IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Two experiments in one: How accounting for context matters for welfare estimates

Listed author(s):
  • Marette, Stéphan
  • Martin, Christophe
  • Bouillot, Fabienne

By combining two different types of experiments in one experimental session, this paper aims at understanding how different contexts may influence participants’ choices. This paper focuses on one hybrid experimental session that mixed one voluntary contributions mechanism (VCM), influencing the indemnity received by participants, and one mechanism eliciting willingness to pay (WTP) for milk bottles with public and private attributes. The VCM shows relatively high levels of contributions that are mainly influenced by the positive expectations of participants about the average group contribution, rather than by the variations in the design of this mechanism and the period of experiments. The WTP for milk bottles are particularly sensitive to the order of mechanisms and to the period of experiments. Conversely, the WTP differences between milk bottles for a given round of information are invariant across the order of mechanisms and the period of experiments. For each bottle, the variations of WTP coming from the messages about private and public attributes are also stable over the order of mechanisms and the period of experiments. This confers validity to experiments for measuring WTP for public and private attributes related to food. In other words, these variations of WTP contribute to welfare estimates and are useful to evaluate market regulations focusing on public and/or private attributes.

If 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.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919216305279
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Food Policy.

Volume (Year): 66 (2017)
Issue (Month): C ()
Pages: 12-24

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:66:y:2017:i:c:p:12-24
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.11.004
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol

References listed on IDEAS
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.:

as
in new window


  1. Jutta Roosen & Stéphan Marette, 2011. "Making the "right" choice based on experiments: regulatory decisions for food and health," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 38(3), pages 361-381, August.
  2. Liaukonyte, Jura & Rickard, Bradley J. & Kaiser, Harry M. & Okrent, Abigail M. & Richards, Timothy J., 2012. "Economic and health effects of fruit and vegetable advertising: Evidence from lab experiments," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 543-553.
  3. Marette, Stéphan & Millet, Guy, 2014. "Economic benefits from promoting linseed in the diet of dairy cows for reducing methane emissions and improving milk quality," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 140-149.
  4. Bernasconi, Michele & Corazzini, Luca & Kube, Sebastian & Maréchal, Michel André, 2009. "Two are better than one!: Individuals' contributions to "unpacked" public goods," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 31-33, July.
  5. Hayes, D. J. & Fox, J. A. & Shogren, J. F., 2002. "Experts and activists: how information affects the demand for food irradiation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 185-193, April.
  6. Dan Ariely & George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 2003. ""Coherent Arbitrariness": Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 118(1), pages 73-106.
  7. Disdier, Anne-Célia & Marette, Stéphan & Millet, Guy, 2013. "Are consumers concerned about palm oil? Evidence from a lab experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 180-189.
  8. Armin Falk & James J. Heckman, 2009. "Lab Experiments are a Major Source of Knowledge in the Social Sciences," Working Papers 200935, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
  9. Alfnes, Frode & Rickertsen, Kyrre & Shogren, Jason F., 2011. "Unstable Individual Bids and Stable Market Demand," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114219, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
  10. Schaafsma, Marije & Brouwer, Roy & Liekens, Inge & De Nocker, Leo, 2014. "Temporal stability of preferences and willingness to pay for natural areas in choice experiments: A test–retest," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 243-260.
  11. Kotchen, Matthew J., 2005. "Impure public goods and the comparative statics of environmentally friendly consumption," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 281-300, March.
  12. 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.
  13. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
  14. Hasson, Reviva & Löfgren, Åsa & Visser, Martine, 2010. "Climate change in a public goods game: Investment decision in mitigation versus adaptation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 331-338, December.
  15. Stenger, Anne, 2000. "Experimental valuation of food safety: Application to sewage sludge," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 211-218, April.
  16. Rachel Croson & Melanie Marks, 2000. "Step Returns in Threshold Public Goods: A Meta- and Experimental Analysis," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 2(3), pages 239-259, March.
  17. John B. Loomis, 1989. "Test-Retest Reliability of the Contingent Valuation Method: A Comparison of General Population and Visitor Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(1), pages 76-84.
  18. Ulf Liebe & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Volkmar Hartje, 2012. "Test–Retest Reliability of Choice Experiments in Environmental Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(3), pages 389-407, November.
  19. Laura Taylor & Mark Morrison & Kevin Boyle, 2010. "Exchange Rules and the Incentive Compatibility of Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(2), pages 197-220, October.
  20. Cadsby, Charles Bram & Maynes, Elizabeth, 1999. "Voluntary provision of threshold public goods with continuous contributions: experimental evidence," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 53-73, January.
  21. Steffen Andersen & Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2008. "Lost In State Space: Are Preferences Stable?," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 49(3), pages 1091-1112, 08.
  22. Volk, Stefan & Thöni, Christian & Ruigrok, Winfried, 2012. "Temporal stability and psychological foundations of cooperation preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 664-676.
  23. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 153-174, Spring.
  24. John H. Kagel & Alvin E. Roth, 2000. "The Dynamics of Reorganization in Matching Markets: A Laboratory Experiment Motivated by a Natural Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 115(1), pages 201-235.
  25. Wansink, Brian & Sonka, Steven T. & Hasler, Clare M., 2004. "Front-label health claims: when less is more," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 659-667, December.
  26. Armin Falk & Urs Fischbacher & Simon Gächter, 2013. "Living In Two Neighborhoods—Social Interaction Effects In The Laboratory," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(1), pages 563-578, 01.
  27. Coats, Jennifer C. & Gronberg, Timothy J. & Grosskopf, Brit, 2009. "Simultaneous versus sequential public good provision and the role of refunds -- An experimental study," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(1-2), pages 326-335, February.
  28. repec:hal:journl:halshs-00916437 is not listed on IDEAS
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:66:y:2017:i:c:p:12-24. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.