IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v93y2011i5p1358-1373.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Valuations from Nonhypothetical Choice Experiments Different from Those of Experimental Auctions?

Author

Listed:
  • Azucena Gracia
  • Maria L. Loureiro
  • Rodolfo M. Nayga

Abstract

Due to the importance of comparability and external validity of results, nonhypothetical experimental methods are increasingly used to elicit consumers' willingness to pay for various goods. Two of the increasingly popular preference elicitation methods are the nonhypothetical choice experiments and experimental auctions. We conduct experiments to compare willingness to pay estimates elicited from both methods. Our results generally suggest that valuations elicited from experimental auctions can differ from those obtained from nonhypothetical choice experiments. Copyright 2011, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Azucena Gracia & Maria L. Loureiro & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2011. "Are Valuations from Nonhypothetical Choice Experiments Different from Those of Experimental Auctions?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1358-1373.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:93:y:2011:i:5:p:1358-1373
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ajae/aar054
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    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:oup:ajagec:v:93:y:2011:i:5:p:1358-1373. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.