IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jagaec/v45y2013i01p35-52_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Nonhypothetical Ranking and Auction Mechanism for Novel Products

Author

Listed:
  • McAdams, Callie
  • Palma, Marco A.
  • Hall, Charles
  • Ishdorj, Ariun

Abstract

Preferences for pomegranates, including some novel pomegranate varieties, were evaluated using an experimental auction and nonhypothetical preference ranking mechanism. Additional information on the taste and health benefits of the products was provided to mimic the information-gathering process on novel products. Product familiarity, product information, and reference prices were key factors in explaining willingness to pay for the included novel products. Results from the auction and nonhypothetical preference ranking procedures were divergent. Furthermore, interactions were detected between information treatments and product characteristics.

Suggested Citation

  • McAdams, Callie & Palma, Marco A. & Hall, Charles & Ishdorj, Ariun, 2013. "A Nonhypothetical Ranking and Auction Mechanism for Novel Products," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 45(1), pages 35-52, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jagaec:v:45:y:2013:i:01:p:35-52_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1074070800004569/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christopher Kanter & Kent D. Messer & Harry M. Kaiser, 2009. "Does Production Labeling Stigmatize Conventional Milk?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(4), pages 1097-1109.
    2. Frode Alfnes, 2007. "Willingness to Pay versus Expected Consumption Value in Vickrey Auctions for New Experience Goods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 921-931.
    3. 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.
    4. Bradley J. Rickard & Jura Liaukonyte & Harry M. Kaiser & Timothy J. Richards, 2011. "Consumer Response to Commodity-Specific and Broad-Based Promotion Programs for Fruits and Vegetables," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1312-1327.
    5. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(3), pages 388-401, September.
    6. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
    7. Matthew Rousu & Wallace E. Huffman & Jason F. Shogren & Abebayehu Tegene, 2007. "Effects And Value Of Verifiable Information In A Controversial Market: Evidence From Lab Auctions Of Genetically Modified Food," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(3), pages 409-432, July.
    8. 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.
    9. John C. Bernard & Daria J. Bernard, 2007. "What Is It About Organic Milk? An Experimental Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(3), pages 826-836.
    10. John Calfee & Clifford Winston & Randolph Stempski, 2001. "Econometric Issues In Estimating Consumer Preferences From Stated Preference Data: A Case Study Of The Value Of Automobile Travel Time," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 83(4), pages 699-707, November.
    11. Bernard, John C. & He, Na, 2010. "Confounded by the Field: Bidding in Food Auctions When Field Prices Are Increasing," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 39(2), pages 1-13, April.
    12. Bernard, John C. & He, Na, 2010. "Confounded by the Field: Bidding in Food Auctions When Field Prices Are Increasing," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(2), pages 275-287, April.
    13. 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.
    14. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Lazaridis, Panagiotis & Nayga Jr., Rodolfo M., 2008. "The role of reference prices in experimental auctions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(3), pages 446-448, 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. Collart, Alba J. & Palma, Marco A., 2014. "What Motivates Individuals to Participate in Economic Experiments? A Latent Class Analysis with Unobserved Heterogeneity," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170401, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. 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.
    3. Kassas, Bachir & Palma, Marco A. & Zhang, Yvette, 2016. "The role of incentives on preference revelations in auctions versus rankings," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 73-85.
    4. Lim, Siew & Wachenheim, Cheryl, 2022. "Predicted enrollment in alternative attribute Conservation Reserve Program contracts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).

    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. Hellyer, Nicole Elizabeth & Fraser, Iain & Haddock-Fraser, Janet, 2012. "Food choice, health information and functional ingredients: An experimental auction employing bread," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 232-245.
    2. Hellyer, Nicole Elizabeth & Fraser, Iain & Haddock-Fraser, Janet, 2010. "Food Choice, Nutritional Information And Functional Ingredients: An Experimental Auction Employing Bread," 115th Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, September 15-17, 2010, Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany 116424, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Eva Tebbe & Korbinian von Blanckenburg, 2018. "Does willingness to pay increase with the number and strictness of sustainability labels?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(1), pages 41-53, January.
    4. Fabio Verneau & Francesco La Barbera & Teresa Del Giudice, 2017. "The Role of Implicit Associations in the Hypothetical Bias," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(2), pages 312-328, July.
    5. Celine Michaud & Daniel Llerena & Iragael Joly, 2013. "Willingness to pay for environmental attributes of non-food agricultural products: a real choice experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 40(2), pages 313-329, March.
    6. David M. Bruner & William L. Huth & David M. McEvoy & O. Ashton Morgan, 2011. "Accounting for Taste: Consumer Valuations for Food-Safety Technologies," Working Papers 11-09, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    7. Marette, Stéphan & Messéan, Antoine & Millet, Guy, 2012. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for eco-friendly apples under different labels: Evidences from a lab experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 151-161.
    8. Hudson, Darren & Gallardo, Rosa Karina & Hanson, Terrill R., 2012. "A Comparison Of Choice Experiments And Actual Grocery Store Behavior: An Empirical Application To Seafood Products," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 44(1), pages 1-14, February.
    9. Silva, Andres & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Campbell, Benjamin L. & Park, John L., 2011. "Revisiting Cheap Talk with New Evidence from a Field Experiment," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-12, August.
    10. Dolgopolova, Irina & Teuber, Ramona & Roosen, Jutta, 2017. "The Reference Price Is Not The Limit: Analysis Of Consumer Valuations In Second-price Vickrey Auction," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 260882, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Jura Liaukonyte & Nadia A. Streletskaya & Harry M. Kaiser, 2015. "The Long-Term Impact of Positive and Negative Information on Food Demand," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 63(4), pages 539-562, December.
    12. Gracia, Azucena & de Magistris, Tiziana & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2011. "Willingness to pay for a local food label for lamb meat in Spain," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114607, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. 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.
    14. Tiziana De Magistris & Teresa Del Giudice & Fabio Verneau, 2015. "The Effect of Information on Willingness to Pay for Canned Tuna Fish with Different Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Certification: A Pilot Study," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(2), pages 457-471, July.
    15. Faical Akaichi & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Lawton Lanier Nalley, 2017. "Are there trade-offs in valuation with respect to greenhouse gas emissions, origin and food miles attributes?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(1), pages 3-31.
    16. 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.
    17. Jean-Marc Blazy & Julie Subervie & Jacky Paul & François Causeret & Loic Guinde & Sarah Moulla & Alban Thomas & Jorge Sierra, 2020. "Ex ante assessment of the cost-effectiveness of Agri-Environmental Schemes promoting compost use to sequester carbon in soils in Guadeloupe," CEE-M Working Papers hal-02748634, CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro.
    18. Adalja, Aaron & Hanson, James & Towe, Charles & Tselepidakis, Elina, 2015. "An Examination of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Local Products," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(3), pages 253-274, December.
    19. Dominic Lemken & Mandy Knigge & Stephan Meyerding & Achim Spiller, 2017. "The Value of Environmental and Health Claims on New Legume Products: A Non-Hypothetical Online Auction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-18, July.
    20. Vanessa von Schlippenbach & Isabel Teichmann, 2012. "The Strategic Use of Private Quality Standards in Food Supply Chains," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(5), pages 1189-1201.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    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:jagaec:v:45:y:2013:i:01:p:35-52_00. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/aae .

    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.