IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/bjafio/v8y2010i1n9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of Perceived Prices on Willingness to Pay in Experimental Auctions

Author

Listed:
  • Colson Gregory

    (University of Georgia)

  • Corrigan Jay R

    (Kenyon College)

  • Rousu Matthew C.

    (Susquehanna University)

Abstract

While experimental auctions are demand revealing in theory, recent studies question whether bids fully reflect willingness to pay due to the presence of outside substitutes available in conventional markets. The presence of outside substitutes implies that bids should theoretically be censored from above at the market price. While bid price censoring has been recognized in the literature, previous research has not examined the specific dollar level at which bids should be censored--the price at which a product can actually be purchased outside of the experimental auction or the price at which participants believe it can be purchased. We provide evidence from a field interview and experimental auction that individual-specific "perceived prices" differ from actual market prices. The dichotomy between perceived and true market prices is shown to have significant implications for econometric analysis of bid price data.

Suggested Citation

  • Colson Gregory & Corrigan Jay R & Rousu Matthew C., 2010. "The Impact of Perceived Prices on Willingness to Pay in Experimental Auctions," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-13, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:bjafio:v:8:y:2010:i:1:n:9
    DOI: 10.2202/1542-0485.1307
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2202/1542-0485.1307
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2202/1542-0485.1307?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Noussair, Charles & Robin, Stephane & Ruffieux, Bernard, 2004. "Revealing consumers' willingness-to-pay: A comparison of the BDM mechanism and the Vickrey auction," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 725-741, December.
    2. Thomas Zuehlke, 2003. "Estimation of a Tobit model with unknown censoring threshold," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(10), pages 1163-1169.
    3. Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & Melonie B. Williams, 2002. "Estimating Individual Discount Rates in Denmark: A Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1606-1617, December.
    4. David Lucking-Reiley & John A. List, 2000. "Demand Reduction in Multiunit Auctions: Evidence from a Sportscard Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 961-972, September.
    5. Frode Alfnes, 2009. "Valuing product attributes in Vickrey auctions when market substitutes are available," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 36(2), pages 133-149, June.
    6. Todd Cherry & Peter Frykblom & Jason Shogren & John List & Melonie Sullivan, 2004. "Laboratory Testbeds and Non-Market Valuation: The Case of Bidding Behavior in a Second-Price Auction with an Outside Option," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(3), pages 285-294, November.
    7. repec:feb:framed:0052 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Garth J. Holloway & Jeffrey H. Dorfman & Simeon K. Ehui, 2001. "Tobit Estimation with Unknown Point of Censoring with an Application to Milk Market Participation in the Ethiopian Highlands," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 49(3), pages 293-311, November.
    9. Rousu Matthew C. & Corrigan Jay R., 2008. "Estimating the Welfare Loss to Consumers When Food Labels Do Not Adequately Inform: An Application to Fair Trade Certification," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-26, May.
    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. Whiting, Alix & Kecinski, Maik & Li, Tongzhe & r, Kent D. Messer & Parker, Julia, 2019. "The importance of selecting the right messenger: A framed field experiment on recycled water products," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 1-8.
    2. Tyler J. Klain & Jayson L. Lusk & Glynn T. Tonsor & Ted C. Schroeder, 2014. "An experimental approach to valuing information," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(5), pages 635-648, September.
    3. Dolgopolova, Irina & Teuber, Ramona & Roosen, Jutta, 2017. "The Reference Price Is Not The Limit: Analysis Of Consumer Valuations In Second-price Vickrey Auction," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 260882, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

    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. repec:ken:wpaper:0804 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. 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.
    3. Corrigan, Jay R. & Rousu, Matthew C., 2008. "Testing Whether Field Auction Experiments Are Demand Revealing in Practice," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(2).
    4. Meyer, Andrew G., 2015. "The impacts of elicitation mechanism and reward size on estimated rates of time preference," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 132-148.
    5. Bettinger, Eric & Slonim, Robert, 2006. "Using experimental economics to measure the effects of a natural educational experiment on altruism," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(8-9), pages 1625-1648, September.
    6. 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.
    7. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    8. Diederich, Johannes & Goeschl, Timo, 2011. "Giving in a Large Economy: Price vs. Non-Price Effects in a Field Experiment," Working Papers 0514, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    9. Skuza, Nathan & McCracken, Vicki & Ellis, Joan, 2015. "Compensation Fees And Willingness To Pay: A Field Experiment On Organic Apples," International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Department of Economics and Finance, vol. 3(3), pages 1-13, July.
    10. Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco, 2007. "Choice Over Time," IZA Discussion Papers 2993, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Diederich, Johannes & Goeschl, Timo, 2011. "Willingness to Pay for Individual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions: Evidence from a Large Field Experiment," Working Papers 0517, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    12. Diederich, Johannes & Goeschl, Timo, 2017. "To mitigate or not to mitigate: The price elasticity of pro-environmental behavior," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 209-222.
    13. Zonna, Davide, 2016. "Sprechi di cibo e tentativi di riduzione. Un caso sperimentale [Avoiding food waste. A field experiment]," MPRA Paper 76097, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Combris, Pierre & Giraud-Héraud, Eric & Pinto, Alexandra Seabra, 2015. "Relative willingness to pay and surplus comparison mechanism," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202755, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Han, Doo Bong & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Lee, Ji Yong & Yoon, Jong Min, 2012. "Assessing Korean Consumers’ Valuation for Domestic and Imported Rice: Importance of Country of Origin and Food Miles Information," 2012 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2012, Birmingham, Alabama 119817, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    16. Tiziana de-Magistris & Azucena Gracia, 2016. "Assessing Projection Bias in Consumers’ Food Preferences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-11, February.
    17. COMBRIS Pierre & SEABRA PINTO Alexandra & GIRAUD HERAUD Eric, 2015. "Relative willingness to pay and surplus comparison mechanism in experimental auctions," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2015-20, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    18. Giuseppina Migliore & Massimiliano Borrello & Alessia Lombardi & Giorgio Schifani, 2018. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for natural food: evidence from an artefactual field experiment," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 6(1), pages 1-10, December.
    19. James Murphy & Thomas Stevens & Lava Yadav, 2010. "A Comparison of Induced Value and Home-Grown Value Experiments to Test for Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(1), pages 111-123, September.
    20. Lee, Ji Yong & Fox, John A., 2016. "The effects of allowing substitutes on bidding behavior in a private value experimental auction," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235900, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    21. Rousu, Matthew C. & Nonnemaker, James & Farrelly, Matthew, 2011. "Choosing a Cigarette Brand: Determining the Value of Countermarketing Information to Smokers Using Field Auctions," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(4), pages 1-14, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    experimental auctions; perceived prices;

    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:bpj:bjafio:v:8:y:2010:i:1:n:9. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    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.