IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea13/151282.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Puzzle of Valuation Gaps Between Experimental Auction and Real Choice Experiments: Do Purchase Intention and Price Bargaining Preference Matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Xie, Jing
  • Gao, Zhifeng
  • House, Lisa

Abstract

This article examines the preferences revealed by two non-hypothetical experiments. We found that WTP estimates from real choice experiment are significantly than auction bids. We provide two possible reasons for it: consumers’ purchase intention and aggressiveness in price bargaining. Our results suggest that the discrepancies among experiments can come from the heterogeneity of respondents’ price bargaining aggressiveness, but not from purchase intention differences.

Suggested Citation

  • Xie, Jing & Gao, Zhifeng & House, Lisa, 2013. "The Puzzle of Valuation Gaps Between Experimental Auction and Real Choice Experiments: Do Purchase Intention and Price Bargaining Preference Matter?," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 151282, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea13:151282
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.151282
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/151282/files/oBVxhSo1.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.151282?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. & Cho, Sungwon & Koo, Cannon & List, John & Park, Changwon & Polo, Pablo & Wilhelmi, Robert, 2001. "Auction mechanisms and the measurement of WTP and WTA," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 97-109, April.
    2. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Poe, Gregory L. & Ethier, Robert G. & Schulze, William D., 2002. "Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 391-425, November.
    3. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    4. Lusk Jayson L & Schroeder Ted C., 2006. "Auction Bids and Shopping Choices," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-39, August.
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    6. Lusk Jayson L & Alexander Corinne & Rousu Matthew C., 2007. "Designing Experimental Auctions for Marketing Research: The Effect of Values, Distributions, and Mechanisms on Incentives for Truthful Bidding," Review of Marketing Science, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 1-32, October.
    7. Azucena Gracia & Maria L. Loureiro & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2011. "Are Valuations from Nonhypothetical Choice Experiments Different from Those of Experimental Auctions?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1358-1373.
    8. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    9. Johansson-Stenman Olof & Svedsäter Henrik, 2008. "Measuring Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments: The Importance of Cognitive Consistency," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, September.
    10. Charles Noussair & StÈphane Robin & Bernard Ruffieux, 2004. "Do Consumers Really Refuse To Buy Genetically Modified Food?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(492), pages 102-120, January.
    11. Deacue Fields & Walt Prevatt, 2008. "An Incentive Compatible Conjoint Ranking Mechanism," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(2), pages 487-498.
    12. Charles R. Plott & Kathryn Zeiler, 2005. "The Willingness to Pay–Willingness to Accept Gap, the "Endowment Effect," Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 530-545, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Su, Lianfan & Adam, Brian D. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Arthur, Frank, 2017. "Anchoring, Information, and Fragility of Choice Experiments: An Application to Consumer Willingness to Pay for Rice with Improved Storage Management," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 42(2), May.

    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. A. Banerji & Shyamal Chowdhury & Hugo De Groote & J. V. Meenakshi & Joyce Haleegoah & Manfred Ewool, 2018. "Eliciting Willingness†to†Pay through Multiple Experimental Procedures: Evidence from Lab†in†the†Field in Rural Ghana," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 66(2), pages 231-254, June.
    2. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    3. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    4. Azucena Gracia, 2014. "Consumers’ preferences for a local food product: a real choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 111-128, August.
    5. Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Campbell, Danny, 2014. "Behavioral implications of providing real incentives in stated choice experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 102-116.
    6. Shr, Yau-Huo & Ready, Richard C. & Orland, Brian & Echols, Stuart, 2017. "Do Visual Representations Influence Survey Responses? Evidence from a Choice Experiment on Landscape Attributes of Green Infrastructure," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258397, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Bazzani, Claudia & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Canavari, Maurizio & Danforth, Diana M., 2016. "On the Use of the BDM Mechanism in Non-Hypothetical Choice Experiments," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235904, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Asinyaka Michael, 2019. "Willingness to Pay for Energy Efficient Refrigerating Appliances in Accra, Ghana: A Choice Experiment Approach," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 70(1), pages 15-39, April.
    9. Carole Ropars-Collet & Philippe Le Goffe, 2020. "Economic evaluation of catch-and-release salmon fishing: impact on anglers’ willingness to pay," Working Papers hal-02441505, HAL.
    10. Alphonce, Roselyne & Alfnes, Frode, 2015. "Eliciting Consumer WTP for Food Characteristics in a Developing Context: Comparison of four methods in a field experiment," Working Paper Series 01-2015, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, School of Economics and Business.
    11. Xie, Jing & Gao, Zhifeng & House, Lisa, 2013. "Purchase Intention Effects in Experimental Auctions and Real Choice Experiments," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 151595, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Banerji, A. & Chowdhury, Shyamal K. & de Groote, Hugo & Meenakshi, Jonnalagadda V. & Haleegoah, Joyce & Ewoo, Manfred, 2013. "Using elicitation mechanisms to estimate the demand for nutritious maize: Evidence from experiments in rural Ghana," HarvestPlus working papers 10, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    13. Dragicevic, Arnaud Z. & Ettinger, David, 2011. "Private Valuation of a Public Good in Three Auction Mechanisms," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 1-29, April.
    14. Lea Skræp Svenningsen, 2017. "Distributive outcomes matter: Measuring social preferences for climate policy," IFRO Working Paper 2017/11, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    15. Carole Ropars-Collet & Philippe Goffe & Qods Lefnatsa, 2021. "Does catch-and-release increase the recreational value of rivers? The case of salmon fishing," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(4), pages 393-424, December.
    16. Moser, Riccarda & Raffaelli, Roberta & Notaro, Sandra, 2010. "The Role Of Production Methods In Fruit Purchasing Behaviour: Hypothetical Vs Actual Consumers’ Preferences And Stated Minimum Requirements," 115th Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, September 15-17, 2010, Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany 116426, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Christian A. Oberst & Reinhard Madlener, 2015. "Prosumer Preferences Regarding the Adoption of Micro†Generation Technologies: Empirical Evidence for German Homeowners," Working Papers 2015.07, International Network for Economic Research - INFER.
    18. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    19. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bartczak, Anna & Giergiczny, Marek & Navrud, Stale & Żylicz, Tomasz, 2014. "Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-12.
    20. Stefania Troiano & Daniel Vecchiato & Francesco Marangon & Tiziano Tempesta & Federico Nassivera, 2019. "Households’ Preferences for a New ‘Climate-Friendly’ Heating System: Does Contribution to Reducing Greenhouse Gases Matter?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-19, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Consumer/Household Economics;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea13:151282. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.