IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v123y2014i1p42-44.html

Do practice rounds affect experimental auction results?

Author

Listed:
  • Corrigan, Jay R.
  • Rousu, Matthew C.
  • Depositario, Dinah Pura T.

Abstract

Researchers use practice rounds to familiarize participants with experimental auction mechanisms. We find a positive correlation between practice bids and bids submitted in later rounds. We consider three explanations for this correlation: a behavioral anchoring effect, a tendency for some auction participants to be more free-spending, and misconception of the experimental auction’s demand revealing qualities.

Suggested Citation

  • Corrigan, Jay R. & Rousu, Matthew C. & Depositario, Dinah Pura T., 2014. "Do practice rounds affect experimental auction results?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 123(1), pages 42-44.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:123:y:2014:i:1:p:42-44
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2014.01.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176514000226
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.econlet.2014.01.014?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dan Ariely & George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 2003. ""Coherent Arbitrariness": Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(1), pages 73-106.
    2. Andreas C. Drichoutis & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Panagiotis Lazaridis, 2011. "The Role of Training in Experimental Auctions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(2), pages 521-527.
    3. Scott I. Rick & Cynthia E. Cryder & George Loewenstein, 2008. "Tightwads and Spendthrifts," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(6), pages 767-782, October.
    4. Thrasher, James F. & Rousu, Matthew C. & Hammond, David & Navarro, Ashley & Corrigan, Jay R., 2011. "Estimating the Impact of Food and Drug Administration Regulation of Cigarette Package Warning Labels and the Potential Added Impact of Plain Packaging: Evidence From Experimental Auctions Among Adult Smokers," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103169, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Corrigan, Jay R. & Rousu, Matthew C., 2008. "Testing Whether Field Auction Experiments Are Demand Revealing in Practice," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(2).
    6. repec:feb:framed:0078 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. William Vickrey, 1961. "Counterspeculation, Auctions, And Competitive Sealed Tenders," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 16(1), pages 8-37, March.
    8. repec:ken:wpaper:0804 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Thrasher, James F. & Rousu, Matthew C. & Hammond, David & Navarro, Ashley & Corrigan, Jay R., 2011. "Estimating the impact of pictorial health warnings and "plain" cigarette packaging: Evidence from experimental auctions among adult smokers in the United States," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(1), pages 41-48, September.
    10. 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.
    11. Lusk, Jayson L. & Roosen, Jutta & Shogren, Jason (ed.), 2011. "The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Food Consumption and Policy," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199569441.
    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. Lichters, Marcel & Wackershauser, Verena & Han, Shixing & Vogt, Bodo, 2019. "On the applicability of the BDM mechanism in product evaluation," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-7.
    2. Erik Delaquis & Vanya Slavchevska & Conny J. M. Almekinders & Jonathan C. Newby & Chea Sareth & Chanphasouk Tanthapone & Paul C. Struik, 2024. "Increased farmer willingness to pay for quality cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) planting materials: evidence from experimental auctions in Cambodia and Lao PDR," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 16(3), pages 571-594, June.
    3. Teresa Briz & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr, 2014. "Detecting false positives in experimental auctions: A case study of projection bias in food consumption," Working Papers 2014-4, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.

    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. Rousu, Matthew C. & Marette, Stéphan & Thrasher, James F. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2014. "The economic value to smokers of graphic warning labels on cigarettes: Evidence from combining market and experimental auction data," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 123-134.
    2. Teresa Briz & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr, 2014. "Detecting false positives in experimental auctions: A case study of projection bias in food consumption," Working Papers 2014-4, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    3. David de Meza & Diane Reyniers, 2013. "Debiasing the Becker – DeGroot – Marschak valuation mechanism," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 33(2), pages 1446-1456.
    4. Andrea Isoni, 2011. "The willingness-to-accept/willingness-to-pay disparity in repeated markets: loss aversion or ‘bad-deal’ aversion?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(3), pages 409-430, September.
    5. Banerjee, Prasenjit & Shogren, Jason F., 2014. "Bidding behavior given point and interval values in a second-price auction," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 126-137.
    6. 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.
    7. Roselyne Alphonce & Frode Alfnes, 2017. "Eliciting Consumer WTP for Food Characteristics in a Developing Context: Application of Four Valuation Methods in an African Market," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(1), pages 123-142, February.
    8. Yizhao Jiang, 2022. "The Influence of Payment Method: Do Consumers Pay More with Mobile Payment?," Papers 2210.14631, arXiv.org.
    9. Jonas Schmidt & Tammo H. A. Bijmolt, 2020. "Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: a meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 499-518, May.
    10. Popkowski Leszczyc, Peter T.L. & Qiu, Chun & He, Yongfu, 2009. "Empirical Testing of the Reference-Price Effect of Buy-Now Prices in Internet Auctions," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 211-221.
    11. Levan Elbakidze & Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr. & Hao Li & Chris McIntosh, 2014. "Value elicitation for multiple quantities of a quasi-public good using open ended choice experiments and uniform price auctions," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(2), pages 253-265, March.
    12. 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.
    13. Bernard Ruffieux & Anne Rozan & Stéphane Robin, 2008. "Mesurer les préférences du consommateur pour orienter les décisions des pouvoirs publics : l'apport de la méthode expérimentale," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 182(1), pages 113-127.
    14. Demont, Matty & Rutsaert, Pieter & Ndour, Maimouna & Verbeke, Wim & Seck, Papa Abdoulaye & Tollens, Eric, 2012. "Experimental auctions, collective induction and choice shift: Willingness-to-pay for rice quality in Senegal," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126861, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Amar Cheema & Dipankar Chakravarti & Atanu R. Sinha, 2012. "Bidding Behavior in Descending and Ascending Auctions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(5), pages 779-800, September.
    16. Andrea Isoni & Graham Loomes & Robert Sugden, 2011. "The Willingness to Pay—Willingness to Accept Gap, the "Endowment Effect," Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 991-1011, April.
    17. Ehrhart, Karl-Martin & Ott, Marion & Abele, Susanne, 2015. "Auction fever: Rising revenue in second-price auction formats," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 206-227.
    18. Jacquemet, Nicolas & Joule, Robert-Vincent & Luchini, Stéphane & Shogren, Jason F., 2013. "Preference elicitation under oath," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 110-132.
    19. Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Uler, Neslihan, 2013. "Understanding the reference effect," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 403-423.
    20. 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 131-145, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • Q1 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture

    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:eee:ecolet:v:123:y:2014:i:1:p:42-44. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolet .

    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.