Flexible valuations for consumer goods as measured by the Becker-DeGroot-Marschak mechanism
AbstractEconomists have long been interested in mechanisms that lead to truthful revelation of the relative values individuals place on diff erent goods. In this paper we take one of the most popular of such mechanisms, and show that valuations obtained using the Becker-DeGroot-Marschak (BDM) procedure depend on the distribution of prices presented to subjects when the mechanism is implemented. We show that this eff ect of price distribution occurs quite frequently, significantly impacts reported valuations, and that it is unlikely to be caused by misconceptions about BDM. This eff ect is the largest when pricing distributions show a large peak just above or just below an individual's average valuation of the good being considered. We also show that a simple non-incentive compatible subject rating of the desirability of goods can be used to predict the likelihood that pricing distributions will influence BDM valuations. Valuations for goods subjects report that they most want to purchase are most likely to be influenced by distributional structure. Our results challenge some of the dominant theoretical models of how BDM-like valuation procedures relate to standard notions of utility.
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 University of Sydney, School of Economics in its series Working Papers with number 2013-20.
Date of creation: Nov 2013
Date of revision:
valuation; reference; utility;
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
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.:
- Koszegi, Botond & Rabin, Matthew, 2004.
"A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences,"
Department of Economics, Working Paper Series
qt0w82b6nm, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Dan Ariely & George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 2003. ""Coherent Arbitrariness": Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 118(1), pages 73-105, February.
- Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine & Zacharias Maniadis, 2012.
"On the Robustness of Anchoring Effects in WTP and WTA Experiments,"
American Economic Journal: Microeconomics,
American Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 131-45, May.
- Drew Fudenberg & David K Levine & Zacharias Maniadis, 2010. "On the Robustness of Anchoring Effects in WTP and WTA Experiments," Levine's Working Paper Archive 661465000000000312, David K. Levine.
- Maniadis, Zacharias & Levine, David K. & Fudenberg, Drew, 2012. "On the Robustness of Anchoring Effects in WTP and WTA Experiments," Scholarly Articles 11005333, Harvard University Department of Economics.
- E. Elisabet RutstrÃm, 1998. "Home-grown values and incentive compatible auction design," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 427-441.
- John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
- Bohm, Peter & Linden, Johan & Sonnegard, Joakim, 1997. "Eliciting Reservation Prices: Becker-DeGroot-Marschak Mechanisms vs. Markets," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(443), pages 1079-89, July.
- Horowitz, John K., 2006. "The Becker-DeGroot-Marschak mechanism is not necessarily incentive compatible, even for non-random goods," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 6-11, October.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7656, David K. Levine.
- Klaus Peter Kaas & Heidrun Ruprecht, 2006. "Are the Vickrey Auction and the BDM Mechanism Really Incentive Compatible? - Empirical Results and Optimal Bidding Strategies in Cases of Uncertain Willingness-to-pay," Schmalenbach Business Review (sbr), LMU Munich School of Management, vol. 58(1), pages 37-55, January.
- 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.
- 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.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Vanessa Holcombe).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.