Inattention, availability bias, and attribute premium estimation for a biobased product

Abstract

Biobased productsare non-food goods derived from agricultural and forestry materials. Products made from biomaterials could substitute for petroleumbased inputs used to make everyday household goods. This studyestimates consumer willingness to pay (WTP) for the attributes of single-use eating-ware (SUEW) plates made from biobased materials. Attributes considered are product material, degradability, product labeling, and biomass origin. The study controls for inattention and availability bias on attribute premium. Results suggest

Battling bots: Experiences and strategies to mitigate fraudulent responses in online surveys

“…Attention check questions request that the respondent take a specific action, for example, leave a question unanswered or choose a specific answer option. These have been used to detect inattentive survey‐takers (e.g., Blesse & Heinemann, 2020; Cheng et al, 2022; DellaVigna & Pope, 2022; Gao et al, 2016; Lennon et al, 2023; Malone & Lusk, 2018a, 2018b, 2019; Snowberg & Yariv, 2021), but Storozuk et al (2020) and Zhang et al (2022) find these types of questions are moderately effective in identifying bots. Zhang et al (2022) displayed the instructions for attention‐check questions in image form to avoid bots that use Natural Language Processing.…”

“…Similarly, many researchers have taken advantage of conducting online surveys by purchasing responses through various marketing panels or platforms, for example, Qualtrics, Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk), or Google Surveys. However, online surveys more acutely face issues affecting data quality, such as inattention or carelessness of participants (Cheng et al, 2022; Gao et al, 2016; Malone & Lusk, 2018a), nonrepresentative samples (Penn et al, 2023; Sandstrom et al, 2023; Whitehead et al, 2023) and fraudulent responses (Belliveau & Yakovenko, 2022; Chmielewski & Kucker, 2020; Griffin et al, 2021; Kramer et al, 2014; Rommel et al, 2022; Storozuk et al, 2020; Teitcher et al, 2015).…”

But it came from a food pantry: Product stigma and quality perceptions of food pantry offerings

“…Respondents were compensated for their time according to the Qualtrics model. 5 There is a long history of such online surveys in analysis of consumer food behavior and preferences (e.g., Cheng et al, 2022;Hollands & Marteau, 2016;Johnson et al, 2020;Pechey & Marteau, 2018;Shen et al, 2015;Talati et al, 2019) They are used for a variety of reasons, including the ability to randomize cleanly, recruit a wide range of participants, and decrease social desirability bias, a feature that is especially attractive in designing an experiment on stigma.…”

The imperative of communication signals in boosting business strategies of the bioplastic packaging industry

“…While the producers or brand owners of bioplastic packaging might have already sent the information, some consumers reported not noticing the packaging labels displayed on bioplastic packaging products (Allison et al, 2021). Such inattentive behaviour might decrease the willingness to purchase (Cheng et al, 2021). Some consumers did not believe that bioplastic packaging was better than conventional plastic.…”

“…As individual information searches are evidently necessary for triggering purchasing behaviour towards sustainable packaging (Testa et al, 2020), attentive consumers are more willing to pay for biobased materials and display-certified labelling (Cheng et al, 2021). Nonetheless, some consumers often ignore labels and information on the packaging for reasons such as time constraints for checking all products' packaging material information while shopping; thus, this is identified as a barrier to bioplastic packaging purchasing behaviour (Allison et al, 2021).…”