IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/agrerw/v50y2021i2p315-337_6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bidding behavior in auctions versus posted prices: comparisons of mean and marginal effects

Author

Listed:
  • Wu, Shang
  • Fooks, Jacob R.
  • Li, Tongzhe
  • Messer, Kent D.
  • Delaney, Deborah A.

Abstract

Economic experiments have been widely used to elicit individuals' evaluation for various commodities. Common elicitation methods include auction and posted price mechanisms. A field experiment is designed to compare willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimates between these two mechanisms. Despite both of these formats being theoretically incentive compatible and demand revealing, results from 115 adult consumers indicate that WTP estimates obtained from an auction are 32–39 percent smaller than those from a posted price mechanism. A comparison in statistical significance shows that auctions require a smaller sample size than posted price mechanisms in order to detect the same preference change. Nevertheless, the signs of marginal effects for different product characteristics are consistent in both mechanisms.

Suggested Citation

  • Wu, Shang & Fooks, Jacob R. & Li, Tongzhe & Messer, Kent D. & Delaney, Deborah A., 2021. "Bidding behavior in auctions versus posted prices: comparisons of mean and marginal effects," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(2), pages 315-337, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:agrerw:v:50:y:2021:i:2:p:315-337_6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S106828052100006X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:cup:agrerw:v:50:y:2021:i:2:p:315-337_6. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/age .

    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.