IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea06/21429.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Effect of Risk Presentation on Product Valuation: An Experimental Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr.
  • Shaw, W. Douglass
  • Silva, Andres

Abstract

We examine how people might evaluate a product with novel attribute, given various kinds of risk information. Using a product with healthful benefits, we assess subjects' willingness to pay given various kinds of health risk information conveying reduced health risks, life tradeoffs, and ambiguity. Four treatments in separate non-hypothetical experimental auctions are used to elicit willingness to pay values. Results suggest that willingness to pay vary across the groups that receive differing risk information. Specifically, willingness to pay was higher for the group that was given clear risk information and questions related to life tradeoffs than for the group given ambiguous risk information. Willingness to pay was lowest for the group that was given no risk information at all.

Suggested Citation

  • Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Shaw, W. Douglass & Silva, Andres, 2006. "The Effect of Risk Presentation on Product Valuation: An Experimental Analysis," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21429, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea06:21429
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.21429
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/21429/files/sp06na02.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.21429?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. List, John A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1998. "Calibration of the difference between actual and hypothetical valuations in a field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 193-205, October.
    3. Rong Chen & Jianmin Jia, 2005. "Consumer Choices Under Small Probabilities: Overweighting or Underweighting?," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 5-18, January.
    4. Fox, John A & Hayes, Dermot J & Shogren, Jason F, 2002. "Consumer Preferences for Food Irradiation: How Favorable and Unfavorable Descriptions Affect Preferences for Irradiated Pork in Experimental Auctions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 75-95, January.
    5. Brown, Christina L & Carpenter, Gregory S, 2000. "Why Is the Trivial Important? A Reasons-Based Account for the Effects of Trivial Attributes on Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 26(4), pages 372-385, March.
    6. Riddel, Mary C. & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2006. "A Theoretically-Consistent Empirical Non-Expected Utility Model of Ambiguity: Nuclear Waste Mortality Risk and Yucca Mountain," Pre-Prints 23964, Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    7. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    8. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2006:i:20:p:1-8 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. John A. Fox & Jason F. Shogren & Dermot J. Hayes & James B. Kliebenstein, 1998. "CVM-X: Calibrating Contingent Values with Experimental Auction Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(3), pages 455-465.
    10. repec:feb:artefa:0069 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto, 2000. "A Parameter-Free Elicitation of the Probability Weighting Function in Medical Decision Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(11), pages 1485-1496, November.
    12. Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1991. "Does the Random-Lottery Incentive System Elicit True Preferences? An Experimental Investigation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(4), pages 971-978, September.
    13. Peter Wakker & Daniel Deneffe, 1996. "Eliciting von Neumann-Morgenstern Utilities When Probabilities Are Distorted or Unknown," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(8), pages 1131-1150, August.
    14. Elizabeth Hoffman & Dale J. Menkhaus & Dipankar Chakravarti & Ray A. Field & Glen D. Whipple, 1993. "Using Laboratory Experimental Auctions in Marketing Research: A Case Study of New Packaging for Fresh Beef," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 318-338.
    15. W. Douglass Shaw & Andres Silva & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2006. "Health benefits and uncertainty: an experimental analysis of the effects of risk presentation on auction bids for a healthful product," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(20), pages 1-8.
    16. Meyers-Levy, Joan & Tybout, Alice M, 1989. "Schema Congruity as a Basis for Product Evaluation," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(1), pages 39-54, June.
    17. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    18. List, John A. & Rasul, Imran, 2011. "Field Experiments in Labor Economics," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 2, pages 103-228, Elsevier.
    19. Cummings, Ronald G & Harrison, Glenn W & Rutstrom, E Elisabet, 1995. "Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 260-266, March.
    20. Heath, Chip & Tversky, Amos, 1991. "Preference and Belief: Ambiguity and Competence in Choice under Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 5-28, January.
    21. Itamar Simonson & Ziv Carmon & Suzanne O'Curry, 1994. "Experimental Evidence on the Negative Effect of Product Features and Sales Promotions on Brand Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(1), pages 23-40.
    22. Mukherjee, Ashesh & Hoyer, Wayne D, 2001. "The Effect of Novel Attributes on Product Evaluation," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(3), pages 462-472, December.
    23. Eisenberger, Roselies & Weber, Martin, 1995. "Willingness-to-Pay and Willingness-to-Accept for Risky and Ambiguous Lotteries," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 223-233, May.
    24. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    25. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. W. Douglass Shaw & Andres Silva & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2006. "Health benefits and uncertainty: an experimental analysis of the effects of risk presentation on auction bids for a healthful product," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(20), pages 1-8.
    2. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2006:i:20:p:1-8 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Shaw, W. Douglass & Woodward, Richard T., 2008. "Why environmental and resource economists should care about non-expected utility models," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 66-89, January.
    4. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    5. Katarzyna M. Werner & Horst Zank, 2019. "A revealed reference point for prospect theory," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 67(4), pages 731-773, June.
    6. Durbach, Ian N. & Stewart, Theodor J., 2012. "Modeling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(1), pages 1-14.
    7. Shogren, Jason F., 2006. "Experimental Methods and Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 19, pages 969-1027, Elsevier.
    8. Stefan T. Trautmann & Ferdinand M. Vieider & Peter P. Wakker, 2011. "Preference Reversals for Ambiguity Aversion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(7), pages 1320-1333, July.
    9. Gul, Faruk & Pesendorfer, Wolfgang, 2015. "Hurwicz expected utility and subjective sources," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PA), pages 465-488.
    10. Laure Cabantous & Denis Hilton, 2006. "De l'aversion à l'ambiguïté aux attitudes face à l'ambiguïté. Les apports d'une perspective psychologique en économie," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 57(2), pages 259-280.
    11. Michael Kilka & Martin Weber, 2001. "What Determines the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function Under Uncertainty?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(12), pages 1712-1726, December.
    12. Kpegli, Yao Thibaut & Corgnet, Brice & Zylbersztejn, Adam, 2023. "All at once! A comprehensive and tractable semi-parametric method to elicit prospect theory components," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    13. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier, 2013. "Prospect theory in the health domain: A quantitative assessment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1057-1065.
    14. Laurent Denant-Boemont & Olivier L’Haridon, 2013. "La rationalité à l'épreuve de l'économie comportementale," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(2), pages 35-89.
    15. Mary Riddel, 2012. "Comparing risk preferences over financial and environmental lotteries," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 135-157, October.
    16. Han Bleichrodt & Alessandra Cillo & Enrico Diecidue, 2010. "A Quantitative Measurement of Regret Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(1), pages 161-175, January.
    17. Victor H. Gonzalez-Jimenez, 2019. "Contracting Probability Distortions," Vienna Economics Papers vie1901, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    18. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent, 2009. "Probability weighting and the ‘level’ and ‘spacing’ of outcomes: An experimental study over losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 45-63, August.
    19. Li, Zheng & Hensher, David A. & Zeng, Jingjing, 2022. "Travel choice behaviour under uncertainty in real-market settings: A source-dependent utility approach," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    20. B. Douglas Bernheim & Charles Sprenger, 2020. "On the Empirical Validity of Cumulative Prospect Theory: Experimental Evidence of Rank‐Independent Probability Weighting," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(4), pages 1363-1409, July.
    21. Cathleen Johnson & Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Zhihua Li & Dennie Dolder & Peter P. Wakker, 2021. "Prince: An improved method for measuring incentivized preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 62(1), pages 1-28, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Risk and Uncertainty;

    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:ags:aaea06:21429. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.