IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/asea26/404808.html

Reference Dependence in Commodity Marketing: Understanding Differences in Marketing Outcomes Among Farmers

Author

Listed:
  • Dhakal, Aayush Raj
  • Janzen, Joseph

Abstract

This paper examines how heterogeneity in reference prices and beliefs shapes farmers' grain marketing behavior and realized prices. Using panel data from the Illinois Farm Business Farm Management (FBFM) program, we extend the reference dependence framework to a cross-sectional context, relaxing the common assumption of homogeneous reference prices across producers. Employing a finite mixture model with fixed effects, we identify distinct behavioral types that respond differently to identical price signals. We further construct a behavioral proxy for belief bias based on farmers' past responsiveness to price changes, enabling us to disentangle belief heterogeneity from reference dependence. Our results show pronounced asymmetric marketing behavior around individualized reference points. Both the per-bushel cost of production and the previous year's price received emerge as a salient benchmark: farmers sell more when prices exceed the reference point and withhold sales when prices fall below. These findings support the presence of reference-dependent preferences and highlight the importance of incorporating individual financial conditions into behavioral models and the design of marketing advisory services.

Suggested Citation

  • Dhakal, Aayush Raj & Janzen, Joseph, 2026. "Reference Dependence in Commodity Marketing: Understanding Differences in Marketing Outcomes Among Farmers," 3rd ASEAN University Symposium for Sustainable Food Systems, Faculty of Agriculture, Chiang Mai University, Thailand, May 21-22, 2026 404808, Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:asea26:404808
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.404808
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/404808/files/Aayush_Dhakal_Reference_Pricing_Dhakal_Janzen_NCCC134.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.404808?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. Harvey Lapan & Giancarlo Moschini & Steven D. Hanson, 1991. "Production, Hedging, and Speculative Decisions with Options and Futures Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(1), pages 66-74.
    2. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    3. Marc Nerlove, 1956. "Estimates of the Elasticities of Supply of Selected Agricultural Commodities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 496-509.
    4. Nicholas C. Barberis, 2013. "Thirty Years of Prospect Theory in Economics: A Review and Assessment," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 173-196, Winter.
    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. Carolin Bock & Maximilian Schmidt, 2015. "Should I stay, or should I go? – How fund dynamics influence venture capital exit decisions," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 68-82, November.
    2. Alex Imas & Sally Sadoff & Anya Samek, 2017. "Do People Anticipate Loss Aversion?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1271-1284, May.
    3. Carpentier, A. & Reboud, X., 2018. "Why farmers consider pesticides the ultimate in crop protection: economic and behavioral insights," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277528, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Bryce McLaughlin & Jann Spiess, 2022. "Algorithmic Assistance with Recommendation-Dependent Preferences," Papers 2208.07626, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2025.
    5. Mariya Burdina & Scott Hiller, 2021. "When Falling Just Short is a Good Thing: The Effect of Past Performance on Improvement," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 22(7), pages 777-798, October.
    6. Häckel, Björn & Pfosser, Stefan & Tränkler, Timm, 2017. "Explaining the energy efficiency gap - Expected Utility Theory versus Cumulative Prospect Theory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 414-426.
    7. repec:dgr:rugsom:14022-eef is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Jan-Emmanuel De Neve & George Ward & Femke De Keulenaer & Bert Van Landeghem & Georgios Kavetsos & Michael I. Norton, 2018. "The Asymmetric Experience of Positive and Negative Economic Growth: Global Evidence Using Subjective Well-Being Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 100(2), pages 362-375, May.
    9. Genakos, Christos & Roumanias, Costas & Valletti, Tommaso, 2023. "Is having an expert “friend” enough? An analysis of consumer switching behavior in mobile telephony," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 359-372.
    10. Amedeo Piolatto & Matthew D. Rablen, 2017. "Prospect theory and tax evasion: a reconsideration of the Yitzhaki puzzle," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 82(4), pages 543-565, April.
    11. Khan, Abhimanyu, 2022. "Expected utility versus cumulative prospect theory in an evolutionary model of bargaining," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    12. Benistant, Julien & Suchon, Rémi, 2021. "It does (not) get better: Reference income violation and altruism," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    13. Fausto Panunzi & Nicola Pavoni & Guido Tabellini, 2020. "Economic Shocks and Populism: The Political Implications of Reference-Dependent Preferences," CESifo Working Paper Series 8539, CESifo.
    14. Alexander L. Brown & Taisuke Imai & Ferdinand M. Vieider & Colin F. Camerer, 2024. "Meta-analysis of Empirical Estimates of Loss Aversion," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 62(2), pages 485-516, June.
    15. Fabrizio Bernardi & Marco Cozzani, 2021. "Soccer Scores, Short-Term Mood and Fertility," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 37(3), pages 625-641, July.
    16. Wang, Huijun & Yan, Jinghua & Yu, Jianfeng, 2017. "Reference-dependent preferences and the risk–return trade-off," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 395-414.
    17. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    18. Santosh Anagol & Vimal Balasubramaniam & Tarun Ramadorai, 2018. "Endowment Effects in the Field: Evidence from India’s IPO Lotteries," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 85(4), pages 1971-2004.
    19. Palumbo, Riccardo & Bortolotti, Alessandro & Sacco, Pier Luigi, 2026. "Prospect Theory as Active Inference: A Metabolic Account of Risk-Sensitive Decision Making," SocArXiv 2d9v5_v1, Center for Open Science.
    20. Wenhui Zhou & Dongmei Wang & Weixiang Huang & Pengfei Guo, 2021. "To Pool or Not to Pool? The Effect of Loss Aversion on Queue Configurations," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(11), pages 4258-4272, November.
    21. Eric J. Allen & Patricia M. Dechow & Devin G. Pope & George Wu, 2017. "Reference-Dependent Preferences: Evidence from Marathon Runners," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(6), pages 1657-1672, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;

    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:asea26:404808. 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/aseanid.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.