IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/isu/genres/675.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Valuing Ambiguity: The Case of Genetically Engineered Growth Enhancers

Author

Listed:
  • Buhr, Brian L.
  • Hayes, Dermot J.
  • Shogren, Jason F.
  • Kliebenstein, James

Abstract

A split-valuation method is developed and implemented to elicit the willingness to pay to consume- or avoid consuming- a product of ambiguous quality. The split-valuation method uses experimental auction markets to separate and value the positive and negative attributes of the ambiguous good. The results show that the method can be used to successfully value a good ambiguous quality. Our application reveals that for a sample of students at a midwestern land-grant institution, the average respondent is willing to pay a premium for meat produced with the use of a genetically engineered growth enhancer that has 30% to 60% fewer calories and is 10% to 20% leaner.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Buhr, Brian L. & Hayes, Dermot J. & Shogren, Jason F. & Kliebenstein, James, 1993. "Valuing Ambiguity: The Case of Genetically Engineered Growth Enhancers," Staff General Research Papers Archive 675, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:isu:genres:675
    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. Shin, Seung Youll & Kliebenstein, James & Hayes, Dermot J. & Shogren, Jason F., 1992. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Safer Food Products," Staff General Research Papers Archive 546, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    2. McKee, Michael, 1989. "Intra-experimental income effects and risk aversion," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 109-115, August.
    3. Shogren, Jason F, 1990. "The Impact of Self-protection and Self-insurance on Individual Response to Risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 191-204, June.
    4. Menkhaus, Dale J. & Borden, George W. & Whipple, Glen D. & Hoffman, Elizabeth & Field, Ray A., 1992. "An Empirical Application Of Laboratory Experimental Auctions In Marketing Research," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 17(1), pages 1-12, July.
    5. Don L. Coursey & John L. Hovis & William D. Schulze, 1987. "The Disparity Between Willingness to Accept and Willingness to Pay Measures of Value," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 102(3), pages 679-690.
    6. Brookshire, David S & Coursey, Don L, 1987. "Measuring the Value of a Public Good: An Empirical Comparison of Elicitation Procedures," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(4), pages 554-566, September.
    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. Shogren, Jason F., 2006. "Experimental Methods and Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 19, pages 969-1027, Elsevier.
    2. Shogren, Jason F., 1993. "Experimental Markets and Environmental Policy," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(2), pages 117-129, October.
    3. Fisher, Ann & Wheeler, William J. & Zwick, Rami, 1993. "Experimental Methods in Agricultural and Resource Economics: How Useful are They?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(2), pages 103-116, October.
    4. Oben K Bayrak & Bengt Kriström, 2016. "Is there a valuation gap? The case of interval valuations," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 36(1), pages 218-236.
    5. Morrison, Gwendolyn C., 2000. "WTP and WTA in repeated trial experiments: Learning or leading?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 57-72, February.
    6. Shogren, Jason F. & Cho, Sungwon & Koo, Cannon & List, John & Park, Changwon & Polo, Pablo & Wilhelmi, Robert, 2001. "Auction mechanisms and the measurement of WTP and WTA," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 97-109, April.
    7. Bruno S. Frey & Reiner Eichenberger, 1989. "Should Social Scientists Care about Choice Anomalies?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 1(1), pages 101-122, July.
    8. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "Viewpoint: On the generalizability of lab behaviour to the field," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 347-370, May.
    9. Carina Cavalcanti & Andreas Leibbrandt, 2017. "A glance into the willingness to reduce overfishing: Field evidence from a fishnet exchange program," Monash Economics Working Papers 09-17, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    10. List, John A. & Shogren, Jason F., 2002. "Calibration of Willingness-to-Accept," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 219-233, March.
    11. Suren Basov & Liam Blanckenberg & Lata Gangadharan, 2007. "Behavioural Anomalies, Bounded Rationality and Simple Heuristics," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 1012, The University of Melbourne.
    12. John A. List & Michael S. Haigh, 2010. "Investment Under Uncertainty: Testing the Options Model with Professional Traders," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 92(4), pages 974-984, November.
    13. Catherine L. Kling & John A. List & Jinhua Zhao, 2013. "A Dynamic Explanation Of The Willingness To Pay And Willingness To Accept Disparity," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(1), pages 909-921, January.
    14. Johnston, Marie, 2014. "Contingent Valuation: A Comparison of Referendum and Voluntary Contribution Mechanisms," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165843, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    15. Charles R. Plott & Kathryn Zeiler, 2005. "The Willingness to Pay–Willingness to Accept Gap, the "Endowment Effect," Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 530-545, June.
    16. Charles Sprenger, 2015. "An Endowment Effect for Risk: Experimental Tests of Stochastic Reference Points," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 123(6), pages 1456-1499.
    17. Catherine L. Kling & John A. List & Jinhua Zhao, 2003. "WTP/WTA Disparity: Have We Been Observing Dynamic Values but Interpreting Them as Static?, The," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 03-wp333, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    18. List, John A., 2004. "Substitutability, experience, and the value disparity: evidence from the marketplace," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 486-509, May.
    19. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    20. John K. Horowitz & Kenneth E. McConnell & James J. Murphy, 2013. "Behavioral foundations of environmental economics and valuation," Chapters, in: John A. List & Michael K. Price (ed.), Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment, chapter 4, pages 115-156, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    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:isu:genres:675. 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: Curtis Balmer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deiasus.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.