Experimental Economics

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 123–140 | Cite as

Experimental Methods and Elicitation of Values

  • Glenn W. Harrison
  • Ronald M. Harstad
  • E. Elisabet Rutström


Experimental methods are currently being extensively used to elicit subjective values for commodities and projects. Three methodological problems are not systematically addressed in this emerging literature. The first is the potential for laboratory responses to be censored by field opportunities, so that lab responses can be confounded by uncontrolled knowledge of the field; the second is the potential for subjective perceptions about field opportunities, and hence valuation responses, to be affected by the institution used to elicit values; and the third is the potential for some elicitation institutions to influence subjective perceptions of characteristics of the commodity or project being valued, and hence change the very commodity being valued. All three problems result in potential loss of control over the value elicitation process. For example, we show that censoring affects conclusions drawn in a major study of beef packaging valuation. We derive implications for experimental designs that minimize the potential effect of these methodological problems.

experiments valuation auctions incentive-compatibility 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ausubel, L.M. (2002). “An Efficient Ascending-Bid Auction for Multiple Objects.” Working Paper No. 97-06, University of Maryland, American Economic Review (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  2. Blackburn, M., Harrison, G.W., and Rutström, E.E. (1994). “Statistical Bias Functions and Informative Hypothetical Surveys.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 76, 1084–1088.Google Scholar
  3. Cherry, T.L., Frykblom, P., List, J.A., Shogren, J.F., andWilliams, M.B. (2001). “Laboratory Testbeds and Nonmarket Valuation: The Case of Bidding Behavior in a Second-Price Auction with an Outside Option.” Unpublished Manuscript, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.Google Scholar
  4. Coller, M. and Williams, M.B. (1999). “Eliciting Individual Discount Rates.” Experimental Economics. 2, 107–127.Google Scholar
  5. Cummings, R.G. and Harrison, G.W. (1994). “Was the Ohio Court Well Informed in Their Assessment of the Accuracy of the Contingent Valuation Method?” Natural Resources Journal. 34(1), 1–36.Google Scholar
  6. Cummings, R.G., Harrison, G.W., and Rutström, E.E. (1995). “Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive Compatible?” American Economic Review. 85(1), 260–266.Google Scholar
  7. Davis, D.D. and Holt, C.A. (1993). Experimental Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Friedman, D. and Sunder, S. (1994). Experimental Methods: A Primer for Economists. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Harrison, G.W., Lau, M.I., and Williams, M.B. (2002). “Estimating Individual Discount Rates for Denmark: A Field Experiment.” American Economic Review. 92(5), 1606–1617.Google Scholar
  10. Harstad, R.M. (2000) “Dominant Strategy Adoption and Bidders' Experience with Pricing Rules.” Experimental Economics. 3(3), 261–280.Google Scholar
  11. Hayes, D.J., Shogren, J., Shin, S.Y., and Kliebenstein, J.B. (1995) “Valuing Food Safety in Experimental Auction Markets.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 77, 40–53.Google Scholar
  12. Hey, J.D. (1991). Experiments in Economics. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  13. Hoffman, E., Menkhaus, D.J., Chakravarti, D., Field, R.A., and Whipple, G.D. (1993). “Using Laboratory Experimental Auctions in Marketing Research: A Case Study of New Packaging for Fresh Beef.” Marketing Science. 12(3), 318–338.Google Scholar
  14. Holt, C.A. and Laury, S.K. (2002). “Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects.” American Economic Review. 92(5), 1644–1655.Google Scholar
  15. Kagel, J.H., Harstad, R.M., and Levin, D. (1987). “Information Impact and Allocation Rules in Auctions with Affiliated Private Values: A Laboratory Study.” Econometrica. 55, 1275–1304.Google Scholar
  16. Kagel, J.H. and Roth, A.E. (eds.). (1995) The Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kirchkamp, O. and Moldovanu, B. (2001). “An Experimental Analysis of Auctions with Interdependent Valuations.” Working Paper. Department of Economics, Mannheim University, Games and Economic Behavior (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  18. Menkhaus, D.J., Borden, G.W., Whipple, G.D., Hoffman, E., and Field, R.A. (1992). “An Empirical Application of Laboratory Experimental Auctions in Marketing Research.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics. 17(1), 44–55.Google Scholar
  19. Neill, H.R., Cummings, R.G., Ganderton, P.T., Harrison, G.W., and McGuckin, T. (1994). “Hypothetical Surveys and Real Economic Commitments.” Land Economics. 70(2), 145–154.Google Scholar
  20. Rutström, E.E. (1998). “Home-Grown Values and the Design of Incentive Compatible Auctions.” International Journal of Game Theory. 27(3), 427–441.Google Scholar
  21. Schmitz, J.D., Menkhaus, D.J., Whipple, G.D., Hoffman, E., and Field, R.A. (1993). “Impact of Changing Consumer Preferences On Willingness-to-Pay for Beef Steaks In Alternative Retail Packaging.” Journal of Food Distribution Research. 24, 23–35.Google Scholar
  22. Smith, V.L. (1982). “Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science.” American Economic Review. 72(5), 923–955.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Glenn W. Harrison
    • 1
  • Ronald M. Harstad
    • 2
  • E. Elisabet Rutström
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Economics, College of Business AdministrationUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of Missouri-ColumbiaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations