Bidding to Commit

Abstract

Economists and biologists have both theorized that individuals can benefit from committing to courses of action because it forces others to concede a greater share of any surpluses, but little experimental work has tested the actual benefits of such a strategy and people’s willingness to so “tie their hands.” Participants played a Battle-of-the-Sexes (Experiment 1) or Hawk–Dove game (Experiment 2), where one member of each pair could not change his or her action once played (committed), whereas the other could change actions in response (uncommitted). Committed players were more likely to achieve their preferred outcomes. When bidding to select roles, most participants preferred to be committed rather than uncommitted, though they bid slightly less than the committed role was actually worth. These results provide empirical support for people’s willingness to use commitment to their advantage and show that commitment devices (e.g., “irrational” emotions) can bring long-term benefits.