Purchase Intention Effects in Experimental Auctions and Real Choice Experiments
AbstractThis article examines consumers’ preference for three types of orange juice in China. Two non-hypothetical experiments, Real Choice Experiments and Experimental Auctions were used in the study. We found that WTP estimates from real choice experiment are significantly higher than auction bids, which is consistent with what Lusk and Schroeder (2006) and Gracia, Loureiro, and Nayga (2011) found in their paper. In addition, we found that purchase intention only has significantly effects on consumers’ behavior in Experimental Auction, but not in Real Choice Experiments, and this purchase intention only has effects on non-novel food, but not novel food.
Download InfoIf 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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Agricultural and Applied Economics Association in its series 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. with number 151595.
Date of creation: 2013
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: 555 East Wells Street, Suite 1100, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
Phone: (414) 918-3190
Fax: (414) 276-3349
Web page: http://www.aaea.org
More information through EDIRC
Consumer preferences; choice experiment; experimental auction; purchase intention; Agribusiness; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety; Marketing;
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2013-07-05 (All new papers)
- NEP-CBE-2013-07-05 (Cognitive & Behavioural Economics)
- NEP-DCM-2013-07-05 (Discrete Choice Models)
- NEP-EXP-2013-07-05 (Experimental Economics)
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.:
- Jae Bong Chang & Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood, 2007. "How Closely Do Hypothetical Surveys and Laboratory Experiments Predict Field Behavior?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(2), pages 518-534.
- Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
- Irwin, Julie R, et al, 1998. "Payoff Dominance vs. Cognitive Transparency in Decision Making," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 36(2), pages 272-85, April.
- 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.
- 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.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.