We analyze reserve prices in auctions with independent private values when bidders are expectations-based loss averse. We find that the optimal public reserve price excludes fewer bidder types than under risk neutrality. Moreover, we show that public reserve prices are not optimal as the seller can earn a higher revenue with mechanisms that better leverage the “attachment effect”. We discuss two such mechanisms: i) an auction with a secret and random reserve price, and ii) a mechanism where an auction with a public reserve price is followed by a negotiation if the reserve price is not met. Both of these mechanisms expose more bidder types to the attachment effect, thereby increasing bids and ultimately revenue.

We introduce informational punishment to the design of mechanisms that compete with an exogenous status quo mechanism: Players can send garbled public messages with some delay and others cannot commit to ignoring them. Optimal informational punishment ensures that full participation is without loss, even if any single player can publicly enforce the status quo mechanism. Informational punishment permits using a standard revelation principle, is independent of the mechanism designer's objective, and operates exclusively off the equilibrium path. It is robust to refinements and applies in informed-principal settings. We provide conditions that make it robust to opportunistic signal designers.

We study Dutch and first-price auctions with expectations-based loss-averse bidders and show that the strategic equivalence between these formats no longer holds. Intuitively, as the Dutch auction unfolds, a bidder becomes more optimistic about her chances of winning; this stronger “attachment” effect pushes her to bid more aggressively than in the first-price auction. Thus, Dutch auctions raise more revenue than first-price ones. Indeed, the Dutch auction raises the most revenue among standard auction formats. Our results imply that dynamic mechanisms that make bidders more optimistic raise more revenue, thereby rationalizing the use of descending-price mechanisms by sellers in the field.

We study coordination among competitors in the shadow of a market mechanism. Our main example is standard setting: either firms coordinate through a standard-setting organization (SSO), or a market solution—a standards war—emerges. A firms veto to participate in the SSO triggers a standards war. Participation constraints are demanding, and the optimal SSO can involve on-path vetoes. We show that vetoes are effectively deterred if firms can (partially) release their private information to the public. We discuss several business practices that can serve as a signaling device to provide that information and to effectively ensure coordination.

Abstract We study optimal methods for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), a technique to achieve settlement and avoid costly adversarial hearings. Participation is voluntary. Disputants are privately informed about their marginal cost of evidence provision. If ADR fails to engender settlement, the disputants can use the information obtained during ADR to determine what evidence to provide in an adversarial hearing. Optimal ADR induces an asymmetric information structure but makes the learning report‐independent. It is ex ante fair and decreases the disputants' expenditures, even if they fail to settle. We highlight the importance of real‐world mediation techniques, such as caucusing, for implementing optimal ADR.

We analyze the bidding behavior of expectations-based loss-averse bidders in auctions with interdependent values. We emphasize the difference between the risk bidders face over whether they win the auction (extensive risk) and the risk they face over the value of the prize conditional on winning (intensive risk). The extensive risk creates an “attachment” effect, whereas the intensive risk operates via a “comparison” effect. How loss-averse bidders react to these different risks depends on whether they incorporate their bid into their reference point. Under “unacclimating personal equilibrium” (UPE), where bidders keep their expectations fixed when choosing their bids, both the extensive and intensive risks induce them to bid more aggressively. Moreover, bidders are exposed to the “winner’s curse” and a seller can attain higher revenue by hiding information in order to leverage the intensive risk. By contrast, under “choice-acclimating personal equilibrium” (CPE), where a bid determines both the reference lottery and the outcome lottery, the intensive risk creates a “precautionary bidding” effect that pushes bidders to behave less aggressively; whether this effect is reinforced or undermined by the extensive risk depends on a bidder’s likelihood of winning the auction. Furthermore, bidders are less aggressive than under UPE and can be subject to a “loser’s curse.” Yet, by committing to bidding less aggressively, such as by engaging in proxy bidding, loss-averse bidders are better off under CPE than UPE. This paper was accepted by Ilia Tsetlin, decision analysis.