IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea13/151595.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Purchase Intention Effects in Experimental Auctions and Real Choice Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Xie, Jing
  • Gao, Zhifeng
  • House, Lisa

Abstract

This article examines consumers’ preference for three types of orange juice in China. Two non-hypothetical experiments, Real Choice Experiments and Experimental Auctions were used in the study. We found that WTP estimates from real choice experiment are significantly higher than auction bids, which is consistent with what Lusk and Schroeder (2006) and Gracia, Loureiro, and Nayga (2011) found in their paper. In addition, we found that purchase intention only has significantly effects on consumers’ behavior in Experimental Auction, but not in Real Choice Experiments, and this purchase intention only has effects on non-novel food, but not novel food.

Suggested Citation

  • Xie, Jing & Gao, Zhifeng & House, Lisa, 2013. "Purchase Intention Effects in Experimental Auctions and Real Choice Experiments," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 151595, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea13:151595
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.151595
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/151595/files/2013%20AAEA%20paper%201947.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.151595?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. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    2. 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.
    3. Irwin, Julie R, et al, 1998. "Payoff Dominance vs. Cognitive Transparency in Decision Making," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 36(2), pages 272-285, April.
    4. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Poe, Gregory L. & Ethier, Robert G. & Schulze, William D., 2002. "Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 391-425, November.
    5. Jae Bong Chang & Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood, 2007. "How Closely Do Hypothetical Surveys and Laboratory Experiments Predict Field Behavior?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(2), pages 518-534.
    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. Su, Lianfan & Adam, Brian D. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Arthur, Frank, 2017. "Anchoring, Information, and Fragility of Choice Experiments: An Application to Consumer Willingness to Pay for Rice with Improved Storage Management," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 42(2), May.

    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. Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Campbell, Danny, 2014. "Behavioral implications of providing real incentives in stated choice experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 102-116.
    2. Xie, Jing & Gao, Zhifeng & House, Lisa, 2013. "The Puzzle of Valuation Gaps Between Experimental Auction and Real Choice Experiments: Do Purchase Intention and Price Bargaining Preference Matter?," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 151282, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    4. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    5. Christian A. Vossler & Maurice Doyon & Daniel Rondeau, 2012. "Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 145-171, November.
    6. Celine Michaud & Daniel Llerena & Iragael Joly, 2013. "Willingness to pay for environmental attributes of non-food agricultural products: a real choice experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 40(2), pages 313-329, March.
    7. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro, 2015. "Information and visual attention in contingent valuation and choice modeling: field and eye-tracking experiments applied to reforestations in Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 185-204.
    8. Saelensminde, Kjartan, 2006. "Causes and consequences of lexicographic choices in stated choice studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 331-340, September.
    9. Xie, Jing & Gao, Zhifeng, 2013. "The Comparison of three Non-hypothetical Valuation Methods: Choice Experiments, Contingent Valuation, and Experimental Auction," 2013 Annual Meeting, February 2-5, 2013, Orlando, Florida 143103, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    10. Lindhjem, Henrik, 2007. "20 years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: A meta-analysis," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 251-277, February.
    11. Patrick Lloyd-Smith & Ewa Zawojska & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2020. "Moving beyond the Contingent Valuation versus Choice Experiment Debate: Presentation Effects in Stated Preference," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 96(1), pages 1-24.
    12. Gianluca Grilli, 2017. "Renewable energy and willingness to pay: Evidences from a meta-analysis," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2017(1-2), pages 253-271.
    13. Loureiro, Maria L. & Gracia, Azucena & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2013. "Do experimental auction estimates pass the scope test?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 7-17.
    14. Schlapfer, Felix, 2006. "Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 415-429, May.
    15. Feld, Brian & Nagy, AbdelRahman & Osman, Adam, 2022. "What do jobseekers want? Comparing methods to estimate reservation wages and the value of job attributes," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    16. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    17. Kesternich, Iris & Heiss, Florian & McFadden, Daniel & Winter, Joachim, 2013. "Suit the action to the word, the word to the action: Hypothetical choices and real decisions in Medicare Part D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1313-1324.
    18. Samuel D. Bell & Nadia A. Streletskaya, 2019. "The Random Quantity Mechanism: Laboratory and Field Tests of a Novel Cost-Revealing Procurement Mechanism," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(3), pages 899-921, July.
    19. Anabela Botelho & Lina Sofia Lourenço-Gomes & Lígia Costa Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2016. "Accounting for local impacts of photovoltaic farms: two stated preferences approaches," NIMA Working Papers 64, Núcleo de Investigação em Microeconomia Aplicada (NIMA), Universidade do Minho.
    20. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety; Marketing;
    All these keywords.

    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:ags:aaea13:151595. 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: AgEcon Search (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.