Are decisions in a real choice experiment consistent with reservation prices elicited with BDM 'auction'? The case of French baguettes

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 173-180

  Ginon, E ^a,c   Chabanet, C ^a   Combris, P ^b   Issanchou, S ^a  

^a CENTRE DES SCIENCES DU GOÛT ET DE L ALIMENTATION   (France)

^b INRA ALISS   (France)

^c Burgundy School of Business   (France)

Author keywords

Bread; Consistency; Preference maximization; Price minimization; Real choice experiment; Surplus maximization; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

EID: 84885025435     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.08.007     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Alfnes F., Rickertsen K. European consumers' willingness to pay for U.S. beef in experimental auction markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2003, 85(2):396-405.
2. Alfnes F., Rickertsen K. Experimental methods for the elicitation of product value in food marketing research. Primary industries facing global markets: The supply chains and markets for Norwegian food 2006, 268-291. Universitetsforlaget. F. Asche (Ed.).
3. Becker G.M., DeGroot M.H., Marschak J. Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science 1964, 9(1):226-232.
4. Camerer C.F., Hogarth R.M. The effects of financial incentives in experiments: A review and capital-labor-production framework. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1999, 19(1-3):7-42.
5. Combris P., Bazoche P., Giraud-Héraud E., Issanchou S. Food choices: What do we learn from combining sensory and economic experiments?. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20(8):550-557.
6. Ding M., Grewal R., Liechty J. Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Research 2005, 42(1):67-82.
7. Ginon E., Chabanet C., Combris P., Issanchou S. Demand for French baguette: Do BDM mechanism and real choice experiment give similar results?. Cahier du Ceren 2010, 32:47-59.
8. Ginon E., Lohéac Y., Martin C., Combris P., Issanchou S. Effect of fibre information on consumer willingness to pay for French baguettes. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20(5):343-352.
9. Gracia A., Loureiro M.L., Nayga R.M. Consumers' valuation of nutritional information: A choice experiment study. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20(7):463-471.
10. Harrison G.W., Harstad R.M., Rutström E.E. Experimental methods and elicitation of values. Experimental Economics 2004, 7(2):123-140.
11. Helgesen H., Solheim R., Næs T. Consumer purchase probability of dry fermented sausages. Food Quality and Preference 1998, 9(5):295-301.
12. Hoffman E., Dale J.M., Dipankar C., Ray A. Using laboratory experimental auctions in marketing research: a case study of new packaging for fresh beef. Marketing Science 1993, 12(3):318-338.
13. Kaplan S.L. Le retour du bon pain. Une histoire contemporaine du pain, de ses techniques et de ses hommes 2002, Editions Perrin, Paris (FRA).
14. Köster E.P. The psychology of food choice. some often encountered fallacies. Food Quality and Preference 2003, 14(5-6):359-373.
15. Köster E.P., Couronne T., Léon F., Levy C., Marcelino A.S. Repeatability in hedonic sensory measurement: A conceptual exploration. Food Quality and Preference 2003, 14(2):165-176.
16. Kuhfeld W.F. Multinomial logit, discrete choice modeling 2002, SAS Institute, Cary, NC.
17. Lancsar E., Louviere J. Deleting 'irrational' responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?. Health Economics 2006, 15(8):797-811.
18. Lange C., Issanchou S., Combris P. Expected versus experienced quality: Trade-off with price. Food Quality and Preference 2000, 11(4):289-297.
19. Lange C., Martin C., Chabanet C., Combris P., Issanchou S. Impact of the information provided to consumers on their willingness to pay for Champagne: comparison with hedonic scores. Food Quality and Preference 2002, 13(7-8):597-608.
20. Lappalainen R. A pan EU survey of consumer attitudes to food, nutrition and health: An overview. Food Quality and Preference 1998, 9(6):467-478.
21. List J.A., Gallet C.A. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values?. Environmental and Resource Economics 2001, 20(3):241-254.
22. Lusk J.L., Schroeder T.C. Auction bids and shopping choices. Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy 2006, 6(1). Article 4.
23. Lusk J.L., Briggeman B.C. Food values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2009, 91(1):184-196.
24. Lusk J.L., Schroeder T.C. Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2004, 86(2):467-482.
25. Lusk J.L., Shogren J.F. Experimental auctions. Methods and applications in economic and marketing research 2007, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
26. Manly B.F.J. Randomization, bootstrap and Monte Carlo methods in biology 1997, Chapman & Hall, London (UK). 2nd ed.
27. Moskowitz H.R., Chandler J.W. Consumer perceptions, attitudes, and trade-offs regarding flavor and other product characteristics. Food Technology 1978, 32(11):34-37.
28. Noussair C., Robin S., Ruffieux B. A comparison of hedonic rating and demand-revealing auctions. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15(4):393-402.
29. th-price auction. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 2001, 46(4):409-421.
30. van der Pol M., Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to establish consumer preferences for fruit and vegetables. British Food Journal 1996, 98(8):5-12.
31. Vickrey W. Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. Journal of Finance 1961, 16(1):8-37.