
0.16<r<0.27
0.45
67.5
0.27<r<0.36
0.5
75
0.36<r<0.45
0.55
82.5
0.45<r<0.53
0.6
90
0.53<r<0.6
0.65
97.5
0.6<r<0.66
0.7
105
0.66<r
Percentage of monotonic decision makers
Individual
Choices
Frequency
of choices
for B
(%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.69
3.39
5.08
14.41
22.03
29.66
62.71
72.03
82.20
90.68
94.92
87.41
Group
Choices
Frequency
of choices
for B
(%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.76
13.64
16.67
36.36
69.70
83.33
88.64
95.45
97.73
97.81
Notes: Everyone should choose option A in decision 1. Risk neutral subjects would switch to option B in
decision 8 (italics). A switch in later decisions reveals risk aversion and a switch in earlier decisions reveals risk
seeking behavior. Number of observations: 118 in individual choices and 132 in group choices (non-monotonic
choices are excluded).
Table A4: Summary of descriptive statistics
Percentage of Bids By Type
5-value (easy task)
100-value (difficult task)
Individual Group Individual Individual Group
Individual
Bid
Bid
Proposal
Bid
Bid
Proposal
(Near) Optimal
control
main 1-6
main 7-12
main 13-20
35.6%
42.2%
35.6%
35.4%
30.6%
47.5%
51.7%
51.9%
30.6%
43.3%
48.6%
52.3%
15.6%
23.3%
22.2%
22.5%
22.2%
6.7%
13.3%
17.5%
22.2%
11.1%
12.8%
19.6%
Winner’s Curse
control
main 1-6
main 7-12
main 13-20
20.0%
18.3%
17.2%
19.2%
18.3%
9.2%
9.2%
10.6%
18.3%
11.4%
10.6%
9.8%
70.0%
65.6%
62.2%
68.3%
64.4%
75.0%
61.7%
48.8%
64.4%
72.8%
60.6%
49.6%
Table A5: Within-treatment comparison: Wilcoxon signed-rank test, two-sided p-values
5-value (easy task)
100-value (difficult task)
compare control vs. main (1-6)
(near) optimal winner's curse
(near) optimal winner's curse
individual bid
n=30
0.1119
0.4453
individual bid
n=15
0.0087
0.2245
group bid
n=20
0.108
0.0346
group bid
n=10
0.0395
0.4443
compare main (1-6) vs. main (13-20)
(near) optimal winner's curse
(near) optimal winner's curse
individual bid
n=30
0.2121
1.000
individual bid
n=15
0.6474
0.8414
group bid
n=20
0.3761
0.9323
group bid
n=10
0.0842
0.0107
compare control (1-6) vs. main (13-20)
(near) optimal winner's curse
(near) optimal winner's curse
individual bid
n=30
0.9917
0.3392
individual bid
n=15
0.2335
0.4545
group bid
n=20
0.0380
0.0261
group bid
n=10
0.2591
0.2023
Table A6: Fisher exact tests comparing the percentages of improved and worsen groups across treatments
5-value
Improved Worsen + Constant Total
Individual Treatment
12
18
30
Group Treatment
14
6
20
Fisher Exact Test (two-sided)
p=0.048
Improved Worsen+ Constant Total
7
8
15
6
4
10
p=0.668
Table A7: Between treatment comparison: Robust rank order tests, one-tailed asymptotic p-value
Changes from
control part to main part
Individual Treatment
Group Treatment
Robust rank order tests
(Near)
Optimal
1.9
19.9
p=0.057
5-value
Winner's
Curse
-1.9
-8.5
p=0.057
100-value
(Near)
Winner's
Optimal
Curse
7.1
-4.3
-9.2
-3.9
p=0.244
p=0.006