[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eejocm/v20y2016icp73-85.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of incentives on preference revelations in auctions versus rankings

Author

Listed:
  • Kassas, Bachir
  • Palma, Marco A.
  • Zhang, Yvette
Abstract
The literature carries an extensive account of discrepancies in preference parameter estimates across different value elicitation methods. This study provides a detailed analysis of the effect of incentive compatibility on discrepancies in reported preferences. Specifically, we construct several partial ranking models (for best and worst alternatives) and conduct various statistical tests to determine where, how, and why discrepancies occur between an incentive compatible auction and a non-incentive compatible ranking task. While most previous comparisons were done using consumer valuation, this study uses preference orderings to provide a more robust comparison. For this purpose, the bids reported under the auction exercise were recoded as implied ranks. Our results highlight the importance of different incentive structures on the way people report their preferences in the presence and absence of incentive compatibility. In general, individuals were following different behavioral rules to evaluate the alternatives under the two elicitation mechanisms. However, preference parameter estimates for the best and worst alternatives seem to be more immune, although for different reasons, to the effect of different incentive structures than for middle ranked alternatives. This suggests that incentive compatibility and incentive structure should not be ignored when the analysis of preferences over the middle ranked alternatives is desired.

Suggested Citation

  • Kassas, Bachir & Palma, Marco A. & Zhang, Yvette, 2016. "The role of incentives on preference revelations in auctions versus rankings," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 73-85.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:20:y:2016:i:c:p:73-85
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2016.10.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534515301044
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jocm.2016.10.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shogren, Jason F. & Margolis, Michael & Koo, Cannon & List, John A., 2001. "A random nth-price auction," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 409-421, December.
    2. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1983. "Regret theory and measurable utility," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 19-21.
    3. Lusk, Jayson L., 2003. "Using Experimental Auctions for Marketing Applications: A Discussion," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(2), pages 349-360, August.
    4. Kagel, John H & Levin, Dan, 1993. "Independent Private Value Auctions: Bidder Behaviour in First-, Second- and Third-Price Auctions with Varying Numbers of Bidders," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 103(419), pages 868-879, July.
    5. Sarah Lichtenstein & Paul Slovic, 1973. "Response-induced reversals of preference in gambling: An extended replication in las vegas," Framed Field Experiments 00169, The Field Experiments Website.
    6. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    7. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
    8. Richard T. Carson & Theodore Groves & John A. List, 2014. "Consequentiality: A Theoretical and Experimental Exploration of a Single Binary Choice," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 171-207.
    9. Su, Lianfan & Adam, Brian D. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Arthur, Frank, 2011. "A Comparison of Auction and Choice Experiment: An Application to Consumer Willingness to Pay for Rice with Improved Storage Management," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103975, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. William Vickrey, 1961. "Counterspeculation, Auctions, And Competitive Sealed Tenders," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 16(1), pages 8-37, March.
    11. Grether, David M & Plott, Charles R, 1979. "Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 623-638, September.
    12. McAdams, Callie & Palma, Marco A. & Hall, Charles & Ishdorj, Ariun, 2013. "A Nonhypothetical Ranking and Auction Mechanism for Novel Products," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 45(1), pages 35-52, February.
    13. Berg, Joyce E. & Dickhaut, John W. & Rietz, Thomas A., 2010. "Preference reversals: The impact of truth-revealing monetary incentives," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 443-468, March.
    14. Corrigan, Jay R. & Depositario, Dinah Pura T. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr. & Wu, Ximing, 2008. "AJAE Appendix for “Comparing Open-Ended Choice Experiments and Experimental Auctions: An Application to Golden Rice”," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(3), pages 1-23, December.
    15. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    16. repec:ken:wpaper:0901 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Tversky, Amos & Slovic, Paul & Kahneman, Daniel, 1990. "The Causes of Preference Reversal," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 204-217, March.
    18. Charles R. Plott & Kathryn Zeiler, 2005. "The Willingness to Pay–Willingness to Accept Gap, the "Endowment Effect," Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 530-545, June.
    19. Glenn W. Harrison, 2014. "Real choices and hypothetical choices," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 10, pages 236-254, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Satterthwaite, Mark Allen, 1975. "Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 187-217, April.
    21. Tversky, Amos & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Anomalies: Preference Reversals," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 201-211, Spring.
    22. Alejandro Caparrós & José L. Oviedo & Pablo Campos, 2008. "Would You Choose Your Preferred Option? Comparing Choice and Recoded Ranking Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(3), pages 843-855.
    23. Elena Katok & Alvin E. Roth, 2004. "Auctions of Homogeneous Goods with Increasing Returns: Experimental Comparison of Alternative "Dutch" Auctions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(8), pages 1044-1063, August.
    24. Lusk Jayson L & Schroeder Ted C., 2006. "Auction Bids and Shopping Choices," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-39, August.
    25. Glenn Harrison & Elisabet Rutström, 2006. "Eliciting Subjective Beliefs about Mortality Risk Orderings," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 33(3), pages 325-346, March.
    26. Kevin J. Boyle & Thomas P. Holmes & Mario F. Teisl & Brian Roe, 2001. "A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(2), pages 441-454.
    27. David A. Hensher & Chinh Ho, 2016. "Identifying a behaviourally relevant choice set from stated choice data," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 197-217, March.
    28. Tjur, Tue, 2009. "Coefficients of Determination in Logistic Regression Models—A New Proposal: The Coefficient of Discrimination," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 63(4), pages 366-372.
    29. Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July.
    30. Holt, Charles A, 1986. "Preference Reversals and the Independence Axiom," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(3), pages 508-515, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pulkit Marwah & Yu Yvette Zhang & Mengmeng Gu, 2022. "Impacts of Crapemyrtle Bark Scale on Consumers and the Horticulture Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-11, February.
    2. Zhai, Qianqian & Kassas, Bachir & Zhao, Shuoli & Chen, Lijun & Chen, Chao, 2020. "Investigating Preference Inconsistencies in Incentive Structures that Account for House Money Effects," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304584, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Sarah N. Gatson & Marissa Cisneros & Robert Brown & Jacqueline A. Aitkenhead-Peterson & Yu Yvette Zhang, 2022. "Urban Networks, Micro-agriculture, and Community Food Security," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 1253-1265, September.
    4. Oghenovo A. Obrimah, 2023. "Underpricing of initial public offerings (IPOs) and the credibility of underwriters’ pricing services," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 1-33, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rosato, Antonio & Tymula, Agnieszka A., 2024. "A novel experimental test of truthful bidding in second-price auctions with real objects," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    2. Levan Elbakidze & Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr. & Hao Li & Chris McIntosh, 2014. "Value elicitation for multiple quantities of a quasi-public good using open ended choice experiments and uniform price auctions," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(2), pages 253-265, March.
    3. Braga, Jacinto & Humphrey, Steven J. & Starmer, Chris, 2009. "Market experience eliminates some anomalies--and creates new ones," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 401-416, May.
    4. Kim, Younjun, 2015. "Essays on firm location decisions, regional development and choices under risk," ISU General Staff Papers 201501010800005579, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    5. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Pappa, Valentina, 2016. "Elicitation formats and the WTA/WTP gap: A study of climate neutral foods," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 141-155.
    6. Guo, Liang, 2021. "Contextual deliberation and the choice-valuation preference reversal," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    7. Cerroni, S. & Watson, V. & Macdiarmid, J., 2018. "Preferences for healthy and environmentally sustainable food: Combining induced-value and home-grown experiments," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277155, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Holger Müller & Eike Benjamin Kroll & Bodo Vogt, 2010. "When Judgments and Preferences Fail to Conform: Research on Preference Reversals for Product Purchases," FEMM Working Papers 100003, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    9. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    10. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2018. "Incentives," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2018-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    11. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Vassilopoulos, Achilleas & Lusk, Jayson L. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr., 2015. "Reference dependence, consequentiality and social desirability in value elicitation: A study of fair labor labeling," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202705, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Bernard Ruffieux & Anne Rozan & Stéphane Robin, 2008. "Mesurer les préférences du consommateur pour orienter les décisions des pouvoirs publics : l'apport de la méthode expérimentale," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 182(1), pages 113-127.
    13. Takehito Masuda & Ryo Mikami & Toyotaka Sakai & Shigehiro Serizawa & Takuma Wakayama, 2022. "The net effect of advice on strategy-proof mechanisms: an experiment for the Vickrey auction," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(3), pages 902-941, June.
    14. Berg, Joyce E. & Dickhaut, John W. & Rietz, Thomas A., 2010. "Preference reversals: The impact of truth-revealing monetary incentives," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 443-468, March.
    15. Takehito Masuda & Ryo Mikami & Toyotaka Sakai & Shigehiro Serizawa & Takuma Wakayama, 2020. "The net effect of advice on strategy-proof mechanisms: An experiment for the Vickrey auction," ISER Discussion Paper 1109, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    16. Maurizio Canavari & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2018. "How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances," Working Papers 2018-5, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    17. Yangui, Ahmed & Akaichi, Faical & Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, Jose Maria, 2019. "Comparing results of ranking conjoint analyses, best–worst scaling and discrete choice experiments in a nonhypothetical context," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(2), April.
    18. Ozlem Ozdemir & Andrea Morone, 2014. "An experimental investigation of insurance decisions in low probability and high loss risk situations," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 9(1), pages 53-67, April.
    19. Christopher Y. Olivola & Stephanie W. Wang, 2016. "Patience auctions: the impact of time vs. money bidding on elicited discount rates," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(4), pages 864-885, December.
    20. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Vassilopoulos, Achilleas & Lusk, Jayson & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2015. "Fair farming: Preferences for fair labor certification using four elicitation methods," MPRA Paper 62546, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    D12; Incentive compatibility; Preference discrepancies; Ordinal data; Auction; Ranking;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:20:y:2016:i:c:p:73-85. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-choice-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.