Real choice experiments (RCEs) and experimental auctions (EAs) are two non-market valuation methods which have increasingly been used to elicit consumers' preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for food products. This paper aims to determine whether EAs and RCEs derive different welfare estimates or not and examines their incentive compatibility using data from a U.S. consumer study. We compare the bidding behavior of consumers in three different incentive compatible EAs to the behavior of consumers who made non-hypothetical discrete choices for egg products. We find that the valuations elicited from EAs differ significantly from those obtained from RCEs. Nonetheless, for the goods evaluated, individuals' preference orderings were consistent across elicitation methods. These findings hold relevant implications for the design of real choice experiments and experimental auctions. The practical implications for food retailers are also discussed.
Read
