Agric. Econ. - Czech, 2015, 61(10):484-491 | DOI: 10.17221/247/2014-AGRICECON

The role of participants' competitiveness in consumers' valuation for food products using experimental auctionsOriginal Paper

Azucena GRACIA, Tiziana DE-MAGISTRIS
Unidad de Economía Agroalimentaria. Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria de Aragón (CITA), Gobierno de Aragón, Zaragoza, España Instituto Agroalimentario de Aragón - IA2 (CITA-Universidad de Zaragoza), Zaragoza, España

The aim of the paper is to assess the effect of the participants' competitiveness on their valuation for food products. Specifically, to investigate the effect of the participants' competitiveness on their bids in a non-hypothetical experimental auction. Then, we designed an experimental auction to measure the consumers' preferences for food products with two treatments. Both treatments had all the same designed characteristics except that in the second treatment, the participants who reported the highest levels of competitiveness were not allowed to participate in the auction. Then, we could directly compare bids from the participants with two different levels of competitiveness (higher competitiveness and lower competitiveness). Because the bids from the two treatments were found statistically the same, we can conclude that the consumer's valuation for food products using the non-hypothetical experimental auctions are independent on the level of the participants' competitiveness.

Keywords: bids, lamb meat, Spain

Published: October 31, 2015  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
GRACIA A, DE-MAGISTRIS T. The role of participants' competitiveness in consumers' valuation for food products using experimental auctions. Agric. Econ. - Czech. 2015;61(10):484-491. doi: 10.17221/247/2014-AGRICECON.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Akaichi F., Gil J.M., Nayga R.M. (2012): Assessing the market potential for a local food product: Evidence form a non-hypothetical economic experiment. British Food Journal, 114: 19-39. Go to original source...
    2. Alfnes F. (2009). Valuing product attributes in Vickrey auctions when market substitutes are available. European Review of Agricultural Economics 36: 133-149. Go to original source...
    3. Alfnes F., Rickertsen K. (2003): European consumers' willingness to pay for U.S. beef in experimental auction market. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2: 396-405. Go to original source...
    4. Alfnes F., Rickertsen K. (2011): Non-market valuation: experimental methods. In: Roosen J., Lusk J., Shogren J. (eds): The Economics of Food Consumption and Policy. The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Food Consumption and Policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford: 215-242. Go to original source...
    5. Alfnes F., Rickertsen K., Ueland O. (2008): Consumer attitudes toward low stake risk in food markets. Applied Economics, 40: 3039-3049. Go to original source...
    6. Baltagi B.H. (2003): Econometric Analysis of Panel Data. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
    7. Bernard J.C., Bernard D.J. (2009): What is it about organic milk? An experimental analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91: 826-836. Go to original source...
    8. Bernard J.C., Bernard D.J. (2010): Comparing parts with the whole: willingness to pay for pesticide-free, nonGM, and organic potatoes and sweet corn. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 35: 457-475.
    9. Brown S.P., Peterson R.A. (1994): The effect of effort on sale performance and job satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 58: 70-80. Go to original source...
    10. Brown S.P., Cron W.L., Slocum J.W. (1998): Effects of trait competitiveness and perceived intraorganizational competition on salesperson goal setting and performance. Journal of Marketing, 62: 88-98. Go to original source...
    11. Colson G., Huffman W.E. (2011): Consumers' willingness to pay for genetically modified foods with productenhancing nutritional attributes. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93: 358-363. Go to original source...
    12. Colson G.J., Huffman W.E., Rousu M.C. (2011): Improving the nutrient content of food through genetic modification: evidence from experimental auctions on consumer acceptance. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 36: 343-364.
    13. Corrigan J.R., Rousu M.C. (2006): Posted prices and bid affiliation: Evidence from experimental auctions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88: 1078-1090. Go to original source...
    14. Corrigan J.R., Rousu M.C. (2008): Testing whether field auction experiments are demand revealing in practice. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 33: 290-301.
    15. Cox J.C., Grether D.M. (1996): The preference reversal phenomenon: response mode markets and incentives. Economic Theory, 7: C381-C405. Go to original source...
    16. Costanigro M., Kroll S., Thilmany D., Bunning M. (2014): Is it love for local/organic or hate for conventional? Asymmetric effects of information and taste on label preferences in an experimental auction. Food Quality and Preference, 31: 94-105. Go to original source...
    17. De Groote H., Kimenju S.Ch., Morawetz U.B. (2011): Estimating consumer willingness to pay for food quality with experimental auctions: the case of yellow versus fortified maize meal in Kenya. Agricultural Economics, 42: 1-16. Go to original source...
    18. De Steur H., Gellynck X., Feng S., Rutsaert P., Verbeke W. (2012): Determinants of willingness-to-pay for GM rice with health benefits in a high-risk region: Evidence from experimental auctions for folate biofortified rice in China. Food Quality and Preference, 25: 87-94. Go to original source...
    19. Drukker D.M. (2003): Testing for serial correlation in linear panel-data models. STATA, 3: 168-177. Go to original source...
    20. Froehlich E.J., Carlberg J.G., Ward C.E. (2009): Willingnessto-pay for fresh brand name beef. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57: 119-137. Go to original source...
    21. Harrison G.W. (2006): Experimental evidence on alternative environmental valuation methods. Environmental and Resource Economics, 36: 125-162. Go to original source...
    22. Harrison G.W., Harstad R.M., Rutstroöm E.E. (2004): Experimental methods and elicitation of values. Experimental Economics, 7: 123-140. Go to original source...
    23. Helmreich R.L., Spence J.T. (1978): The work and family orientation questionnaire. An objective instruments to assess components of achievement motivation and attitudes towards family and carreer. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 8 (35).
    24. Hoechle D. (2007): Robust standard errors for panel regressions with cross-sectional dependence. STATA, 7: 281-312. Go to original source...
    25. Lecocq S., Magnac T., Picher, M C., Visser M. (2005): The impact of information on wine auction prices: results of an experiment. Annales d'Economie et de Statistique, 77: 37-54. Go to original source...
    26. Lee J.Y., Han D.B., Nayga R.M., Lim S.S. (2011): Valuing traceability of imported beef in Korea: an experimental auction approach. Australian of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 55: 360-373. Go to original source...
    27. Lusk J.L., Alexander C., Rousu M.C. (2007): Designing experimental auctions for marketing research: the effect of values, distributions and mechanisms on incentives for truthful bidding. Review of Marketing Science, 5. Go to original source...
    28. Lusk J.L., Shrogren J.F. (2007): Experimental Auctions: Methods and Applications in Economic and Marketing Research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Go to original source...
    29. Milgrom P.R., Weber R.J. (1982): A theory of auctions and competitive bidding. Econometrica, 50: 1089-1122. Go to original source...
    30. Mowen J.C. (2004): Exploring the trait of competitiveness and its consumer behaviour consequences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14: 52-63. Go to original source...
    31. Muller L., Ruffieux B. (2011): Do price-tags influence consumers' willingness to pay? On the external validity of using auctions for measuring value. Experimental Economics, 14: 181-202. Go to original source...
    32. Plott C.R. (1996): Rational individual behaviour in markets and social choice processes: the discovered preference hypothesis. In: Arrow K.J., Colombatto E., Perlaman M., Schmidt C. (eds): The Rationals Foundations of Economic Behaviour. St Martin's Press, New York: 225-250.
    33. Rousu M., Huffman W.E., Shogren J.F., Tegene A. (2007): Effects and value of verifiable information in a controversial market: evidence from lab auctions of genetically modified food. Economic Inquiry, 45: 409-432. Go to original source...
    34. Rousu M.C., Beach R.H., Corrigan J.H. (2008): The effects of selling complements and substitutes on consumer willingness to pay: evidence from a laboratory experiment. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 56: 179-194. Go to original source...
    35. Shaw W.D., Nayga R.M., Silva A. (2006): Health benefits and uncertainty: an experimental analysis of the effects of risk presentation on auction bids for a healthful product. Economic Bulletin, 4: 1-8.
    36. Shrogren J.F. (2006): Valuation in the lab. Environmental & Resource Economics, 34: 163-172. Go to original source...
    37. Shrogren J.F., Margolis M., Koo C., List A. (2001): A random nth-price auction. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 46: 409-421. Go to original source...
    38. Wooldridge J.M. (2002): Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. MIT Press, Cambridge.

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content