Morone, Andrea (2009): On Price Data Elicitation: a Laboratory Investigation.
Download (189kB) | Preview
There is abundant literature in experimental research on decision making under risk, which compares, and ranks subjects’ preferences on the basis of some elicitation method. The present paper performs a similar analysis in order to compare them. Since pricing data lead in many cases to some anomalies (i.e. status quo bias endowment effect) we examine three mechanisms to elicit price preferences: willingness-to-pay in a second price auction, willingness-to-accept in a second price auction, and certainty equivalent elicited with BDM. A Bayesian interpretation of our results suggests that it is not possible to state ex-ante the more appropriate elicitation method for a particular subject: for 1/3 of our sample WTP is preferred for 1/3 of our sample WTA is preferred and for the remaining 1/3 BDM is preferred.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||On Price Data Elicitation: a Laboratory Investigation|
|Keywords:||willingness-to-pay; willingness-to-accept; BDM; second price auction|
|Subjects:||D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty > D81 - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty|
|Depositing User:||Andrea Morone|
|Date Deposited:||04. Nov 2009 19:01|
|Last Modified:||13. Feb 2013 02:31|
Anderson, L.R., and J.M. Mellor (2009), “Are Risk Preferences Stable? Comparing an Experimental Measure with a Validated Survey-Based Measure”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 39, 137-160.
Baltussen, G., T. Post, M.J. van den Assem, and P.P. Wakker (2009), “Random Incentive Systems in a Dynamic Choice Experiment, Working Paper, Erasmus University of Rotterdam.
Beattie, J., and G. Loomes (1997), “The Impact of Incentives upon Risky Choice”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14, 155–168.
Berg, J., J. Dickhaut, and K. McCabe (2005), “Risk Preference Instability across Institutions: A Dilemma”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 201, 4209–4214.
Coppinger, V.M., V.L. Smith, and J.A. Titus (1980), “Incentives and Behavior in English, Dutch and Sealed-Bid Auctions”, Economic Inquiry, 18, 1–22.
Cox J., B. Roberson, and V.L. Smith (1982), “Theory and Behavior of Single Object Auctions”, in V.L. Smith (ed.), Research in Experimental Economics, Vol. 2, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Coursey, D.L., J.L. Hovis, and W.D. Schulze (1987), “The Disparity between Willingness to Accept and Willingness to Pay Measures of Value”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 102, 679-690.
Cubitt, R.P., C. Starmer, and R. Sugden (1998), “On the Validity of the Random Lottery Incentive System,” Experimental Economics, 1, 115–131.
Harrison, G.W. (1990), ‘‘Risk Attitudes in First-Price Auction Experiments: A Bayesian Analysis,’’ Review of Economics and Statistics, 72, 541-546.
Hey J. D. and Lee J., “Do Subjects Separate (or Are They Sophisticated)?” Experimental Economics, 8, 233-265.
Hey, J.D., and C.D. Orme (1994), “Investigating Generalisations of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data”, Econometrica, 62, 1291-1326.
Isaac, R.M., and D. James (2000), “Just Who Are You Calling Risk Averse?”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 20, 177–187.
Isaac, R.M., and J.M. Walker (1985), ‘‘Information and Conspiracy in Sealed Bid Auctions,’’ Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 6, 139-159.
Knetsch, J.L. and J.A. Sinden (1984), “Willingness to Pay and Compensation Demanded: Experimental Evidence of an Unexpected Disparity in Measures of Value”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 99, 507-521.
Knetsch, J.L. and J.A. Sinden (1987), “The Persistence of Evaluation Disparities”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 102, 691-695.
Laury, S.K. (2005), “Pay One or Pay All: Random Selection of One Choice for Payment,” Working Paper 06-13, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
Lichtenstein, S., and P. Slovic (1971), “Reversals of Preferences Between Bids and Choices in Gambling Decisions”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89, 46-55.
Morone, A., (2008), “Comparison of Mean-Variance Theory and Expected-Utility Theory through a Laboratory Experiment”, Economics Bulletin, vol. 3(40), pages 1-7.
Morone, A., and U., Schmidt (2008), “An Experimental Investigation of Alternatives to Expected Utility Using Pricing Data”, Economics Bulletin, vol. 4(20), pages 1-12
Poulton (1989), Bias in Quantifying Judgements. Erlbaum, Hove.
Samuelson, W., and R. J. Zeckhauser (1988), “Status quo bias in decision making”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, pp. 7-59.
Starmer, C. (2000), “Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk”, Journal of Economic Literature, 38, 332–382.
Starmer, C., and R. Sugden (1991), “Does the Random Lottery Incentive System Elicit True Preferences? An Experimental Investigation,” American Economic Review, 81, 971-978.
Tversky, A., S. Sattath, and P. Slovic. (1988), “Contingent Weighting in Judgment and Choice”, Psychological Review, 95, 371–384.
Wilcox, N. T. (2009), “‘Stochastically More Risk Averse:’ A Contextual Theory of Stochastic Discrete Choice under Risk, Journal of Econometrics, forthcoming.
Wu, G. (1994), “An Empirical Test of Ordinal Independence”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 9, 39-60.