Experimental Economics

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 383–405 | Cite as

Elicitation using multiple price list formats

  • Steffen Andersen
  • Glenn W. Harrison
  • Morten Igel Lau
  • E. Elisabet Rutström


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.


Elicitation Experiments Risk aversion Discount rates 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

10683_2006_ESM_7055.pdf (1 mb)
Instructions and Sample Design for the Danish Experiments
LabMPL.do (0 kb)
Supplementary material (458 KB)
LabMPLcrra.do (26 kb)
Supplementary material (26,264 KB)
LabMPLCRRA.dta (397 kb)
Supplementary material (406,384 KB)
LabMPLidr.do (16 kb)
Supplementary material (16,005 KB)
LabMPLidr.dta (100 kb)
Supplementary material (102,400 KB)
LabMPLrisk.dta (372 kb)
Supplementary material (381,184 KB)
LabMPLswitch.do (1 kb)
Supplementary material (786 KB)


  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Binswanger, H. P. (1980). Attitudes toward risk: Experimental measurement in rural India. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62, 395–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Binswanger, H. P. (1981). Attitudes toward risk: Theoretical implications of an experiment in rural India. Economic Journal, 91, 867–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Coller, M., & Williams, M. B. (1999). Eliciting individual discount rates. Experimental Economics, 2, 107–127.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Gonzalez, R., & Wu, G. (1999). On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 129–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harrison, G. W., (1992). Theory and misbehavior of first-price auctions: Reply. American Economic Review, 82, 1426–1443.Google Scholar
  13. Harrison, G. W., Harstad, R. M., & Rutström, E. E. (2004). Experimental methods and elicitation of values. Experimental Economics, 7(2), 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644–1655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Laury, S. K., & Holt, C. A. Further reflections on prospect theory. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  25. Murnighan, K. J., Roth, A. E., & Shoumaker, F. (1987). Risk aversion and bargaining: Some preliminary results. European Economic Review, 31, 265–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rabin, M. (2000). Risk aversion and expected utility theory: A calibration theorem. Econometrica, 68, 1281–1292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rutström, E. E. (1998). Home-grown values and the design of incentive compatible auctions. International Journal of Game Theory, 27(3), 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Science Association 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steffen Andersen
    • 1
  • Glenn W. Harrison
    • 2
  • Morten Igel Lau
    • 3
  • E. Elisabet Rutström
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Economic and Business ResearchCopenhagen Business SchoolCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Economics, College of Business AdministrationUniversity of Central FloridaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Economics and Finance, Durham Business SchoolDurham UniversityUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations