Skip to main content
Log in

Elicitation using multiple price list formats

  • Published:
Experimental Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 13 June 2008

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Binswanger, H. P. (1980). Attitudes toward risk: Experimental measurement in rural India. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62, 395–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binswanger, H. P. (1981). Attitudes toward risk: Theoretical implications of an experiment in rural India. Economic Journal, 91, 867–890.

    Article  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).

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Gonzalez, R., & Wu, G. (1999). On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 129–166.

    Article  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., Harstad, R. M., & Rutström, E. E. (2004). Experimental methods and elicitation of values. Experimental Economics, 7(2), 123–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, G. W., Johnson, E., McInnes, M. M., & Rutström, E. E. (2005). Risk aversion and incentive effects: Comment. American Economic Review, 95(3), 897–901.

    Article  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).

  • Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Williams, M. B. (2002). Estimating individual discount rates for denmark: A field experiment. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1606–1617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, E., Menkhaus, D. J., Chakravarti, D., Field, R. A., & 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644–1655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 1325–1348.

    Article  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 

  • Kirby, K. N., Petry, N. M., & Bickel, W. K. (1999). Heroin addicts have higher discount rates for delayed rewards than non-drug-using controls. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128(1), 78–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laury, S. K., & Holt, C. A. Further reflections on prospect theory. Working Paper.

  • Miller, L., Meyer, D. E., & Lanzetta, J. T. (1969). Choice among equal expected value alternatives: Sequential effects of winning probability level on risk preferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79(3), 419–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press.

  • Murnighan, K. J., Roth, A. E., & Shoumaker, F. (1987). Risk aversion and bargaining: Some preliminary results. European Economic Review, 31, 265–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murnighan, K. J., Roth, A. E., & Shoumaker, F. (1988). Risk aversion in bargaining: An experimental study. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 101–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabin, M. (2000). Risk aversion and expected utility theory: A calibration theorem. Econometrica, 68, 1281–1292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutström, E. E. (1998). Home-grown values and the design of incentive compatible auctions. International Journal of Game Theory, 27(3), 427–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steffen Andersen.

Additional information

JEL Classification C9, D81, D91

An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10683-008-9204-6.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Andersen, S., Harrison, G.W., Lau, M.I. et al. Elicitation using multiple price list formats. Exp Econ 9, 383–405 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-006-7055-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-006-7055-6

Keywords

Navigation