IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/3g4m5.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Impact of Information on Valuation in Experimental Auctions: A Comparison of Between and Within Subject Designs

Author

Listed:
  • Gustafson, Christopher R.

    (University of Nebraska-Lincoln)

  • Meerza, Syed Imran Ali

Abstract

Experimental auctions are an important technique for measuring preferences for products, product attributes, and the impact of information. While these techniques are widely used, there is a paucity of evidence about an important design decision available to guide researchers: the choice of a between-subject vs. within-subject design. Within-subject designs offer clear value in terms of providing multiple observations per participant, which increases statistical power, but there are long-standing concerns about properties that could decrease the external validity of results generated in within-subject experiments. In this paper, we examine the impact of information on the economically motivated mislabeling of extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) on consumer valuation of EVOOs produced in the country that has experienced mislabeling scandals, along with EVOOs from two unimplicated countries, in between-subject and within-subject designs. Our findings show that the significance and relative impacts on valuation are identical between the two conditions. In fact, the valuation of the implicated EVOO differs only by a few cents ($3.53 vs. $3.60) after participants received information about mislabeling. There were larger differences in valuation of the two unimplicated EVOOs post-information, though the relative preferences implied by the results and the statistical significance did not differ between the conditions. The impacts of information on the product “targeted” by the information are measured consistently in both between-subjects and within-subjects designs, while we observe more variation in off-target products, suggesting that the researchers who are interested in informational spillovers may need to be more careful in design choice than those who want to estimate the impact of information on the target products.

Suggested Citation

  • Gustafson, Christopher R. & Meerza, Syed Imran Ali, 2023. "The Impact of Information on Valuation in Experimental Auctions: A Comparison of Between and Within Subject Designs," OSF Preprints 3g4m5, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:3g4m5
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/3g4m5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/64137aa952d0610dd3d231a3/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/3g4m5?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. Corrigan, Jay R. & Rousu, Matthew C., 2006. "AJAE Appendix: Posted Prices and Bid Affiliation: Evidence from Experimental Auctions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 1-12, November.
    2. Colson, Gregory & Huffman, Wallace E. & Rousu, Matthew C., 2011. "Improving the Nutrient Content of Food through Genetic Modification: Evidence from Experimental Auctions on Consumer Acceptance," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-22, August.
    3. repec:ken:wpaper:0602 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Kuhn, Michael A., 2012. "Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 1-8.
    5. Espérance Zossou & Rose Fiamohe & Simple Davo Vodouhe & Matty Demont, 2022. "Experimental auctions with exogenous and endogenous information treatment: Willingness to pay for improved parboiled rice in Benin," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 806-825, September.
    6. Matthew C. Rousu & Wallace E. Huffman & Jason F. Shogren & Abebayehu Tegene, 2004. "Estimating the Public Value of Conflicting Information: The Case of Genetically Modified Foods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(1), pages 125-135.
    7. Dan Ariely & George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 2003. ""Coherent Arbitrariness": Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(1), pages 73-106.
    8. Ty Feldkamp & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Experimental Auction Procedure: Impact on Valuation of Quality Differentiated Goods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 389-405.
    9. Magnan, Nicholas & Spielman, David J. & Lybbert, Travis J. & Gulati, Kajal, 2015. "Leveling with friends: Social networks and Indian farmers' demand for a technology with heterogeneous benefits," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 223-251.
    10. Christopher R. Gustafson & Travis J. Lybbert & Daniel A. Sumner, 2016. "Consumer sorting and hedonic valuation of wine attributes: exploiting data from a field experiment," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(1), pages 91-103, January.
    11. Meerza, Syed Imran Ali & Gustafson, Christopher R., 2020. "Consumers’ Response to Food Fraud: Evidence from Experimental Auctions," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 45(2), March.
    12. Colson, Gregory & Huffman, Wallace E. & Rousu, Matthew C., 2011. "Improving the Nutrient Content of Food through Genetic Modification: Evidence from Experimental Auctions on Consumer Acceptance," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-22, August.
    13. Hugo De Groote & Simon Chege Kimenju & Ulrich B. Morawetz, 2011. "Estimating consumer willingness to pay for food quality with experimental auctions: the case of yellow versus fortified maize meal in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 42(1), pages 1-16, January.
    14. Gustafson, Christopher R. & Lybbert, Travis J. & Sumner, Daniel A., 2016. "Consumer knowledge affects valuation of product attributes: Experimental results for wine," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 85-94.
    15. S. Marette & L. Nabec & F. Durieux, 2019. "Improving Nutritional Quality of Consumers’ Food Purchases With Traffic-Lights Labels: An Experimental Analysis," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 377-395, September.
    16. Syed Imran Ali Meerza & Christopher R Gustafson, 2019. "Does prior knowledge of food fraud affect consumer behavior? Evidence from an incentivized economic experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-14, December.
    17. Daniel Zizzo, 2010. "Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(1), pages 75-98, March.
    18. Lybbert, Travis J. & Barrett, Christopher B. & McPeak, John G. & Luseno, Winnie K., 2007. "Bayesian Herders: Updating of Rainfall Beliefs in Response to External Forecasts," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 480-497, March.
    19. Jason F. Shogren & John A. Fox, 1996. "Consumer Preferences for Fresh Food Items with Multiple Quality Attributes: Evidence from an Experimental Auction of Pork Chops," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(4), pages 916-923.
    20. Travis J. Lybbert & Nicholas Magnan & Anil K. Bhargava & Kajal Gulati & David J. Spielman, 2013. "Farmers' Heterogeneous Valuation of Laser Land Leveling in Eastern Uttar Pradesh: An Experimental Auction to Inform Segmentation and Subsidy Strategies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(2), pages 339-345.
    21. Melton, Brian & Huffman, Wallace & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Consumer Preferences for Fresh Food with Multiple Attributes: Evidence from an Experimental Auction of Pork Chops," Staff General Research Papers Archive 5042, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    22. Groote, Hugo De & Munyua, Bernard & Traore, Djibril & Taylor, John R. N. & Ferruzzi, Mario & Ndiaye, Cheikh & Onyeoziri, Isiguzoro O. & Hamaker, Bruce R., 2021. "Measuring consumer acceptance of instant fortified millet products using affective tests and auctions in Dakar, Senegal," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 24(3), March.
    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. 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.
    2. Azucena GRACIA & Tiziana DE-MAGISTRIS, 2015. "The role of participants' competitiveness in consumers' valuation for food products using experimental auctions," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 61(10), pages 484-491.
    3. Gustafson, Christopher R. & Champetier, Antoine, 2024. "Information Choice vs. Exposure: An Experiment Examining the Impact of Honey Fraud Information on Consumer Valuation," 2024 Annual Meeting, July 28-30, New Orleans, LA 343750, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Xue, Hong & Mainville, Denise Y. & You, Wen & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2009. "Nutrition Knowledge, Sensory Characteristics and Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pasture-Fed Beef," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49277, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Demont, Matty & Rutsaert, Pieter & Ndour, Maimouna & Verbeke, Wim & Seck, Papa Abdoulaye & Tollens, Eric, 2012. "Experimental auctions, collective induction and choice shift: Willingness-to-pay for rice quality in Senegal," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126861, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Gautam, Ruskin & Gustafson, Christopher R. & Brooks, Kathleen R., 2017. "Label Position and it Impacts on WTP for Products Containing GMO," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258105, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Demont, Matty & Zossou, Esperance & Rutsaert, Pieter & Ndour, Maimouna & Mele, Paul Van & Verbeke, Wim, 2011. "Willingness to Pay for Enhanced Food Quality: Rice Parboiling in Benin," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114443, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Wendy J. Umberger & Peter C. Boxall & R. Curt Lacy, 2009. "Role of credence and health information in determining US consumers' willingness-to-pay for grass-finished beef," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 603-623, October.
    9. Fiamohe, R. & Agossadou, A.J. & Kinkpe, T., 2018. "Contribution of improved processing equipment to rice value chain upgrading in West Africa: Evidence from Benin," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 275966, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Todd M. Schmit & Bradley J. Rickard & John Taber, 2013. "Consumer Valuation of Environmentally Friendly Production Practices in Wines, considering Asymmetric Information and Sensory Effects," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(2), pages 483-504, June.
    11. Bruner, David M. & Huth, William L. & McEvoy, David M. & Morgan, O. Ashton, 2014. "Consumer Valuation of Food Safety: The Case of Postharvest Processed Oysters," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 300-318, August.
    12. Li, Hao & Elbakidze, Levan, 2016. "Application of Regression Discontinuity Approach in Experimental Auctions: A Case Study of Gaining Participants’ Trust and Their Willingness to Pay," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236149, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Demont, Matty & Rutsaert, Pieter & Ndour, Maimouna & Verbeke, Wim, 2013. "Reversing Urban Bias in African Rice Markets: Evidence from Senegal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 63-74.
    14. David M. Bruner & William L. Huth & David M. McEvoy & O. Ashton Morgan, 2011. "Accounting for Taste: Consumer Valuations for Food-Safety Technologies," Working Papers 11-09, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    15. R. Karina Gallardo & Ines Hanrahan & Chengyan Yue & Vicki A. McCracken & James Luby & James R. McFerson & Carolyn Ross & Lilian Carrillo†Rodriguez, 2018. "Combining sensory evaluations and experimental auctions to assess consumers’ preferences for fresh fruit quality characteristics," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 407-425, March.
    16. Espérance Zossou & Rose Fiamohe & Simple Davo Vodouhe & Matty Demont, 2022. "Experimental auctions with exogenous and endogenous information treatment: Willingness to pay for improved parboiled rice in Benin," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 806-825, September.
    17. Morgan, Stephen N. & Mason, Nicole M. & Maredia, Mywish K., 2018. "Farmer Valuation of Improved Bean Seed Technologies: Real Auction Evidence from Tanzania," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274242, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Frode Alfnes, 2007. "Willingness to Pay versus Expected Consumption Value in Vickrey Auctions for New Experience Goods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 921-931.
    19. Lybbert, Travis J. & Magnan, Nicholas & Spielman, David J. & Bhargava, Anil K. & Gulati, Kajal, 2013. "Targeting technology to reduce poverty and conserve resources: Experimental delivery of laser land leveling to farmers in Uttar Pradesh, India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1274, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    20. Gregory Colson & Jay R. Corrigan & Carola Grebitus & Maria L. Loureiro & Matthew C. Rousu, 2016. "Which Deceptive Practices, If Any, Should Be Allowed in Experimental Economics Research? Results from Surveys of Applied Experimental Economists and Students," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(2), pages 610-621.

    More about this item

    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:osf:osfxxx:3g4m5. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    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.