Abstract
Experimental methods are currently being extensively used to elicit subjective values for commodities and projects. Three methodological problems are not systematically addressed in this emerging literature. The first is the potential for laboratory responses to be censored by field opportunities, so that lab responses can be confounded by uncontrolled knowledge of the field; the second is the potential for subjective perceptions about field opportunities, and hence valuation responses, to be affected by the institution used to elicit values; and the third is the potential for some elicitation institutions to influence subjective perceptions of characteristics of the commodity or project being valued, and hence change the very commodity being valued. All three problems result in potential loss of control over the value elicitation process. For example, we show that censoring affects conclusions drawn in a major study of beef packaging valuation. We derive implications for experimental designs that minimize the potential effect of these methodological problems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ausubel, L.M. (2002). “An Efficient Ascending-Bid Auction for Multiple Objects.” Working Paper No. 97-06, University of Maryland, American Economic Review (forthcoming).
Blackburn, M., Harrison, G.W., and Rutström, E.E. (1994). “Statistical Bias Functions and Informative Hypothetical Surveys.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 76, 1084–1088.
Cherry, T.L., Frykblom, P., List, J.A., Shogren, J.F., andWilliams, M.B. (2001). “Laboratory Testbeds and Nonmarket Valuation: The Case of Bidding Behavior in a Second-Price Auction with an Outside Option.” Unpublished Manuscript, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
Coller, M. and Williams, M.B. (1999). “Eliciting Individual Discount Rates.” Experimental Economics. 2, 107–127.
Cummings, R.G. and Harrison, G.W. (1994). “Was the Ohio Court Well Informed in Their Assessment of the Accuracy of the Contingent Valuation Method?” Natural Resources Journal. 34(1), 1–36.
Cummings, R.G., Harrison, G.W., and Rutström, E.E. (1995). “Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive Compatible?” American Economic Review. 85(1), 260–266.
Davis, D.D. and Holt, C.A. (1993). Experimental Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Friedman, D. and Sunder, S. (1994). Experimental Methods: A Primer for Economists. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Harrison, G.W., Lau, M.I., and Williams, M.B. (2002). “Estimating Individual Discount Rates for Denmark: A Field Experiment.” American Economic Review. 92(5), 1606–1617.
Harstad, R.M. (2000) “Dominant Strategy Adoption and Bidders' Experience with Pricing Rules.” Experimental Economics. 3(3), 261–280.
Hayes, D.J., Shogren, J., Shin, S.Y., and Kliebenstein, J.B. (1995) “Valuing Food Safety in Experimental Auction Markets.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 77, 40–53.
Hey, J.D. (1991). Experiments in Economics. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell.
Hoffman, E., Menkhaus, D.J., Chakravarti, D., Field, R.A., and Whipple, G.D. (1993). “Using Laboratory Experimental Auctions in Marketing Research: A Case Study of New Packaging for Fresh Beef.” Marketing Science. 12(3), 318–338.
Holt, C.A. and Laury, S.K. (2002). “Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects.” American Economic Review. 92(5), 1644–1655.
Kagel, J.H., Harstad, R.M., and Levin, D. (1987). “Information Impact and Allocation Rules in Auctions with Affiliated Private Values: A Laboratory Study.” Econometrica. 55, 1275–1304.
Kagel, J.H. and Roth, A.E. (eds.). (1995) The Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kirchkamp, O. and Moldovanu, B. (2001). “An Experimental Analysis of Auctions with Interdependent Valuations.” Working Paper. Department of Economics, Mannheim University, Games and Economic Behavior (forthcoming).
Menkhaus, D.J., Borden, G.W., Whipple, G.D., Hoffman, E., and Field, R.A. (1992). “An Empirical Application of Laboratory Experimental Auctions in Marketing Research.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics. 17(1), 44–55.
Neill, H.R., Cummings, R.G., Ganderton, P.T., Harrison, G.W., and McGuckin, T. (1994). “Hypothetical Surveys and Real Economic Commitments.” Land Economics. 70(2), 145–154.
Rutström, E.E. (1998). “Home-Grown Values and the Design of Incentive Compatible Auctions.” International Journal of Game Theory. 27(3), 427–441.
Schmitz, J.D., Menkhaus, D.J., Whipple, G.D., Hoffman, E., and Field, R.A. (1993). “Impact of Changing Consumer Preferences On Willingness-to-Pay for Beef Steaks In Alternative Retail Packaging.” Journal of Food Distribution Research. 24, 23–35.
Smith, V.L. (1982). “Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science.” American Economic Review. 72(5), 923–955.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Harrison, G.W., Harstad, R.M. & Rutström, E.E. Experimental Methods and Elicitation of Values. Experimental Economics 7, 123–140 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EXEC.0000026975.48587.f0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EXEC.0000026975.48587.f0