IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v93y2011i5p1358-1373.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Valuations from Nonhypothetical Choice Experiments Different from Those of Experimental Auctions?

Author

Listed:
  • Azucena Gracia
  • Maria L. Loureiro
  • Rodolfo M. Nayga

Abstract

Due to the importance of comparability and external validity of results, nonhypothetical experimental methods are increasingly used to elicit consumers' willingness to pay for various goods. Two of the increasingly popular preference elicitation methods are the nonhypothetical choice experiments and experimental auctions. We conduct experiments to compare willingness to pay estimates elicited from both methods. Our results generally suggest that valuations elicited from experimental auctions can differ from those obtained from nonhypothetical choice experiments. Copyright 2011, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:93:y:2011:i:5:p:1358-1373
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ajae/aar054
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Linhai Wu & Hongsha Wang & Dian Zhu & Wuyang Hu & Shuxian Wang, 2016. "Chinese consumers’ willingness to pay for pork traceability information—the case of Wuxi," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(1), pages 71-79, January.
    3. Francesca Gerini & Frode Alfnes & Alexander Schjøll, 2016. "Organic- and Animal Welfare-labelled Eggs: Competing for the Same Consumers?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(2), pages 471-490, June.
    4. 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, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 40(2), pages 313-329, March.
    5. Xie, Jing & Gao, Zhifeng & House, Lisa, 2013. "Purchase Intention Effects in Experimental Auctions and Real Choice Experiments," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 151595, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Banerji, A. & Chowdhury, Shyamal K. & de Groote, Hugo & Meenakshi, Jonnalagadda V. & Haleegoah, Joyce & Ewoo, Manfred, 2013. "Using elicitation mechanisms to estimate the demand for nutritious maize: Evidence from experiments in rural Ghana," HarvestPlus Working Papers 10, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    7. Loureiro, Maria L. & Gracia, Azucena & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2013. "Do experimental auction estimates pass the scope test?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 7-17.
    8. repec:spr:ssefpa:v:9:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s12571-017-0676-0 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. repec:bla:jageco:v:68:y:2017:i:1:p:123-142 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. repec:bla:ecinqu:v:55:y:2017:i:1:p:383-396 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    12. Elbakidze, Levan & Nayga, Rodolfo, 2015. "Validating consistency of non-hypothetical experimental auction data: application of the adding-up test in a multi-unit setting," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205403, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association;Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    13. Karen E. Lewis & Carola Grebitus & Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr, 2016. "The Importance of taste in experimental auctions: consumers’ valuation of calorie and sweetener labeling of soft drinks," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(1), pages 47-57, January.
    14. Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Campbell, Danny, 2014. "Behavioral implications of providing real incentives in stated choice experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 102-116.
    15. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    16. Xie, Jing & Gao, Zhifeng & House, Lisa, 2013. "The Puzzle of Valuation Gaps Between Experimental Auction and Real Choice Experiments: Do Purchase Intention and Price Bargaining Preference Matter?," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 151282, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Bazzani, Claudia & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Canavari, Maurizio & Danforth, Diana M., 2016. "On the Use of the BDM Mechanism in Non-Hypothetical Choice Experiments," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, 2016, Boston, Massachusetts 235904, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    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:oup:ajagec:v:93:y:2011:i:5:p:1358-1373. 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: (Oxford University Press) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.