IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdx/dpaper/2008-12.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are ‘True’ Preferences Revealed in Repeated Markets? An Experimental Demonstration of Context-dependent Valuations

Author

Listed:
  • Fabio Tufano

    () (CeDEx, School of Economics, University of Nottingham
    Cifrem, Università degli Studi di Trento)

Abstract

This paper reports a new and significant experimental demonstration that market participants adjust their bids towards the price observed in previous market periods when – by design – individuals’ values should not be affiliated with the market price. This demonstration implies that market prices may not adjust as standard comparative statics predicts and emphasizes the significance of social aspects even in market contexts. Hence, the present study shows that market behaviour is not anomaly-free. Indeed, market behaviour does not reveal the underlying true preferences but rather context-dependent preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Fabio Tufano, 2008. "Are ‘True’ Preferences Revealed in Repeated Markets? An Experimental Demonstration of Context-dependent Valuations," Discussion Papers 2008-12, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdx:dpaper:2008-12
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Glaeser, Edward L., 2006. "Paternalism and Psychology," Working Paper Series rwp06-006, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    3. Lusk,Jayson L. & Shogren,Jason F., 2007. "Experimental Auctions," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521671248, June.
    4. Richard H. Thaler & Cass R. Sunstein, 2003. "Libertarian Paternalism," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(2), pages 175-179, May.
    5. Jason Shogren, 2006. "Valuation in the Lab," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 163-172, May.
    6. John A. List, 2003. "Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 118(1), pages 41-71.
    7. Cooper, David & Rege, Mari, 2008. "Social Interaction Effects and Choice Under Uncertainty. An Experimental Study," UiS Working Papers in Economics and Finance 2009/24, University of Stavanger.
    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. Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine & Zacharias Maniadis, 2010. "Re-examining coherent arbitrariness for the evaluation of common goods and simple lotteries," Working Papers 034, "Carlo F. Dondena" Centre for Research on Social Dynamics (DONDENA), Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi.
    2. Holst, Gesa Sophie & Hermann, Daniel & Musshoff, Oliver, 2015. "Anchoring effects in an experimental auction – Are farmers anchored?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 106-117.
    3. Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till, 2016. "Are groups 'less behavioral'? The case of anchoring," Center for European, Governance and Economic Development Research Discussion Papers 188 [rev.], University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    4. 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.
    5. Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine & Zacharias Maniadis, 2012. "On the Robustness of Anchoring Effects in WTP and WTA Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 131-145, May.
    6. Beraldo, Sergio & Filoso, Valerio & Marco, Stimolo, 2013. "Endogenous Preferences and Conformity: Evidence From a Pilot Experiment," MPRA Paper 48539, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Aravena, Claudia & Hutchinson, W. George & Carlsson, Fredrik & Matthews, David I, 2015. "Testing preference formation in learning design contingent valuation (LDCV) using advanced information and repetitivetreatments," Working Papers in Economics 619, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    8. Giuseppe Attanasi & Kene Boun My & Andrea Guido & Mathieu Lefevbre, 2019. "Controlling Monopoly Power in a Classroom Double-Auction Market Experiment," Working Papers of BETA 2019-08, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    9. Jeffrey Livingston, 2010. "The effect of id verification in online auctions: Evidence from a field experiment," Natural Field Experiments 00273, The Field Experiments Website.
    10. Holst, G.S. & Hermann, D. & Mußhoff, O., 2015. "Anchoring Effects in an Experimental Auction," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 50, March.
    11. Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Glenk, Klaus, 2015. "Learning how to choose—effects of instructional choice sets in discrete choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 122-142.
    12. Sugden, Robert & Zheng, Jiwei & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2013. "Not all anchors are created equal," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 21-31.
    13. Isoni, Andrea & Brooks, Peter & Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 2016. "Do markets reveal preferences or shape them?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 1-16.
    14. Jay R. Corrigan & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Matthew C. Rousu, 2012. "Repeated Rounds with Price Feedback in Experimental Auction Valuation: An Adversarial Collaboration," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 97-115.
    15. Giuseppe Attanasi & Kene Boun My & Andrea Guido & Mathieu Lefebvre, 2020. "Controlling Monopoly Power in a Double-Auction Market Experiment," GREDEG Working Papers 2020-06, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    16. Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till E., 2015. "Anchoring in social context," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 29-39.
    17. Lukas Meub & Till Proeger, 2018. "Are groups ‘less behavioral’? The case of anchoring," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(2), pages 117-150, August.
    18. Konstantinos Ioannidis & Theo Offerman & Randolph Sloof, 2020. "On the effect of anchoring on valuations when the anchor is transparently uninformative," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(1), pages 77-94, June.
    19. 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.
    20. Sergio Beraldo & Valerio Filoso & Marco Stimolo, 2014. "The Shaping Power of Market Prices and Individual Choices on Preferences. An Experimental Investigation," Discussion Papers 2014/191, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    21. Salma Zaiane, 2015. "Behavioral Biases of Individual Investors: The Effect of Anchoring," Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences, , vol. 3(1), pages 13-19.
    22. Zacharias Maniadis & Fabio Tufano & John A. List, 2014. "One Swallow Doesn't Make a Summer: New Evidence on Anchoring Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(1), pages 277-290, January.
    23. Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till, 2014. "Are groups 'less behavioral'? The case of anchoring," Center for European, Governance and Economic Development Research Discussion Papers 188, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    24. Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till, 2014. "An experimental study on social anchoring," Center for European, Governance and Economic Development Research Discussion Papers 196, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    25. Konstantinos Ioannidis & Theo Offerman & Randolph Sloof, 2019. "On the effect of anchoring on valuations when the anchor is transparently uninformative," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-074/I, Tinbergen Institute, revised 27 Apr 2020.

    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. Jay R. Corrigan & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Matthew C. Rousu, 2012. "Repeated Rounds with Price Feedback in Experimental Auction Valuation: An Adversarial Collaboration," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 97-115.
    2. Andreas Drichoutis & Rodolfo Nayga & Panagiotis Lazaridis & Beom Park, 2011. "A Consistent Econometric Test for Bid Interdependence in Repeated Second-Price Auctions with Posted Prices," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 39(4), pages 329-341, December.
    3. Schnellenbach, Jan, 2012. "Nudges and norms: On the political economy of soft paternalism," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 266-277.
    4. Andreas Drichoutis & Kyriaki Remoundou & Phoebe Koundouri, "undated". "Warm glow in charitable auctions: Are the WEIRDos driving the results?," DEOS Working Papers 1025, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    5. Marianne Bertrand & Dean Karlin & Sendhil Mullainathan & Eldar Shafir & Jonathan Zinman, 2005. "What's Psychology Worth? A Field Experiment in the Consumer Credit Market," NBER Working Papers 11892, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Laurent Muller & Bernard Ruffieux, 2011. "Do price-tags influence consumers’ willingness to pay? On the external validity of using auctions for measuring value," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(2), pages 181-202, May.
    7. S. Dellavigna., 2011. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," VOPROSY ECONOMIKI, N.P. Redaktsiya zhurnala "Voprosy Economiki", vol. 4.
    8. Sugden, Robert, 2009. "Market simulation and the provision of public goods: A non-paternalistic response to anomalies in environmental evaluation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 87-103, January.
    9. Mozaffar Qizilbash, 2012. "Informed desire and the ambitions of libertarian paternalism," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(4), pages 647-658, April.
    10. van Dalen, H.P. & Henkens, K. & Koedijk, C.G. & Slager, A.M.H., 2010. "Decision Making in the Pension Fund Board Room : An Experiment with Dutch Pension Fund Trustees," Discussion Paper 2010-18, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    11. Bünger Björn & Prinz Aloys, 2010. "Staatliche Glücksförderung? Karl Popper, Richard Layard und das Rauchen / Should public policy pursue happiness? Karl Popper, Richard Layard and smoking," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 61(1), pages 169-190, January.
    12. Bernard Ruffieux & Anne Rozan & Stéphane Robin, 2008. "Mesurer les préférences du consommateur pour orienter les décisions des pouvoirs publics : l'apport de la méthode expérimentale," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 182(1), pages 113-127.
    13. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander James & Stéphane Luchini & Jason Shogren, 2011. "Social Psychology and Environmental Economics: A New Look at ex ante Corrections of Biased Preference Evaluation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 413-433, March.
    14. Kirchgässner, Gebhard, 2012. "Sanfter Paternalismus, meritorische Güter, und der normative Individualismus," Economics Working Paper Series 1217, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    15. Niclas Berggren, 2012. "Time for behavioral political economy? An analysis of articles in behavioral economics," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 25(3), pages 199-221, September.
    16. Bodo Sturm & Joachim Weimann, 2006. "Experiments in Environmental Economics and Some Close Relatives," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 419-457, July.
    17. Dold, Malte, 2015. "Condorcet's jury theorem as a rational justification of soft paternalistic consumer policies," Discussion Paper Series 2015-07, University of Freiburg, Wilfried Guth Endowed Chair for Constitutional Political Economy and Competition Policy.
    18. Pavel Pelikán, 2010. "The Government Economic Agenda in a Society of Unequally Rational Individuals," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(2), pages 231-255, May.
    19. Adewale Oparinde & Abhijit Banerji & Ekin Birol & Paul Ilona, 2016. "Information and consumer willingness to pay for biofortified yellow cassava: evidence from experimental auctions in Nigeria," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(2), pages 215-233, March.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Repeated markets; Economic principles; Anomalies; Experiment; Social interactions;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions

    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:cdx:dpaper:2008-12. 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: (Suzanne Robey). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/cdnotuk.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.