IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea22/335919.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does Bid Quantity Matter? Comparing Farmer Willingness-to-Pay for Specified vs Open-Ended Quantities of Biofortified Bean and Maize Seed in a Non-hypothetical Field Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Herrington, Caitlin L.
  • Ortega, David L.
  • Maredia, Mywish K.
  • Reyes, Byron A.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Herrington, Caitlin L. & Ortega, David L. & Maredia, Mywish K. & Reyes, Byron A., 2023. "Does Bid Quantity Matter? Comparing Farmer Willingness-to-Pay for Specified vs Open-Ended Quantities of Biofortified Bean and Maize Seed in a Non-hypothetical Field Experiment," 2023 Annual Meeting, July 23-25, Washington D.C. 335919, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea22:335919
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/335919/files/26337.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John A. List & David Lucking-Reiley, 2002. "Bidding Behavior and Decision Costs in Field Experiments," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 40(4), pages 611-619, October.
    2. Cole, Shawn & Fernando, A. Nilesh & Stein, Daniel & Tobacman, Jeremy, 2020. "Field comparisons of incentive-compatible preference elicitation techniques," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 33-56.
    3. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
    4. Faical Akaichi & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr & José M. Gil, 2012. "Assessing Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Different Units of Organic Milk: Evidence from Multiunit Auctions," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 60(4), pages 469-494, December.
    5. Samuel D. Zapata & Carlos E. Carpio, 2014. "The theoretical structure of producer willingness to pay estimates," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(5), pages 613-623, September.
    6. repec:ken:wpaper:0901 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Timothy N. Cason & Charles R. Plott, 2014. "Misconceptions and Game Form Recognition: Challenges to Theories of Revealed Preference and Framing," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 122(6), pages 1235-1270.
    8. Jayson L. Lusk & Darren Hudson, 2004. "Willingness-to-Pay Estimates and Their Relevance to Agribusiness Decision Making," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 152-169.
    9. Alessandro Corsi, 2007. "Ambiguity of measured WTP for quality improvements when quantity is unconstrained: a note," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 34(4), pages 501-515, December.
    10. Horowitz, John K., 2006. "The Becker-DeGroot-Marschak mechanism is not necessarily incentive compatible, even for non-random goods," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 6-11, October.
    11. Myat Thida Win & Mywish K. Maredia & Duncan Boughton, 2023. "Farmer demand for certified legume seeds and the viability of farmer seed enterprises: Evidence from Myanmar," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 15(2), pages 555-569, April.
    12. Elliott J. Dennis & Glynn T. Tonsor & Jayson L. Lusk, 2021. "Choosing quantities impacts individuals choice, rationality, and willingness to pay estimates," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 945-962, November.
    13. Grether, David M & Plott, Charles R, 1979. "Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 623-638, September.
    14. Thaler, Richard H & Shefrin, H M, 1981. "An Economic Theory of Self-Control," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(2), pages 392-406, April.
    15. Lawrence M. Ausubel, 2004. "An Efficient Ascending-Bid Auction for Multiple Objects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(5), pages 1452-1475, December.
    16. Balcombe, Kelvin & Fraser, Iain & Williams, Louis & McSorley, Eugene, 2019. "Preference Reversals in Discrete Choice Experiments. Inattention or Preference Uncertainty? Some Evidence Using Eyetracking," 2019 Conference (63rd), February 12-15, 2019, Melbourne, Australia 285050, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society (AARES).
    17. Heath, Chip & Soll, Jack B, 1996. "Mental Budgeting and Consumer Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 23(1), pages 40-52, June.
    18. Yue, Chengyan & Zhao, Shuoli & Gallardo, Karina & McCracken, Vicki & Luby, James & McFerson, Jim, 2017. "U.S. Growers’ Willingness to Pay for Improvement in Rosaceous Fruit Traits," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 103-122, April.
    19. Ortega, David L. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2018. "Demand for farm animal welfare and producer implications: Results from a field experiment in Michigan," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 74-81.
    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. Wen Lin, 2023. "The effect of product quantity on willingness to pay: A meta‐regression analysis of beef valuation studies," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(3), pages 646-663, July.
    2. Lucio CECCHINI & Biancamaria TORQUATI & Massimo CHIORRI, 2018. "Sustainable agri-food products: A review of consumer preference studies through experimental economics," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 64(12), pages 554-565.
    3. Pengfei Liu & Xiaohui Tian, 2021. "Downward Hypothetical Bias in the Willingness to Accept Measure for Private Goods: Evidence from a Field Experiment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(5), pages 1679-1699, October.
    4. Danielle Ufer & David L. Ortega & Christopher A. Wolf, 2022. "Information and consumer demand for milk attributes: Are redundant labels an effective marketing strategy?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(2), pages 960-981, June.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1464-1484 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Glimcher, Paul & Tymula, Agnieszka & Woelbert, Eva, 2013. "Flexible valuations for consumer goods as measured by the Becker-DeGroot-Marschak mechanism," Working Papers 2013-20, University of Sydney, School of Economics.
    7. Sebastian Lehmann, 2014. "Toward an Understanding of the BDM: Predictive Validity, Gambling Effects, and Risk Attitude," FEMM Working Papers 150001, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    8. Joshua Hascher & Nitisha Desai & Ian Krajbich, 2021. "Incentivized and non-incentivized liking ratings outperform willingness-to-pay in predicting choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(6), pages 1464-1484, November.
    9. Burchardi, Konrad B. & de Quidt, Jonathan & Gulesci, Selim & Lerva, Benedetta & Tripodi, Stefano, 2021. "Testing willingness to pay elicitation mechanisms in the field: Evidence from Uganda," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    10. Maurizio Canavari & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2018. "How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances," Working Papers 2018-5, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    11. Basu, Amita & Srinivasan, Narayanan, 2021. "A Modified Contingent Valuation Method Shrinks Gain-Loss Asymmetry," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    12. Michael Grimm & Nathalie Luck & Franziska Steinhübel, 2023. "Consumers' willingness to pay for organic rice: Insights from a non‐hypothetical experiment in Indonesia," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 67(1), pages 83-103, January.
    13. Samir Mamadehussene & Francesco Sguera, 2023. "On the Reliability of the BDM Mechanism," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(2), pages 1166-1179, February.
    14. Ondřej Rydval & Andreas Ortmann & Sasha Prokosheva & Ralph Hertwig, 2009. "How certain is the uncertainty effect?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(4), pages 473-487, December.
    15. A. Banerji & Jeevant Rampal, 2020. "Reverse Endowment Effect for a New Product," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(3), pages 786-805, May.
    16. Thomas Giebe & Radosveta Ivanova-Stenzel & Martin G. Kocher & Simeon Schudy, 2024. "Cross-game learning and cognitive ability in auctions," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 27(1), pages 80-108, March.
    17. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    18. Rosato, Antonio & Tymula, Agnieszka A., 2019. "Loss aversion and competition in Vickrey auctions: Money ain't no good," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 188-208.
    19. Koch, Alexander K. & Nafziger, Julia, 2016. "Goals and bracketing under mental accounting," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 305-351.
    20. David L. Ortega & Robert S. Shupp & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Jayson L. Lusk, 2018. "Mitigating overbidding behavior in agribusiness and food marketing research: Results from induced value hybrid auction experiments," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(4), pages 887-893, October.
    21. Samuel D. Bell & Nadia A. Streletskaya, 2019. "The Random Quantity Mechanism: Laboratory and Field Tests of a Novel Cost-Revealing Procurement Mechanism," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(3), pages 899-921, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Research Methods/Statistical Methods; Institutional and Behavioral Economics; International Development;
    All these keywords.

    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:aaea22:335919. 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.