IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea25/361169.html

Willingness to Pay for an Agricultural Technology: An Economic Application of List Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Peterson-Wilhelm, Bailey
  • Schwab, Benjamin
  • Burrone, Sara

Abstract

List experiments utilize indirect survey questions to reduce social desirability bias in measures of sensitive behaviors and sentiments. While often used to assess retrospective behavior or opinions of respondents, list experiments have not been widely applied to assessing “deep” parameters of economic models, such as willingness to pay. Common stated preference methods of estimating willingness to pay may be impacted by social desirability bias, particularly when a product has been provided to survey recipients for free. List experiments can uncover the share of respondents willing to pay a given price while reducing social desirability bias. Repeating the method at a variety of prices recovers a partial demand curve. This study discusses the conditions required to satisfy the list experiment validity assumptions and demonstrates the method in an e-extension platform randomized control trial in Sri Lanka. We show that the “no design effect” assumption for list experiments requires that the budget constraint for a household be nonbinding. Under conditions where that assumption is likely to hold, we find direct estimates overstate willingness to pay at low prices. Our findings suggest list experiments may provide a cheap method of more accurately assessing the typically large share of respondents unwilling to pay any non-zero-sum (extensive margin), but are less effective at reducing bias from exaggerated demand (intensive margin).

Suggested Citation

  • Peterson-Wilhelm, Bailey & Schwab, Benjamin & Burrone, Sara, 2025. "Willingness to Pay for an Agricultural Technology: An Economic Application of List Experiments," 2025 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2025, Denver, CO 361169, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea25:361169
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.361169
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/361169/files/95602_104974_105300_FAO__WTP_AAEA.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.361169?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. Jonas Schmidt & Tammo H. A. Bijmolt, 2020. "Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: a meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 499-518, May.
    2. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 153-174, Spring.
    3. Channa, Hira & Chen, Amy Z. & Pina, Patricia & Ricker-Gilbert, Jacob & Stein, Daniel, 2019. "What drives smallholder farmers’ willingness to pay for a new farm technology? Evidence from an experimental auction in Kenya," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 64-71.
    4. Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey, 2009. "Bridging the gap between laboratory experiments and naturally occurring markets: An inferred valuation method," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 236-250, September.
    5. Lava Yadav & Thomas M. van Rensburg & Hugh Kelley, 2013. "A Comparison Between the Conventional Stated Preference Technique and an Inferred Valuation Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(2), pages 405-422, June.
    6. Bryn Rosenfeld & Kosuke Imai & Jacob N. Shapiro, 2016. "An Empirical Validation Study of Popular Survey Methodologies for Sensitive Questions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(3), pages 783-802, July.
    7. Amanda J Fuller & Jacob Ricker-Gilbert, 2021. "Estimating Demand for Third-party Quality Testing in Rural Grain Markets: Evidence from an Experimental Auction for Measuring Moisture Content in Kenya," Journal of African Economies, Centre for the Study of African Economies, vol. 30(5), pages 389-417.
    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. Frondel, Manuel & Sommer, Stephan & Tomberg, Lukas, 2019. "Versorgungssicherheit mit Strom: Empirische Evidenz auf Basis der Inferred-Valuation-Methode," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 68(1), pages 53-73.
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    3. Choi, Andy S. & Lee, Choong-Ki & Tanaka, Katsuya & Xu, Honggang, 2018. "Value spillovers from the Korean DMZ areas and social desirability," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 95-104.
    4. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    5. Alicia Entem & Patrick Lloyd‐Smith & Wiktor ( Vic) L. Adamowicz & Peter C. Boxall, 2022. "Using inferred valuation to quantify survey and social desirability bias in stated preference research," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(4), pages 1224-1242, August.
    6. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    7. Daniel Engler & Gunnar Gutsche & Andreas Ziegler, 2025. "Does the willingness to pay for sustainable investments differ between non-incentivized and incentivized choice experiments?," MAGKS Papers on Economics 202515, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    8. Sampriti Sarkar & Frank Lupi, 2026. "The Two-Edged Sword of Altruism in Willingness to Pay for Water Infrastructure and Affordability Programs," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 89(2), pages 1-31, February.
    9. Raffaelli, R. & Menapace, L., 2018. "Indirect questioning as a debiasing mechanism in preference elicitation for sustainable food? First evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277039, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Wuepper, David & Clemm, Alexandra & Wree, Philipp, 2019. "The preference for sustainable coffee and a new approach for dealing with hypothetical bias," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 475-486.
    11. Menapace, Luisa & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2020. "Unraveling hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 416-430.
    12. Mankaï, Selim & Marchand, Sébastien & Le, Ngoc Ha, 2024. "Valuing insurance against small probability risks: A meta-analysis," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    13. Lai, Yufeng & Boaitey, Albert & Minegishi, Kota, 2022. "Behind the veil: Social desirability bias and animal welfare ballot initiatives," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    14. Lai, Yufeng & Yue, Chengyan, 2020. "Consumer Willingness to pay for Organic and Animal Welfare Product Attributes: Do Experimental Results Align with Market Data?," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304328, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Marette Stéphan & Roosen Jutta & Blanchemanche Sandrine, 2011. "The Combination of Lab and Field Experiments for Benefit-Cost Analysis," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 2(3), pages 1-36, August.
    16. Frondel Manuel & Sommer Stephan & Tomberg Lukas, 2019. "Versorgungssicherheit mit Strom: Empirische Evidenz auf Basis der Inferred-Valuation-Methode," Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 68(1), pages 53-73, May.
    17. Honda, Hidehito & Ogawa, Midori & Murakoshi, Takuma & Masuda, Tomohiro & Utsumi, Ken & Park, Sora & Kimura, Atsushi & Nei, Daisuke & Wada, Yuji, 2015. "Effect of visual aids and individual differences of cognitive traits in judgments on food safety," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 33-40.
    18. Jonathan E. Alevy & Craig E. Landry & John A. List, 2015. "Field Experiments On The Anchoring Of Economic Valuations," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 53(3), pages 1522-1538, July.
    19. Arthur Bragança & Avery Simon Cohn, 2019. "Predicting Intensification on the Brazilian Agricultural Frontier: Combining Evidence from Lab-In-The-Field Experiments and Household Surveys," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-22, January.
    20. Lava Yadav & Thomas M. van Rensburg & Hugh Kelley, 2013. "A Comparison Between the Conventional Stated Preference Technique and an Inferred Valuation Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(2), pages 405-422, June.

    More about this item

    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:aaea25:361169. 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.