An Individual’s Two Thinking Systems in Online C2C Auctions

Sang Cheol Park


With regard to dealing with an individual decision processing approach, little empirical work has been conducted to explain bidders’ behavior by adopting two thinking systems processes, such as the controlled and uncontrolled thinking systems. Therefore, this research attempts to address the two thinking system architecture of an individual’s decision in online bidding context. By constructing our research model from the perspective of two thinking systems, this study can provide an alternative theoretical lens by which online bidders may be viewed, thus bolstering our current understanding as to how willingness to continue bidding is driven.


  1. Ariley, D., 2008. Predictably irrational- the hidden forces that shape our decisions, Harper.
  2. Angst, C. M., Agarwal, R. and Kuruzovich, J. H., 2008, Bid or buy? individual shopping traits as predictors of strategic exit in on-line auctions. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 13(1), 59-84.
  3. Ariely, D. and Simonson, I. 2003. Buying, bidding, playing, or competing? - value assessment and decision dynamics in online auctions, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(1), 113-123.
  4. Agarwal, R. and Karahanna, R., 2000, Time flies when you're having fun: cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage, MIS Quarterly, 24(4), 665-694.
  5. Bapna, R., Goes, P., Gupta, A., and Jin, Y. 2004. User heterogeneity and its impact on electronic auction market design: an empirical exploration, MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 21-43.
  6. Brokner, J. and Rubin, J. Z 1985. Entrapment in Escalating Conflict. NewYork NY: Springer-Verlag.
  7. Csikszentimihalyi, M. 1990. Flow: the psychology of optimal experience, Harper and Row, New York.
  8. Doong, H-S, Wang, H-C., and Foxall, G. R. 2010. Psychological traits and loyalty intentions toward eGovernment services. International Journal of Information Management, 30(5), 457-464.
  9. Festinger, L. 1957, A theory of cognitive dissonance, Standford, C.A: Standford University Press. .
  10. Fox, D. and Hoffman, M. 2002. Escalation behavior as a specific case of goal-directed activity: a persistence paradigm. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24(4), 273-285.
  11. Gilkeson, J. H. and Reynolds, K. 2003. Determinants of internet auction success and closing price: an exploratory study, Psychology and Marketing, 20(6), 537-566.
  12. John, C. L. and Zaichkowsky, J. L. 2003. Bidding behavior at the auction, Psychology & Marketing, 20(4), 303-322.
  13. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. 1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk, Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
  14. Keil, M., Truex, D. P., and Mixon, R. 1995. The effects of sunk cost and project completion on information technology project escalation, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 42(4), 372-381.
  15. Keil, M., Tan, B. C. Y., Wei, K. K., Saarinen, T., Tuunainen, V. and Wassennaar, A. 2000, A crosscultural study on escalation of commitment behavior in software projects, MIS Quarterly, 24(2), 299-325.
  16. Ku, G., Malhotra, D. and Murnighan, J.K. 2005. Toward a competitive arousal model of decision-making: a study of auction fever in live and internet auction, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process , 96(2), 89-103.
  17. Logan, G. D. 1988. Toward an instance-based theory of automatization, Psychological Review, 95, 492-527.
  18. Moors, A. and De Houwer, J. 2006. Automaticity: a theoretical and conceptual analysis, Psychological Bulletin, 132, 297-326.
  19. Park, S. C. Keil, M., Kim, J. U. and Bock, .G. W. 2012. Understanding overbidding behavior in C2C auctions: an escalation theory perspective, European Journal of Information Systems, 21(6), 643-663.
  20. Peters, C. and Bodkin, C. D. 2007. An exploratory investigation of problematic online auction behaviors: experiences of eBay users, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 14(1), 1-16.
  21. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., and Schmann, D. 1983. Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 135-145.
  22. Schneider, W. and Shiffrin, R.M. 1977. Controlled and automatic human information processing I: Detection, search and attention, Psychological Review, 84, 1-66.
  23. Sherif and Cantril 1947, The psychology of egoinvolvements, social attitudes and identifications, Wiley & Sons, Inc. & Chapman & Hall, Limited (New York & London).
  24. Thaler, R. H. and Sunstein, C. R. 2009. Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness, Penguin Books, Revised and Expanded Edition.
  25. Trevino, L. K. and Webster, J. 1992. Flow in computermediated communication: electronic mail and voice mail evaluation and impacts, Communications Research, 19(5), 539-573.
  26. Zaichkowsky, J. L. 1985. Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341- 352.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Park S. (2015). An Individual’s Two Thinking Systems in Online C2C Auctions . In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies - Volume 1: WEBIST, ISBN 978-989-758-106-9, pages 351-357. DOI: 10.5220/0005481603510357

in Bibtex Style

author={Sang Cheol Park},
title={An Individual’s Two Thinking Systems in Online C2C Auctions},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies - Volume 1: WEBIST,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies - Volume 1: WEBIST,
TI - An Individual’s Two Thinking Systems in Online C2C Auctions
SN - 978-989-758-106-9
AU - Park S.
PY - 2015
SP - 351
EP - 357
DO - 10.5220/0005481603510357