We examine the properties of a popular method for eliciting choices and values from experimental subjects, the multiple price list format. The main advantage of this format is that it is relatively transparent to subjects and provides simple incentives for truthful revelation. The main disadvantages are that it only elicits interval responses, and could be susceptible to framing effects. We consider extensions to address and evaluate these concerns. We conclude that although there are framing effects, they can be controlled for with a design that allows for them. We also find that the elicitation of risk attitudes is sensitive to procedures, subject pools, and the format of the multiple price list table, but that the qualitative findings that participants are generally risk averse is robust. The elicitation of discount rates appear less sensitive to details of the experimental design.
KeywordsElicitation Experiments Risk aversion Discount rates
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2005a). Valuation using multiple price lists. Working Paper 05–07, Department of Economics, College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida. Applied Economics, forthcoming.Google Scholar
- Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2005b). Eliciting risk and time preferences. Working Paper 05–24, Department of Economics, College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida.Google Scholar
- Beck, J. H. (1994). An experimental test of preferences for the distribution of income and individual risk aversion. Eastern Economic Journal, 20(2), 131–145.Google Scholar
- Botelho, A., Harrison, G. W., Hirsch, Marc, A., & Rutström, E. E. (2005). Bargaining behavior, demographics and nationality: What can the experimental evidence show? In J. Carpenter, G.W. Harrison and J.A. List (Eds.), Field Experiments in Economics. (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Research in Experimental Economics, Volume 10).Google Scholar
- Coller, M., Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2003). Are discount rates constant? Reconciling Theory and Observation. Working Paper 3–31. Department of Economics, College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida.Google Scholar
- Coller, M., & Williams, M. B. (1999). Eliciting individual discount rates. Experimental Economics, 2, 107–127.Google Scholar
- Cox, J. C., & Sadiraj, V. (2005). Implications of small- and large-stakes risk aversion for decision theory. Games & Economic Behavior, 53(2), forthcoming.Google Scholar
- Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2002). Forecasting risk attitudes: An experimental study of actual and forecast risk attitudes of women and men. Unpublished Manuscript. Department of Economics, Virginia Tech.Google Scholar
- Harrison, G. W., (1992). Theory and misbehavior of first-price auctions: Reply. American Economic Review, 82, 1426–1443.Google Scholar
- Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., Rutström, E. E., & Sullivan, M. B. (2005). Eliciting risk and time preferences using field experiments: Some methodological issues. In Carpenter, J., Harrison, G.W., & List, J.A., (Eds.), Field Experiments in Economics (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Research in Experimental Economics, Volume 10).Google Scholar
- Kirby, K. N., & Marakovic, N. N. (1996). Delay-discounting probabilistic rewards: Rates decrease as amounts increase. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(1), 100–104.Google Scholar
- Laury, S. K., & Holt, C. A. Further reflections on prospect theory. Working Paper.Google Scholar
- Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar