Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy

Editor-in-Chief: Ludwig, Sandra / Schmitz, Hendrik

Ed. by Barigozzi, Francesca / Brunner, Johann / Fleck, Robert / Jürges, Hendrik / Mastrobuoni, Giovanni / Mendola, Mariapia / Requate, Till / de Vries, Frans / Wenzel, Tobias


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.520
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.556

CiteScore 2018: 0.54

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.356
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.394

Online
ISSN
1935-1682
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 6, Issue 1

Issues

Volume 6 (2006)

Volume 4 (2004)

Volume 2 (2002)

Volume 1 (2001)

Auction Bids and Shopping Choices

Jayson L Lusk / Ted C. Schroeder
Published Online: 2006-08-07 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2202/1538-0637.1539

Abstract

Economists and marketers are often interested in estimating demand for new products and in valuing other non-market goods. Due to the increasing recognition that elicited valuations are sensitive to whether decisions are hypothetical, economists have begun to utilize incentive compatible mechanisms with real goods and real money. This paper investigates preferences expressed in two of the most popular elicitation formats: experimental auctions and discrete choice experiments. We compare the bidding behavior of consumers in four different incentive compatible auctions to the behavior of consumers who made non-hypothetical discrete choices between five goods. Despite the fact that the choice task and auction mechanisms are incentive compatible, we find that auction bids were significantly lower, as much as two times lower in many cases, than valuations implied from choices. We also find that auction data imply own-price elasticities of demand for higher quality products that are significantly more elastic than those implied from choice data. Nevertheless, for the five goods evaluated, individuals' preference orderings were consistent across value elicitation methods. These findings hold important implications for economists' view of preferences and may provide some insight into retailers' prevalent use of markets with posted-prices: individuals were more willing to part with their cash when making choices versus bids.

Keywords: auction; choice; experiment; pricing; procedural invariance; valuation

About the article

Published Online: 2006-08-07


Citation Information: Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy, Volume 6, Issue 1, ISSN (Online) 1538-0637, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2202/1538-0637.1539.

Export Citation

©2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Tempesta and Vecchiato
Agriculture, 2019, Volume 9, Number 7, Page 154
[3]
Christian Vossler, Maurice Doyon, Daniel Rondeau, and Frédéric Roy-Vigneault
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2010
[4]
Stéphan Marette, Jutta Roosen, and Sandrine Blanchemanche
Food Policy, 2008, Volume 33, Number 3, Page 197
[5]
John Michael Riley, Ted C. Schroeder, Tommy L. Wheeler, Stephen D. Shackelford, and Mohammad Koohmaraie
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 2009, Volume 41, Number 1, Page 163
[6]
John C. Bernard and Na He
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 2010, Volume 39, Number 2, Page 275
[7]
Na He and John C. Bernard
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 2011, Volume 40, Number 2, Page 218
[8]
Chengyan Yue, Charles R. Hall, Bridget K. Behe, Benjamin L. Campbell, Jennifer H. Dennis, and Roberto G. Lopez
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 2010, Volume 42, Number 4, Page 757
[10]
Riccardo Vecchio and Massimiliano Borrello
Food Research International, 2018
[11]
Jerrod M Penn and Wuyang Hu
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2018
[12]
A. Banerji, Shyamal Chowdhury, Hugo De Groote, J. V. Meenakshi, Joyce Haleegoah, and Manfred Ewool
Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, 2017
[13]
Riccardo Vecchio
Food Quality and Preference, 2017, Volume 55, Page 98
[14]
Rungsaran Wongprawmas, Gioacchino Pappalardo, Maurizio Canavari, and Biagio Pecorino
Journal of Food Products Marketing, 2016, Volume 22, Number 6, Page 658
[15]
Roselyne Alphonce and Frode Alfnes
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2017, Volume 68, Number 1, Page 123
[16]
J.V. Meenakshi, A. Banerji, Victor Manyong, Keith Tomlins, Nitya Mittal, and Priscilla Hamukwala
Journal of Health Economics, 2012, Volume 31, Number 1, Page 62
[17]
Mario F. Teisl and Brian E. Roe
Food Policy, 2010, Volume 35, Number 6, Page 521
[18]
Carola Grebitus, Jayson L. Lusk, and Rodolfo M. Nayga
Journal of Economic Psychology, 2013, Volume 36, Page 11
[19]
John C. Bernard and Daria J. Bernard
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2009, Volume 91, Number 3, Page 826
[20]
Jay R. Corrigan, Dinah Pura T. Depositario, Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr, Ximing Wu, and Tiffany P. Laude
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2009, Volume 91, Number 3, Page 837
[21]

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in