IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jecomi/v9y2021i4p173-d673397.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of Process Misconception in Becker-DeGroot-Marschak Single Response Value Elicitation Procedures: An Experimental Investigation in Consumer Behavior Using the IKEA Effect

Author

Listed:
  • Carolyn Predmore

    (Department of Economics and Finance, O’Malley School of Business, Manhattan College, Riverdale, NY 10471, USA)

  • Kudret Topyan

    (Department of Economics and Finance, O’Malley School of Business, Manhattan College, Riverdale, NY 10471, USA)

  • Lauren Trabold Apadula

    (Department of Economics and Finance, O’Malley School of Business, Manhattan College, Riverdale, NY 10471, USA)

Abstract

Consumer researchers frequently employ valuation experiments to assess consumer opinions and test related hypotheses. One popular method used in many such experiments is the Becker- DeGroot-Marschak (BDM) single-response value elicitation procedure that initiates an incentive for the subjects to respond with their true valuation by utilizing a random bid to which the participants’ bid is compared. However, the “random bid” is not a straightforward concept, and the participants may not fully understand the mechanics of the bidding process. Therefore, they may incorrectly associate the bidding mechanism with a conventional auction bidding process in which the highest bidder wins, causing biased valuation outcomes. In this paper, we introduce a comprehension measurement step to eliminate the process comprehension bias in BDM valuation experiments. We also discuss the potential impact of the treatment of “zero” bidders in the BDM procedure. The present work shows that the size and statistical significance of past consumer research results are positively correlated with the participant comprehension of the valuation procedure. The results suggest that consumer research using a single-response value elicitation procedure, which initiates an incentive for the subjects to respond with their true valuation , may not be trusted if the comprehension level is not controlled.

Suggested Citation

  • Carolyn Predmore & Kudret Topyan & Lauren Trabold Apadula, 2021. "Impact of Process Misconception in Becker-DeGroot-Marschak Single Response Value Elicitation Procedures: An Experimental Investigation in Consumer Behavior Using the IKEA Effect," Economies, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-13, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jecomi:v:9:y:2021:i:4:p:173-:d:673397
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/9/4/173/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/9/4/173/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Burchardi, Konrad B. & de Quidt, Jonathan & Gulesci, Selim & Lerva, Benedetta & Tripodi, Stefano, 2021. "Testing willingness to pay elicitation mechanisms in the field: Evidence from Uganda," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    2. James Berry & Greg Fischer & Raymond Guiteras, 2020. "Eliciting and Utilizing Willingness to Pay: Evidence from Field Trials in Northern Ghana," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(4), pages 1436-1473.
    3. Michael Grimm & Luciane Lenz & Jörg Peters & Maximiliane Sievert, 2020. "Demand for Off-Grid Solar Electricity: Experimental Evidence from Rwanda," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 7(3), pages 417-454.
    4. G. M.P. Swann, 2009. "The Economics of Innovation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13211.
    5. Shengwu Li, 2017. "Obviously Strategy-Proof Mechanisms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(11), pages 3257-3287, November.
    6. 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.
    7. Ben Yishay, Ariel & Fraker, Andrew & Guiteras, Raymond & Palloni, Giordano & Shah, Neil Buddy & Shirrell, Stuart & Wang, Paul, 2017. "Microcredit and willingness to pay for environmental quality: Evidence from a randomized-controlled trial of finance for sanitation in rural Cambodia," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 121-140.
    8. Kagel, John H & Harstad, Ronald M & Levin, Dan, 1987. "Information Impact and Allocation Rules in Auctions with Affiliated Private Values: A Laboratory Study," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(6), pages 1275-1304, November.
    9. Hoffmann, Bridget, 2018. "Do non-monetary prices target the poor? Evidence from a field experiment in India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 15-32.
    10. Mohammad Akbarpour & Shengwu Li, 2020. "Credible Auctions: A Trilemma," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(2), pages 425-467, March.
    11. Lawrence M. Ausubel, 2004. "An Efficient Ascending-Bid Auction for Multiple Objects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(5), pages 1452-1475, December.
    12. Nikolaus Franke & Martin Schreier & Ulrike Kaiser, 2010. "The "I Designed It Myself" Effect in Mass Customization," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(1), pages 125-140, January.
    13. Mochon, Daniel & Norton, Michael I. & Ariely, Dan, 2012. "Bolstering and restoring feelings of competence via the IKEA effect," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 363-369.
    14. Timothy N. Cason & Charles R. Plott, 2014. "Misconceptions and Game Form Recognition: Challenges to Theories of Revealed Preference and Framing," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 122(6), pages 1235-1270.
    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. Christine Wamuyu Mwangi & Josiah Ateka & Robert Mbeche & Luke Oyugi & Elijah Ateka, 2022. "Comparing farmers’ willingness to pay with costs of clean sweet potato seed multiplication in Kenya," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 14(5), pages 1279-1293, October.

    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. Burchardi, Konrad B. & de Quidt, Jonathan & Gulesci, Selim & Lerva, Benedetta & Tripodi, Stefano, 2021. "Testing willingness to pay elicitation mechanisms in the field: Evidence from Uganda," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    2. 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.
    3. Ji Yong Lee & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Cary Deck & Andreas C. Drichoutis, 2020. "Cognitive Ability and Bidding Behavior in Second Price Auctions: An Experimental Study," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(5), pages 1494-1510, October.
    4. Gunther Bensch & Jörg Peters, 2020. "One‐Off Subsidies and Long‐Run Adoption—Experimental Evidence on Improved Cooking Stoves in Senegal," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(1), pages 72-90, January.
    5. Alessandro Maffioli & David McKenzie & Diego Ubfal, 2023. "Estimating the Demand for Business Training: Evidence from Jamaica," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 72(1), pages 123-158.
    6. James Berry & Greg Fischer & Raymond Guiteras, 2020. "Eliciting and Utilizing Willingness to Pay: Evidence from Field Trials in Northern Ghana," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(4), pages 1436-1473.
    7. Yves Breitmoser & Sebastian Schweighofer-Kodritsch, 2022. "Obviousness around the clock," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(2), pages 483-513, April.
    8. Thomas Giebe & Radosveta Ivanova-Stenzel & Martin G. Kocher & Simeon Schudy, 2024. "Cross-game learning and cognitive ability in auctions," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 27(1), pages 80-108, March.
    9. Martin, Daniel & Muñoz-Rodriguez, Edwin, 2022. "Cognitive costs and misperceived incentives: Evidence from the BDM mechanism," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    10. Jack, B. Kelsey & McDermott, Kathryn & Sautmann, Anja, 2022. "Multiple price lists for willingness to pay elicitation," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    11. Bull, Charles & Courty, Pascal & Doyon, Maurice & Rondeau, Daniel, 2019. "Failure of the Becker–DeGroot–Marschak mechanism in inexperienced subjects: New tests of the game form misconception hypothesis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 235-253.
    12. Breitmoser, Yves & Schweighofer-Kodritsch, Sebastian, 2019. "Obviousness Around the Clock," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 151, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    13. Takehito Masuda & Ryo Mikami & Toyotaka Sakai & Shigehiro Serizawa & Takuma Wakayama, 2022. "The net effect of advice on strategy-proof mechanisms: an experiment for the Vickrey auction," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(3), pages 902-941, June.
    14. Bó, Inácio & Hakimov, Rustamdjan, 2022. "The iterative deferred acceptance mechanism," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 411-433.
    15. A. Banerji & Jeevant Rampal, 2020. "Reverse Endowment Effect for a New Product," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(3), pages 786-805, May.
    16. Loertscher, Simon & Marx, Leslie M., 2020. "Asymptotically optimal prior-free clock auctions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    17. Rosato, Antonio & Tymula, Agnieszka A., 2019. "Loss aversion and competition in Vickrey auctions: Money ain't no good," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 188-208.
    18. John A. Clithero & Jae Joon Lee & Joshua Tasoff, 2019. "Supervised Machine Learning for Eliciting Individual Demand," Papers 1904.13329, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2021.
    19. Rosato, Antonio & Tymula, Agnieszka A., 2024. "A novel experimental test of truthful bidding in second-price auctions with real objects," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    20. Randriamaro, Mary Tiana & Cook, Joseph, 2022. "The value of time, with and without a smartphone," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 138-146.

    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:gam:jecomi:v:9:y:2021:i:4:p:173-:d:673397. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.