Evidence of affiliation of values in a repeated trial auction experiment
Most auction experiments designed to determine subjects' values use repeated trials. This is primarily to give subjects a chance to understand the auction and to learn from market feedback. However, concerns exist that repetition could lead to affiliation of values with subjects following final prices over trials. This could be especially true for items consumers are unfamiliar with. To test these hypotheses, the current research employed repeated auction trials for conventional, organic, and non-GM chocolate bars, with each respectively considered less familiar to subjects. The auction results were first analysed to determine whether the premiums, calculated as the differences in bids between bar types, were statistically significant over each trial. A tobit regression analysis was then conducted to determine which factors statistically influenced premiums over each trial. Analysis showed that the premium for the non-GM bar over the conventional and most of the factors explaining the premiums in the first trial became insignificant after repetition. This suggested strong evidence of affiliation and demonstrated how it can lead to loss of information about subjects' initial formulation of values. It is recommended that, depending on the focus of the study, single trials should be used to avoid these problems.
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.
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.
Volume (Year): 12 (2005)
Issue (Month): 11 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEL20|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RAEL20|
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.:
- Glenn W. Harrison & Ronald M. Harstad & E. Elisabet Rutstr–m, 2004.
"Experimental Methods and Elicitation of Values,"
Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(2), pages 123-140, 06.
- Shogren, Jason F. & Seung Y. Shin & Dermot J. Hayes & James B. Kliebenstein, 1994.
"Resolving Differences in Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 84(1), pages 255-70, March.
- Shogren, Jason F. & Shin, Seung Youll & Hayes, Dermot J. & Kliebenstein, James, 1994. "Resolving Differences in Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept," Staff General Research Papers Archive 701, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- Frode Alfnes & Kyrre Rickertsen, 2003. "European Consumers' Willingness to Pay for U.S. Beef in Experimental Auction Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(2), pages 396-405.
- Milgrom, Paul R & Weber, Robert J, 1982.
"A Theory of Auctions and Competitive Bidding,"
Econometric Society, vol. 50(5), pages 1089-1122, September.
- John List & Jason Shogren, 1999.
"Price Information and Bidding Behavior in Repeated Second-Price Auctions,"
Natural Field Experiments
00526, The Field Experiments Website.
- John A. List & Jason F. Shogren, 1999. "Price Information and Bidding Behavior in Repeated Second-Price Auctions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(4), pages 942-949.
- Jack Knetsch & Fang-Fang Tang & Richard Thaler, 2001. "The Endowment Effect and Repeated Market Trials: Is the Vickrey Auction Demand Revealing?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 4(3), pages 257-269, December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:apeclt:v:12:y:2005:i:11:p:687-691. 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: (Michael McNulty)
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.