Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 465–487 | Cite as

Researching Preferences, Valuation and Hypothetical Bias

  • Rolando M. Guzman
  • Charles D. Kolstad


A number of recent papers in environmental economics have focused on the process of researching preferences – agents are uncertain about preferences but with effort may narrow their uncertainty. This issue has arisen in formulating bids in contingent valuation (CV) as well as the debate over the divergence between WTP and WTA. In the context of CV, it has been suggested that the hypothetical nature of the preference elicitation process biases responses. This paper provides both a theoretical model and experimental evidence to contribute to this debate. The model is a model of competitive bidding for a private good with two components that are particularly relevant to the debate. The first component is that bidders are unsure of their own value for the private good but may purchase information about their own value (researching preferences). The second component is that there is a probability that the auction is hypothetical – that the winning bidder will not get the private good and will not pay the winning bid. The experiment tests this theoretical model of bidding equilibrium and analyzes the effects of variations in the parameters (hypotheticalness, information costs and number of agents) on the endogenous variables (such as the proportion of bidders who become informed and the winning bid). Experimental results suggest that an increase in the hypotheticalness of an auction tends to decrease the likelihood that bidders pay for information on their valuation with an ambiguous effect on the winning bid.


bidding contingent valuation hypothetical bias information acquisition private values auction researching preferences uncertainty valuation value discovery 

JEL categories

C900 D440 D800 Q500 Q510 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



Research supported in part by grants from the Research Board of the University of Illinois, the Academic Senate of the University of California, and NSF Grant SBR-9496303. The authors gratefully acknowledge the provision of an experimental economics laboratory and computer support services by the Commerce Research Office of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. We also appreciate helpful suggestions from John Braden and Anne Villamil. However, none of them bears responsibilities for shortcomings. We also wish to thank two anonymous referees for very helpful suggestions. We would also like to express our appreciation to John List for encouraging us to persevere with this paper.


  1. Bajari P., Hortescu A. (2004) Economic Insights from Internet Auctions. Journal of Economic Literature 42:457–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carson R. T., Flores N. E., Meade N. F. (2001) Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics 19:173–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cummings R. G., Harrison G. W. (1994) Was the Ohio Court Well Informed in its Assessment of the Accuracy of the Contingent Valuation Method?. Natural Resources Journal 34:1Google Scholar
  4. Dyer D., Kagel J. H., Levin D. (1989) Resolving Uncertainty about the Number of Bidders in Independent Private-value Auctions: An Experimental Analysis. Rand Journal of Economics 20:268–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Engelbrecht-Wiggans R., Milgrom P. R., Weber R. J. (1983) Competitive Bidding and Proprietary Information. Journal of Mathematical Economics 11(2):161–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grossman S. J., Stiglitz J. E. (1980) On the Impossibility of Informationally Efficient Markets. AER 70:393–408Google Scholar
  7. Guzman, R. M. and Kolstad, C. D. (1997), “A Model of Auction Equilibrium with Costly Information Acquisition,” Working Paper # 17–97, Dept. of Economics, University of California at Santa Barbara. [–97.edf]Google Scholar
  8. Hansen R. G., Lott J. R. (1991) The Winner’s Curse and Public Information in Common Value Auctions: Comment. American Economic Review 81:347–361Google Scholar
  9. Kagel J.H., Harstad R.M., Levin D. (1987) Information Impact and Allocation Rules in Auctions with Affiliated Private Values: A Laboratory Study. Econometrica 55:1275–1304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kolstad C. D., Guzman R. M. (1999) Information and the Divergence between Willingness-to-Accept and Willingness-to-Pay. JEEM 38:66–80Google Scholar
  11. Lee T. K. (1985) Competition and Information Acquisition in First Price Auctions. Economics Letters 18:129–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mathews, S. A. (1984), “Information Acquisition in Discriminatory Auctions,” in M. Boyer and R. Kihlstrom, eds., Bayesian Models in Economic Theory. North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  13. Milgrom Paul. (1981) Rational Expectations, Information Acquisition, and Competitive Bidding. Econometrica 49(4):921–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Milgrom P., Weber R. P. (1982) A Theory of Auctions and Competitive Bidding. Econometrica 50(5):1089–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Parkes D. C. (2005) Auction Design with Costly Preference Elicitation. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 44:269–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Persico N. (2000) Information Acquisition in Auctions. Econometrica 68:135–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rabin M. (2000) Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem. Econometrica 68:1281–1292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schweizer U., Ungern-Sternberg T. Von (1983) Sealed Bid Auctions and the Search for Better Information. Economica 50:79–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Senter, R. J. (1992), Analysis of Data: Introductory Statistics for Behavioral Sciences. Scott, Foresman, and Company, 1969, eds., Handbook of Game Theory, Volume 1. North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  20. Zhao J. H., Kling C. L. (2001) A New Explanation for the WTP/WTA Controversy. Economics Letters 73:293–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Grupo de Consultoría ParetoSanto DomingoDominican Republic
  2. 2.Department of Economics and Bren School of Environmental Science & ManagementUniversity of California at Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA
  3. 3.Resources for the FutureWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations