Inducing value and institutional learning effects in stated choice experiments using advanced disclosure and instructional choice set treatments

Abate, Tenaw G.; Mørkbak, Morten Raun; Olsen, Søren Bøye

doi:10.1111/agec.12420

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This latter aspect makes CEs a particularly suitable approach to achieve our research question, that is, to examine consumers' trade-offs for organic and hydroponic lettuce. However, one of the limitations of CEs is the formation of hypothetical bias, which generally leads to an overstatement of what respondents say they would pay for the products (Abate, Mørkbak, & Olsen, 2018;Carlsson & Martinsson, 2001;Murphy et al, 2005). Hence, researchers have increasingly been using Real (nonhypothetical) CEs, which incorporate an incentive-compatible mechanism and real products (Penn & Hu, 2018).…”

Section: Real Choice Experiments (Rces)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Do consumers value hydroponics? Implications for organic certification

Gilmour

Bazzani

Nayga

et al. 2019

Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent controversy about the inclusion of hydroponics in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic program has highlighted uncertainty about marketing hydroponic crops. In a controversial vote in November 2017, the National Organic Standards Board chose not to recommend that hydroponic farms be banned from organic certification. It is still unclear, however, how consumers perceive and value hydroponic production. This study used a nonhypothetical choice experiment to estimate consumers' willingness to pay for hydroponic and traditional lettuce both with and without organic certification. No hydroponic premium was found, but exposing consumers to different kinds of information about hydroponics significantly affected consumers' preference formation. Findings generally suggest that the National Organic Program should consider ways to ensure the stability of organic premiums as perceptions about hydroponics evolve. K E Y W O R D Shydroponics, information effect, nonhypothetical choice experiment, organic, WTP

show abstract

Section: Real Choice Experiments (Rces)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Do consumers value hydroponics? Implications for organic certification

Gilmour

Bazzani

Nayga

et al. 2019

Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, it is clear that additional empirical studies are needed applying discrete choice experiments to regions that have so far been neglected. Finally, we did not consider sociodemographic and socioeconomic information of the samples explored in the primary studies since several studies did not report such information (e.g., Abate et al, 2018; Balcombe et al, 2020; Banovic et al, 2019). Therefore, for further research, we recommend the use of model specifications that incorporate additional sociodemographic characteristics extracted from previous empirical work.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta‐regression analysis on the willingness‐to‐pay for country‐of‐origin labelling

Yeh

Hirsch

2023

J Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food quality and food safety issues arouse increasing interest and concern among consumers and policy‐makers. Consequently, the importance of country‐of‐origin labelling (COOL) is increasing in business, policy and research. Numerous studies have reported a wide range of estimates for consumers' willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) for COOL using stated preference methods and, in particular, discrete choice experiments. We apply meta‐regression analyses to synthesise the heterogeneous results of 204 WTP for COOL estimates extracted from 59 studies which used discrete choice experiments and were published between 2009 and 2020. Meta‐regression analysis allows an adjusted summary proxy to be derived for the WTP for COOL and the determinants of heterogeneity in reported WTP estimates are also investigated. Our results suggest that there is a significant positive WTP for COOL, and also reveal that the reported WTP estimates are unaffected by publication bias. In addition, they show systematic variation in WTP estimates across the context and methodological characteristics of the studies. More precisely, we find that the region and the product (animal‐ vs. plant‐based) analysed, as well as certain characteristics of the choice design (e.g., the number of attributes used, or the inclusion of an opt‐out option) can have a significant impact on the estimated WTP for COOL. Finally, our results reveal significant differences in price premiums between various types of COOL (e.g., domestic vs. foreign). This highlights that results from individual primary studies should not be generalised without further consideration of the underlying study design.

show abstract

“…In the SSB Tax Experiment, each respondent first completed a CE at the baseline price levels ($1.25 and $2.25). Then, they completed 4 CEs have a number of advantages in eliciting preferences over other stated preference techniques; however, one of the potential limitations of CEs is hypothetical bias, which generally leads to an overstatement of willingness-to-pay (Carlsson and Martinsson 2001;Murphy et al 2005;Abate, Mørkbak, and Olsen 2018). Many studies have examined of the validity of CEs in hypothetical and non-hypothetical purchasing experiments, and suggest CEs can reasonable replicate market shares in retail settings, and that marginal willingness-to-pay from hypothetical CEs is similar to that from non-hypothetical CEs (Carlsson and Martinsson 2001;Lusk and Schroeder 2004;Johnston 2006;Lusk, Pruitt, and Norwood 2006;Chang, Lusk, and Norwood 2009;Alemu and Olsen 2018) In our case, we utilize difference-in-difference estimates, which should net out the effect of hypothetical bias, should it exist.…”

Section: Study 1 Ssb Tax Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non‐Pecuniary Effects of Sugar‐Sweetened Beverage Policies

Ahn¹,

Lusk²

2020

American J Agri Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Debate about the economic impacts of sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes have largely focused on pecuniary effects, but evidence has emerged that taxes could also convey information about what consumers "should" be doing. Disentangling the pecuniary and non-pecuniary (or non-price) effects using market data is a significant challenge. To address this issue, we study consumer choices in a simulated market environment in experimental conditions where we vary the reasons respondents are given for the cause of the price hike. We also study responses to a ban on large-sized sodas, where the stated causes of the ban are randomly varied across respondents. We utilized random parameter logit models and use difference-indifference estimates to identify the non-pecuniary effect of a SSB tax and a large soda ban on SSB market shares. Our initial study, conducted in 2016, revealed significant nonpecuniary effects, with soda choices falling less dramatically when subjects knew prices increased because of a soda tax. However, replications and extensions conducted in 2019 show no consistent non-pecuniary effects. There is considerable heterogeneity across respondents in the difference-indifference estimates, which is only partially explained by demographic or measured attitudinal variables. Results of this study emphasize the importance of carrying out replications and suggest, at least in the context of our experiment, non-pecuniary effects are small relative to the traditional economic drivers.

show abstract

Inducing value and institutional learning effects in stated choice experiments using advanced disclosure and instructional choice set treatments

Cited by 8 publications

References 43 publications

Do consumers value hydroponics? Implications for organic certification

Do consumers value hydroponics? Implications for organic certification

A meta‐regression analysis on the willingness‐to‐pay for country‐of‐origin labelling

Non‐Pecuniary Effects of Sugar‐Sweetened Beverage Policies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About