scholarly journals Bidding behavior in auctions versus posted prices: comparisons of mean and marginal effects

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
Shang Wu ◽  
Jacob R. Fooks ◽  
Tongzhe Li ◽  
Kent D. Messer ◽  
Deborah A. Delaney
Keyword(s):  
Willingness To Pay ◽  
Field Experiment ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Price Mechanism ◽  
Preference Change ◽  
Bidding Behavior ◽  
Incentive Compatible ◽  
Marginal Effects ◽  
Posted Prices ◽  
Posted Price

Abstract Economic experiments have been widely used to elicit individuals' evaluation for various commodities. Common elicitation methods include auction and posted price mechanisms. A field experiment is designed to compare willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimates between these two mechanisms. Despite both of these formats being theoretically incentive compatible and demand revealing, results from 115 adult consumers indicate that WTP estimates obtained from an auction are 32–39 percent smaller than those from a posted price mechanism. A comparison in statistical significance shows that auctions require a smaller sample size than posted price mechanisms in order to detect the same preference change. Nevertheless, the signs of marginal effects for different product characteristics are consistent in both mechanisms.

scholarly journals Metascience on Peer Review: Testing the Effects of a Study’s Originality and Statistical Significance in a Field Experiment

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malte Elson ◽  
Markus Huff ◽  
Sonja Utz
Keyword(s):  
Field Experiment ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Selection Method ◽  
Psychological Theories ◽  
Peer Reviewers

Peer review has become the gold standard in scientific publishing as a selection method and a refinement scheme for research reports. However, despite its pervasiveness and conferred importance, relatively little empirical research has been conducted to document its effectiveness. Further, there is evidence that factors other than a submission’s merits can substantially influence peer reviewers’ evaluations. We report the results of a metascientific field experiment on the effect of the originality of a study and the statistical significance of its primary outcome on reviewers’ evaluations. The general aim of this experiment, which was carried out in the peer-review process for a conference, was to demonstrate the feasibility and value of metascientific experiments on the peer-review process and thereby encourage research that will lead to understanding its mechanisms and determinants, effectively contextualizing it in psychological theories of various biases, and developing practical procedures to increase its utility.

A Note on the Multidimensional Monopolist Problem and Intertemporal Price Discrimination

2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariano G Runco
Keyword(s):  
Price Discrimination ◽  
Price Strategy ◽  
Incentive Compatible ◽  
Step Functions ◽  
Intertemporal Price Discrimination ◽  
Ex Ante ◽  
Posted Prices ◽  
Price Discriminate ◽  
Heterogeneous Consumers ◽  
Over Time

This note analyzes a model of a monopolist selling multiple goods to a continuum of heterogeneous consumers. The implementation of Direct Revelation Mechanisms is analyzed in that setting, finding that it is possible for the monopolist to implement all Stochastic Incentive Compatible Mechanisms by committing to post a decreasing sequence of prices. The posted prices depend on time and have the desirable property of being step functions. When the optimal mechanisms are stochastic, it is optimal for the monopolist to price discriminate over time, contrary to the conventional wisdom that a single-good monopolist committed to an ex-ante price strategy will not price discriminate.

scholarly journals Incentive Compatible Referenda and the Valuation of Environmental Goods

1998 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 132-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura O. Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Willingness To Pay ◽  
Contingent Valuation ◽  
Contingent Valuation Method ◽  
Experimental Tests ◽  
Choice Experiments ◽  
Hypothetical Bias ◽  
The Real ◽  
Environmental Goods ◽  
Incentive Compatible ◽  
Valuation Method

Recent attempts to test the validity of the contingent valuation method have relied on laboratory-type experiments. In these experiments, willingness to pay responses in hypothetical choice experiments are compared with responses from choice experiments requiring actual payments. Often evidence of hypothetical bias is found. Critical for these experimental tests of hypothetical surveys is that the methodology used to elicit willingness to pay from subjects in the real-payment experiment be demand revealing. If it is not, then differences in responses to hypothetical and real valuation questions could be due to free-riding in the real-payment survey and not due to hypothetical bias in the hypothetical survey. This paper reports on experiments that implement a theoretically incentive-compatible revelation mechanism (a closed referendum) to elicit responses to valuation questions in both hypothetical and real experiments. As in earlier studies, evidence of an upward hypothetical bias is found.

scholarly journals Is Informal Redistribution Costly? Evidence from a Lab-in-the-Field Experiment in Senegal

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S72-S78
Author(s):  
Marie Boltz ◽  
Karine Marazyan ◽  
Paola Villar
Keyword(s):  
Social Networks ◽  
Resource Allocation ◽  
Willingness To Pay ◽  
Field Experiment ◽  
Extended Family ◽  
Social Pressure ◽  
Sub Saharan Africa ◽  
Sub Saharan ◽  
Allocation Decisions ◽  
Resource Allocation Decisions

Abstract In Sub-Saharan Africa, individuals frequently transfer a substantial share of their resources to members of their social networks. Social pressure to redistribute, however, can induce disincentive effects on resource allocation decisions. This paper measures and characterizes the costs of redistributive pressure by estimating individuals’ willingness to pay (WTP) to hide their income. The study estimates a social tax due to informal redistribution of 10 percent. Moreover, it shows that individuals are willing to escape from the redistributive pressure exerted mainly by extended family members.

scholarly journals An Experimental Investigation of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Non-GM Foods When an Organic Option Is Present

2006 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 374-385 ◽  
Author(s):  
John C. Bernard ◽  
Chao Zhang ◽  
Katie Gifford
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Investigation ◽  
Willingness To Pay ◽  
Regression Model ◽  
Tobit Regression ◽  
Milk Chocolate ◽  
Gm Foods ◽  
Consumer Demographics ◽  
Tortilla Chips ◽  
Marginal Effects ◽  
Tobit Regression Model

This research compared bids that consumers placed on non genetically modified (GM), organic, and conventional versions of food products in order to determine if the organic market well serves those seeking to avoid GM foods. Auction experiments using potato chips, tortilla chips, and milk chocolate were conducted with 79 subjects. Bids were modeled as a function of consumer demographics using a heteroskedastic tobit regression model. Results with the non-GM attribute nested into the organic characteristic showed that the latter's marginal effects were insignificant. This suggested the potential to further develop non-GM products for consumers not willing to pay extra for the remaining organic attributes.

scholarly journals Consumer Perception of Skinning Injury in Sweetpotatoes and Implications for Marketability: An Experimental Auction

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 468-475
Author(s):  
Alba J. Collart ◽  
Stephen L. Meyers ◽  
Jason K. Ward
Keyword(s):  
Image Analysis ◽  
Willingness To Pay ◽  
Ipomoea Batatas ◽  
Consumer Perception ◽  
Experimental Auction ◽  
Storage Roots ◽  
Incentive Compatible ◽  
Price Premiums

Skinning of sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas) storage roots is one of the greatest concerns of sweetpotato producers. Although skinning injury is very common, the severity of the injury can vary widely. At an undefined threshold, sweetpotatoes with skinning injury are no longer sold for fresh consumption. The objectives of this study were to examine how skinning injury influences consumers’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) for sweetpotatoes and to identify differences in valuations when the extent of skinning injury is labeled. Image analysis was used to quantify skinning injury and then an incentive-compatible, nonhypothetical laboratory experimental auction was conducted to collect data on consumers’ WTP for five categories of sweetpotatoes: 0% to <1% skinning injury, 1.0% to 3.0%, 3.1% to 5.0%, 5.1% to 7.5%, and 7.6% to 10.0%. On average, consumers were willing to pay the most for sweetpotatoes with 0% to <1% skinning injury (up to $1.51/lb to $1.67/lb) and the least for sweetpotatoes with 7.6% to 10% (up to $0.76/lb to $0.85/lb), yet mean WTP values were nonzero for all skinning levels. Moreover, when the extent of skinning was labeled (relative to when they bid blindly), consumers were willing to pay price premiums for sweetpotatoes with low skinning injury levels (0% to 5%) and discounted sweetpotatoes with the highest skinning injury level (7.6% to 10.0%), suggesting that skinning levels of 7.6% and above may not be acceptable by consumers.

scholarly journals Metascience on Peer Review: Testing the Effects of a Study’s Originality and Statistical Significance in a Field Experiment

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malte Elson ◽  
Markus Huff ◽  
Sonja Utz
Keyword(s):  
Field Experiment ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Selection Method ◽  
Psychological Theories ◽  
Peer Reviewers

Peer review has become the gold standard in scientific publishing as a selection method and a refinement scheme for research reports. However, despite its pervasiveness and conferred importance, relatively little empirical research has been conducted to document its effectiveness. Further, there is evidence that factors other than a submission’s merits can substantially influence peer reviewers’ evaluations. We report the results of a metascientific field experiment on the effect of the originality of a study and the statistical significance of its primary outcome on reviewers’ evaluations. The general aim of this experiment, which was carried out in the peer-review process for a conference, was to demonstrate the feasibility and value of metascientific experiments on the peer-review process and thereby encourage research that will lead to understanding its mechanisms and determinants, effectively contextualizing it in psychological theories of various biases, and developing practical procedures to increase its utility.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document