IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/agecon/v50y2019i2p207-217.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pushing subjects beyond rationality with more alternatives in experimental auctions

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel E. Chavez
  • Marco A. Palma

Abstract

The use of experimental economics in valuation of market and nonmarket goods has grown over the past few years. The ability of experimental auctions (EUs) to reveal consumer preferences and their malleability has been praised in previous literature. Because of the high cost of conducting EUs, researchers usually present multiple products to participants, determining how many products to present has no clear guideline. The results of this study show that subjects do not value products the same way across different number of options offered to them. The main indicator is the increasing variance in responses for a benchmark product when more products are available. With an econometric specification allowing for heteroscedasticity as a function of the number of product offerings, the results indicate that the number of goods available for bidding is not to be taken as a trivial task in experimental design for value elicitation.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel E. Chavez & Marco A. Palma, 2019. "Pushing subjects beyond rationality with more alternatives in experimental auctions," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 50(2), pages 207-217, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:agecon:v:50:y:2019:i:2:p:207-217
    DOI: 10.1111/agec.12477
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12477
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/agec.12477?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shogren, Jason F. & Margolis, Michael & Koo, Cannon & List, John A., 2001. "A random nth-price auction," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 409-421, December.
    2. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Moon, Amanda, 2009. "Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-17.
    3. Lijia Shi & Jing Xie & Zhifeng Gao, 2018. "The impact of deal†proneness on WTP estimates in incentive†aligned value elicitation methods," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(3), pages 353-362, May.
    4. Roger Waldeck, 2008. "Search and price competition," Post-Print hal-02161480, HAL.
    5. Maynard, Leigh J. & Hartell, Jason G. & Meyer, A. Lee & Hao, Jianqiang, 2004. "An experimental approach to valuing new differentiated products," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 31(2-3), pages 317-325, December.
    6. Kocher, Martin G. & Sutter, Matthias, 2006. "Time is money--Time pressure, incentives, and the quality of decision-making," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 375-392, November.
    7. Tyler J. Klain & Jayson L. Lusk & Glynn T. Tonsor & Ted C. Schroeder, 2014. "An experimental approach to valuing information," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(5), pages 635-648, September.
    8. Edi Karni, 2009. "A Mechanism for Eliciting Probabilities," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(2), pages 603-606, March.
    9. Michael Burton & Dan Rigby, 2012. "The Self Selection of Complexity in Choice Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(3), pages 786-800.
    10. Dohmen, Thomas J., 2008. "Do professionals choke under pressure?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(3-4), pages 636-653, March.
    11. Todd Cherry & Peter Frykblom & Jason Shogren & John List & Melonie Sullivan, 2004. "Laboratory Testbeds and Non-Market Valuation: The Case of Bidding Behavior in a Second-Price Auction with an Outside Option," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(3), pages 285-294, November.
    12. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    13. Harvey, A C, 1976. "Estimating Regression Models with Multiplicative Heteroscedasticity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 44(3), pages 461-465, May.
    14. Mandler, Michael, 2014. "Indecisiveness in behavioral welfare economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 219-235.
    15. Ty Feldkamp & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Experimental Auction Procedure: Impact on Valuation of Quality Differentiated Goods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 389-405.
    16. William Vickrey, 1961. "Counterspeculation, Auctions, And Competitive Sealed Tenders," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 16(1), pages 8-37, March.
    17. Norwood Franklin B, 2006. "Less Choice is Better, Sometimes," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-23, February.
    18. Biing-Hwan Lin & Steven T. Yen & Chung L. Huang & Travis A. Smith, 2009. "U.S. Demand for Organic and Conventional Fresh Fruits: The Roles of Income and Price," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 1(3), pages 1-15, August.
    19. Faruk Gul & Paulo Natenzon & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 2014. "Random Choice as Behavioral Optimization," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82, pages 1873-1912, September.
    20. 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.
    21. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 153-174, Spring.
    22. Chetan Dave & Catherine Eckel & Cathleen Johnson & Christian Rojas, 2010. "Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 219-243, December.
    23. Dan Ariely & Uri Gneezy & George Loewenstein & Nina Mazar, 2009. "Large Stakes and Big Mistakes," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 76(2), pages 451-469.
    24. Klaus Moeltner & David F. Layton, 2002. "A Censored Random Coefficients Model For Pooled Survey Data With Application To The Estimation Of Power Outage Costs," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(3), pages 552-561, August.
    25. Olivier Armantier & Nicolas Treich, 2009. "Subjective Probabilities In Games: An Application To The Overbidding Puzzle," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 50(4), pages 1079-1102, November.
    26. Benjamin Scheibehenne & Rainer Greifeneder & Peter M. Todd, 2010. "Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(3), pages 409-425, October.
    27. Chorus, Caspar G. & Arentze, Theo A. & Timmermans, Harry J.P., 2008. "A Random Regret-Minimization model of travel choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 1-18, January.
    28. Waldeck, Roger, 2008. "Search and price competition," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 347-357, May.
    29. Heiner, Ronald A, 1983. "The Origin of Predictable Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 560-595, September.
    30. Henneberry, Shida Rastegari & Piewthongngam, Kullapapruk & Qiang, Han, 1999. "Consumer Food Safety Concerns And Fresh Produce Consumption," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 24(1), pages 1-16, July.
    31. Stivers, Andrew & Tremblay, Victor J., 2005. "Advertising, search costs, and social welfare," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 317-333, July.
    32. Stephane Hess & John Rose, 2012. "Can scale and coefficient heterogeneity be separated in random coefficients models?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(6), pages 1225-1239, November.
    33. Lusk, Jayson L. & Fox, John A., 2003. "Value elicitation in retail and laboratory environments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 79(1), pages 27-34, April.
    34. Johanna Lena Dahlhausen & Cam Rungie & Jutta Roosen, 2018. "Value of labeling credence attributes—common structures and individual preferences," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(6), pages 741-751, November.
    35. Timothy N. Cason & Charles R. Plott, 2014. "Misconceptions and Game Form Recognition: Challenges to Theories of Revealed Preference and Framing," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 122(6), pages 1235-1270.
    36. Chernev, Alexander, 2003. "When More Is Less and Less Is More: The Role of Ideal Point Availability and Assortment in Consumer Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 30(2), pages 170-183, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chavez, Daniel & Palma, Marco, 2015. "Off the reservation: Pushing the bounds of rationality in experimental auctions," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 202164, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Xue, Hong & Mainville, Denise Y. & You, Wen & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2009. "Nutrition Knowledge, Sensory Characteristics and Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pasture-Fed Beef," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49277, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. repec:ken:wpaper:0601 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Maurizio Canavari & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2018. "How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances," Working Papers 2018-5, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    5. Colson, Gregory, 2009. "Improving nutrient content through genetic modification: Evidence from experimental auctions on consumer acceptance and willingness to pay for intragenic foods," ISU General Staff Papers 200901010800001872, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    6. repec:ken:wpaper:0804 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Daniele Asioli & Adriana Mignani & Frode Alfnes, 2021. "Quick and easy? Respondent evaluations of the Becker–DeGroot–Marschak and multiple price list valuation mechanisms," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(2), pages 215-234, April.
    8. Corrigan, Jay R. & Rousu, Matthew C., 2008. "Testing Whether Field Auction Experiments Are Demand Revealing in Practice," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(2).
    9. Dohmen, Thomas, 2014. "Behavioral labor economics: Advances and future directions," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 71-85.
    10. 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, March.
    11. repec:ken:wpaper:0802 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Jay Corrigan, 2005. "Is the Experimental Auction a Dynamic Market?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 31(1), pages 35-45, May.
    13. 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(3), pages 1-16, December.
    14. Wiktor L. Adamowicz & Klaus Glenk & Jürgen Meyerhoff, 2014. "Choice modelling research in environmental and resource economics," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 27, pages 661-674, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. repec:ken:wpaper:0501 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Sascha Füllbrunn & Dirk‐Jan Janssen & Utz Weitzel, 2019. "Risk Aversion And Overbidding In First Price Sealed Bid Auctions: New Experimental Evidence," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 57(1), pages 631-647, January.
    17. Lackner, Mario & Sonnabend, Hendrik, 2021. "Coping with advantageous inequity—Field evidence from professional penalty kicking," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    18. Jonas Schmidt & Tammo H. A. Bijmolt, 2020. "Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: a meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 499-518, May.
    19. Bernard Ruffieux & Anne Rozan & Stéphane Robin, 2008. "Mesurer les préférences du consommateur pour orienter les décisions des pouvoirs publics : l'apport de la méthode expérimentale," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 182(1), pages 113-127.
    20. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander James & Stéphane Luchini & Jason Shogren, 2011. "Social Psychology and Environmental Economics: A New Look at ex ante Corrections of Biased Preference Evaluation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 413-433, March.
    21. Qin, Botao, 2020. "Does a promise script work to reduce the hypothetical bias? Evidence from an induced value experiment," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 14, pages 1-15.
    22. Anat Bracha & Chaim Fershtman, 2013. "Competitive Incentives: Working Harder or Working Smarter?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(4), pages 771-781, April.
    23. Jacquemet, Nicolas & Joule, Robert-Vincent & Luchini, Stéphane & Shogren, Jason F., 2013. "Preference elicitation under oath," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 110-132.
    24. M. Lefebvre & C. Biguzzi & E. Ginon & S. Gomez-y-Paloma & S. R. H. Langrell & S. Marette & G. Mateu & A. Sutan, 2017. "Mandatory integrated pest management in the European Union: experimental insights on consumers’ reactions," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(1), pages 25-54, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:agecon:v:50:y:2019:i:2:p:207-217. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.