拍卖中的竞价行为与标价:均值和边际效应的比较

IF 1.3 Q3 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY Agricultural and Resource Economics Review Pub Date : 2021-04-07 DOI:10.1017/AGE.2021.6
Shang Wu, J. Fooks, Tongzhe Li, K. Messer, D. Delaney
{"title":"拍卖中的竞价行为与标价:均值和边际效应的比较","authors":"Shang Wu, J. Fooks, Tongzhe Li, K. Messer, D. Delaney","doi":"10.1017/AGE.2021.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n 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.","PeriodicalId":44443,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural and Resource Economics Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/AGE.2021.6","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bidding behavior in auctions versus posted prices: comparisons of mean and marginal effects\",\"authors\":\"Shang Wu, J. Fooks, Tongzhe Li, K. Messer, D. Delaney\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/AGE.2021.6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n 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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44443,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Agricultural and Resource Economics Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/AGE.2021.6\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Agricultural and Resource Economics Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/AGE.2021.6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agricultural and Resource Economics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/AGE.2021.6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

经济实验被广泛用于引出个人对各种商品的评价。常见的启发方法包括拍卖和公布价格机制。设计了一项现场实验来比较这两种机制之间的支付意愿(WTP)估计值。尽管这两种形式在理论上都是激励相容的,并且需求揭示,但来自115名成年消费者的结果表明,从拍卖中获得的WTP估计比从公布价格机制获得的WTP估计要小32 - 39%。统计显著性的比较表明,为了检测相同的偏好变化,拍卖需要比公布价格机制更小的样本量。然而,不同产品特性的边际效应迹象在两种机制中是一致的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Bidding behavior in auctions versus posted prices: comparisons of mean and marginal effects
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊介绍: The purpose of the Review is to foster and disseminate professional thought and literature relating to the economics of agriculture, natural resources, and community development. It is published twice a year in April and October. In addition to normal refereed articles, it also publishes invited papers presented at the annual meetings of the NAREA as well as abstracts of selected papers presented at those meetings. The Review was formerly known as the Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics
期刊最新文献
A recreation demand model for warmwater fishing in Delaware with welfare effects for improvements in catch rates, species diversity, and water clarity The effects of a universal income transfer on food insecurity within households Do people value farmers markets: A spatial hedonic pricing model approach Do people value farmers markets: A spatial hedonic pricing model approach Renewable energy prosocial behavior, is it source dependent?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1