Are valuations from nonhypothetical choice experiments different from those of experimental auctions?

American Journal of Agricultural Economics

Volumn 93, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 1358-1373

  Gracia, Azucena ^a   Loureiro, Maria L ^b   Nayga, Rodolfo M ^c  

^a Agrifood Institute of Aragón IA2   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

animal welfare; choice experiment; consumer preferences; experimental auctions; incentive compatibility; nonhypothetical elicitation methods

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL WELFARE; CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 80054909082     PISSN: 00029092     EISSN: 14678276     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ajae/aar054     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Alfnes, F., A. Guttormsen, G. Steine, and K. Kolstad. 2006. Consumers'Willingness to Pay for the Color of Salmon: A Choice Experiment with Real Economic Incentives. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88(4): 1050-1061. (Pubitemid 44575320)
2. Alfnes, F., and K. Rickertsen. 2003. European Consumers'Willingness to Pay for U.S. Beef in Experimental Auction Markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(1): 396-405. (Pubitemid 36624248)
3. Bennet, R. M., and R. J. P. Blaney. 2003. Estimating the Benefits of Farm Animal Welfare Legislation Using the Contingent Valuation Method. Agricultural Economics 29: 85-98. (Pubitemid 36914451)
4. Burton, M., D. Rigby, T. Young, and S. James. 2001. Consumer Attitudes to Genetically Modified Organisms in Food in the UK. European Review of Agricultural Economics 28(4): 479-498.
5. Cameron, T., G. Poe, R. Ethier, and W. Schulze. 2002. Alternative Non-Market Value-Elicitation Methods:Are the Underlying Preferences the Same? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44: 391-425. (Pubitemid 35235476)
6. Carlsson,F.,and P. Martinsson. 2001.DoHypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 41: 179-192.
7. Chang, J., J. Lusk, and F. Norwood. 2009. How Closely Do Hypothetical Surveys and Laboratory Experiments Predict Field Behavior? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91(1): 518-534.
8. Corrigan, J. R., and M. C. Rousu. 2006. The Effect of Initial Endowments in Experimental Auctions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88(1): 448-547.
9. Corrigan, J., D. Depositario, R. Nayga, X.Wu, and T. Laude. 2009. Comparing Open- Ended Choice Experiment and Experimental Auctions: An Application to Golden Rice.American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91(3): 837-853.
10. Ding, M., R. Grewal, and J. Liechty. 2005. Incentive-Aligned Conjoint Analysis. Journal of Marketing Research 42: 67-82. (Pubitemid 40346152)
11. European Commission. 2007. AnimalWelfare. Fact Sheet, March. Brussels.
12. Fox, J., D. Hayes, J. Shogren, and J. Kliebenstein. 1996. Experimental Methods in Consumer Preference Studies. Journal of Food Distribution Research 27(1): 1-7.
13. Horowitz, J. K. 2006. The Becker? DeGroot? Marschak Mechanism Is Not Necessarily Incentive Compatible, even for Non- Random Goods. Economics Letters 93: 6-11. (Pubitemid 44426362)
14. Horowitz, J. K., and K. E. McConnell. 2002. A Review of WTP/WTA Studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44: 426-447.
15. James,S.,and M. Burton. 2003. Consumer Preferences forGMFood and OtherAttributes of the Food System. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 47(4): 501-518. (Pubitemid 38978437)
16. Johansson-Stenman, O., and H. Svedsäter. 2008. Measuring Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments: The Importance of Cognitive Consistency. Berkeley Electronic Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy 8(1), article 41. http://www.bePress. com/bejeap/vol8/iss1/art41 (accessed August 29, 2011).
17. Lagerkvist, C. J., F. Carlsson, and D. Viske. 2006. Swedish Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare and Biotech: A Choice Experiment. AgBio Forum 9(1): 51-58. (Pubitemid 43845607)
18. Lancaster, K. 1966. A New Approach to Consumer Theory. Journal of Political Economy 74: 132-157.
19. Lange, A., and A. Ratan. 2010. Multidimensional Reference-Dependent Preferencesin Sealed Bid Auctions: How (Most) Lab Experiments Differ from the Field. Games and Economic Behaviour 68(1): 634-645.
20. Liljenstolpe, C. 2008. Evaluating Animal Welfare with Choice Experiments: An Application to Swedish Pig Production. Agribusiness 24: 67-84.
21. List, J. A. 2003. Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies? Quarterly Journal of Economics 118: 41-71. (Pubitemid 36263881)
22. List, J. A., and C. A. Gallet. 2001.What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values? Environmental and Resources Economics 20: 241-254. (Pubitemid 34001917)
23. Little, J., and R. Berrens. 2004. Explaining Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical StatedValues: Further Investigation Using Meta-analysis. Economics Bulletin 3: 1-13.
24. Loomis, J., P. Bell, H. Cooney, and C. Asmus. 2009.A Comparison of Actual and HypotheticalWillingness to Pay of Parents and Non-Parents for Protecting Infant Health: The Case of Nitrates in Drinking Water. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 41(3): 697-712.
25. Loureiro, M. L., and W. J. Umberger. 2006. A Choice Experiment Model for Beef:What US Consumer Responses Tell Us about Relative Preferences for Food Safety, Country-of-Origin Labeling and Traceability. Food Policy 32(4): 496-514. (Pubitemid 46567673)
26. Lusk, J., T. Feldkamp, and T. Schroeder. 2004. ExperimentalAuctions Procedure: Impact on Valuation of Quality Differentiated Goods. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86(1): 389-405. (Pubitemid 38546642)
27. Lusk, J., D. Fields, and W. Prevett. 2008. An Incentive Compatible Conjoint Ranking Mechanism. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90(1): 487-498. (Pubitemid 351524221)
28. Lusk,J.,J. Roosen,and J. Fox. 2003.Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(1): 16-29. (Pubitemid 36234633)
29. Lusk, J. L., and T. C. Schroeder. 2004. Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86(1): 467-482. (Pubitemid 38546647)
30. -2006. Auction Bids and Shopping Choices. Advances in Economics Analysis and Policy 6(1), art. 4.
31. Nocella, G., L. Hubbard, and R. Scarpa. 2010. Farm Animal Welfare, Consumers Willing to Pay and Trust: Results of a Cross-National Survey. Applied Economics Perspectives and Policies 32(1): 275-297.
32. Plott, C. R., and K. Zeiler. 2005. The Willingness to Pay-Willingness to Accept Gap, the Endowment Effect, Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations. American Economic Review 95(3): 530-545. (Pubitemid 43104402)
33. Shogren, J., M. Margolis, C. Koo, and A. List. 2001. A Random nth-Price Auction. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 46: 409-421.
34. Street,D., and L. Burgess. 2007. The Construction of Optimal Stated Choice Experiments. Hoboken, NJ: JohnWiley & Sons Inc.
35. Train, K. 2003. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge, UK: University Press.
36. Volinsky, D.,W. Adamowicz, M. Veeman, and L. Srivastava. 2009. Does Choice Context Affect the Results from Incentive- Compatible Experiments? The Case of Non-GM and Country-of-Origin Premia in Canola Oil. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 57: 205-221