Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Effects of Elicitation Method on Willingness-to-Pay: Evidence from the Field

Contents:

Author Info

  • Carlberg, Jared G.
  • Froehlich, Eve J.
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    This paper compares willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimates elicited using three separate methods: in-store experimental auctions, a mailed survey with a cheap talk script included, and the same survey with no script. The products in question were four steaks bearing hypothetical brands representing various brandable attributes. It is found that WTP elicited using experimental auctions was the lowest, followed by WTP elicited by the mail survey with a cheap talk script, then the mail survey with no cheap talk script. Tobit and double-hurdle econometric models are used to identify factors influencing respondents’ WTP; model results are largely consistent with previous findings.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/139409
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Food Distribution Research Society in its journal Journal of Food Distribution Research.

    Volume (Year): 42 (2011)
    Issue (Month): 2 (July)
    Pages:

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:ags:jlofdr:139409

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://fdrs.ag.utk.edu/
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords: Consumer/Household Economics; Marketing;

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Wendy J. Umberger & Dillon M. Feuz, 2004. "The Usefulness of Experimental Auctions in Determining Consumers' Willingness-to-Pay for Quality-Differentiated Products," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 170-185.
    2. Jayson L. Lusk & John A. Fox & Ted C. Schroeder & James Mintert & Mohammad Koohmaraie, 2001. "In-Store Valuation of Steak Tenderness," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(3), pages 539-550.
    3. Jayson Lusk & T Feldkamp & T Schroeder, 2004. "Experimental auction procedure: Impact on valuation of quality differentiated goods," Artefactual Field Experiments 00097, The Field Experiments Website.
    4. Goodman, Allen C., 1998. "Andrew Court and the Invention of Hedonic Price Analysis," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 291-298, September.
    5. John List, 2003. "Using random nth price auctions to value non-market goods and services," Framed Field Experiments 00173, The Field Experiments Website.
    6. Cragg, John G, 1971. "Some Statistical Models for Limited Dependent Variables with Application to the Demand for Durable Goods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 39(5), pages 829-44, September.
    7. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132.
    8. K. K. Lancaster, 2010. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Levine's Working Paper Archive 1385, David K. Levine.
    9. Helen R. Neill & Ronald G. Cummings & Philip T. Ganderton & Glenn W. Harrison & Thomas McGuckin, 1994. "Hypothetical Surveys and Real Economic Commitments," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(2), pages 145-154.
    10. Lusk, Jayson L. & Fox, John A., 2003. "Value elicitation in retail and laboratory environments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 79(1), pages 27-34, April.
    11. Thomas C. Brown & Patricia A. Champ & Richard C. Bishop & Daniel W. McCollum, 1996. "Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(2), pages 152-166.
    12. John List, 2001. "Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auctions for sportscards," Framed Field Experiments 00163, The Field Experiments Website.
    13. Amemiya, Takeshi, 1973. "Regression Analysis when the Dependent Variable is Truncated Normal," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(6), pages 997-1016, November.
    14. John Loomis & Thomas Brown & Beatrice Lucero & George Peterson, 1997. "Evaluating the Validity of the Dichotomous Choice Question Format in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 109-123, September.
    15. Eve J. Froehlich & Jared G. Carlberg & Clement E. Ward, 2009. "Willingness-to-Pay for Fresh Brand Name Beef," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 57(1), pages 119-137, 03.
    16. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    17. Feuz, Dillon M. & Umberger, Wendy J. & Calkins, Chris R. & Sitz, Bethany M., 2004. "U.S. Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Flavor and Tenderness in Steaks as Determined with an Experimental Auction," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(03), December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:jlofdr:139409. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.