IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea11/103596.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Polarized Preferences In Homegrown Value Auctions

Author

Listed:
  • Hurley, Terrance M.
  • Yue, Chengyan
  • Anderson, Neil O.

Abstract

Incentive compatible auction experiments, often referred to as homegrown value auctions, have become a popular tool for exploring how controversial product attributes and knowledge of these attributes affect consumer willingness to pay. A common observation in these experiments is a prevalence of zero bids and bimodal bid distributions. One possible explanation is that individuals have polarized preferences: find all products with a particular attribute desirable (positive polarization) or undesirable (negative polarization). The purpose of this paper is to explore three questions. Do polarized preferences exist? If they do exist, can they be identified? If they can be identified, does their identification provide useful information? To answer these questions, polarized preferences are theoretically formalized. This theory is used to discuss bidding behavior and how common experimental design features can facilitate or hinder the identification of polarization. The weaknesses of common econometric models used to analyze auction bids are reviewed in the context of polarization and a new model is proposed. Finally, the new model is tested using data from a home grown value auction. The results of this analysis suggest that polarized preferences do exist and that accounting for them can improve estimates of willingness to pay and likelihood that a product is valued at all.

Suggested Citation

  • Hurley, Terrance M. & Yue, Chengyan & Anderson, Neil O., 2011. "Polarized Preferences In Homegrown Value Auctions," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103596, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea11:103596
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/103596
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Buhr, Brian L. & Hayes, Dermot J. & Shogren, Jason F. & Kliebenstein, James B., 1993. "Valuing Ambiguity: The Case Of Genetically Engineered Growth Enhancers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 18(02), December.
    2. Fox, John A. & Hayes, Dermot J. & Kliebenstein, James & Shogren, Jason F., 1994. "Consumer Acceptability of Milk from Cows Treated with Bovine Somatotropin," Staff General Research Papers Archive 702, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    3. 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 255-270, March.
    4. Lusk, Jayson L. & Fox, John A., 2003. "Value elicitation in retail and laboratory environments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 79(1), pages 27-34, April.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. David L. Dickinson, 2004. "Negative Values in Vickrey Auctions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 222-235.
    9. Glenn W. Harrison & Ronald M. Harstad & E. Elisabet Rutstr–m, 2004. "Experimental Methods and Elicitation of Values," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(2), pages 123-140, June.
    10. Chengyan Yue & Terrance M. Hurley & Neil Anderson, 2011. "Do native and invasive labels affect consumer willingness to pay for plants? Evidence from experimental auctions," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 42(2), pages 195-205, March.
    11. Melton, Brian & Huffman, Wallace & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Consumer Preferences for Fresh Food with Multiple Attributes: Evidence from an Experimental Auction of Pork Chops," Staff General Research Papers Archive 5042, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    12. Jay R. Corrigan & Matthew C. Rousu, 2006. "The Effect of Initial Endowments in Experimental Auctions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(2), pages 448-457.
    13. Jason F. Shogren & John A. Fox, 1996. "Consumer Preferences for Fresh Food Items with Multiple Quality Attributes: Evidence from an Experimental Auction of Pork Chops," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(4), pages 916-923.
    14. Ward, Ruby A. & Bailey, DeeVon & Jensen, Robert T., 2005. "An American BSE Crisis: Has it affected the Value of Traceability and Country-of-Origin Certifications for US and Canadian Beef?," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association (IFAMA), vol. 8(02).
    15. repec:feb:framed:0052 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Matthew Rousu & Wallace E. Huffman & Jason F. Shogren & Abebayehu Tegene, 2007. "Effects And Value Of Verifiable Information In A Controversial Market: Evidence From Lab Auctions Of Genetically Modified Food," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(3), pages 409-432, July.
    17. Riccardo Scarpa & Timothy J. Gilbride & Danny Campbell & David A. Hensher, 2009. "Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 36(2), pages 151-174, June.
    18. 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.
    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. Costanigro, Marco & Kroll, Stephan & Thilmany, Dawn D., 2012. "Local, Organic, Conventional— Asymmetric Effects of Information and Taste on Label Preferences in an Experimental Auction," 2012 AAEA/EAAE Food Environment Symposium, May 30-31, Boston, MA 123199, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Experiment; Auctions; Polarized Preferences; Invasive Plants; Homegrown Values; Demand and Price Analysis; Environmental Economics and Policy; Research Methods/ Statistical Methods; D01; C18; C19; Q13;

    JEL classification:

    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
    • C18 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Methodolical Issues: General
    • C19 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Other
    • Q13 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Markets and Marketing; Cooperatives; Agribusiness

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:aaea11:103596. 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: (AgEcon Search). 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.

    If CitEc recognized a 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.

    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.