IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfpoli/v86y2019ic10.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer willingness to pay for food safety interventions: The role of message framing and issue involvement

Author

Listed:
  • Britwum, Kofi
  • Yiannaka, Amalia

Abstract

The study examines the impact of gain and loss message framing and issue involvement elicitation on consumer willingness to pay (WTP) for two food safety enhancing technologies; cattle vaccines against E. coli and direct-fed microbials. A random sample of 1,842 US consumers completed a survey instrument that included six information treatments and a choice experiment. Empirical results show strong consumer preference and WTP for the technologies and consumer welfare gains from their introduction. Consistent with loss aversion, the loss-framed message induced the highest WTP, while elicitation of issue involvement reinforced (weakened) the influence of the loss (gain)-framed message.

Suggested Citation

  • Britwum, Kofi & Yiannaka, Amalia, 2019. "Consumer willingness to pay for food safety interventions: The role of message framing and issue involvement," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 1-1.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:86:y:2019:i:c:10
    DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.05.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919218310042
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.05.009?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ward, Clement E. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Dutton, Jennifer M., 2008. "Implicit Value of Retail Beef Product Attributes," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 1-18.
    2. Maria Espinosa‐Goded & Jesús Barreiro‐Hurlé & Eric Ruto, 2010. "What Do Farmers Want From Agri‐Environmental Scheme Design? A Choice Experiment Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 259-273, June.
    3. Ganzach, Yoav & Weber, Yaacov & Or, Pinchas Ben, 1997. "Message framing and buying behavior: On the difference between artificial and natural environment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 91-95, October.
    4. Wongprawmas, Rungsaran & Canavari, Maurizio, 2017. "Consumers’ willingness-to-pay for food safety labels in an emerging market: The case of fresh produce in Thailand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 25-34.
    5. Glynn T. Tonsor & Ted C. Schroeder & Joost M. E. Pennings & James Mintert, 2009. "Consumer Valuations of Beef Steak Food Safety Enhancement in Canada, Japan, Mexico, and the United States," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 57(3), pages 395-416, September.
    6. Fox, John A & Hayes, Dermot J & Shogren, Jason F, 2002. "Consumer Preferences for Food Irradiation: How Favorable and Unfavorable Descriptions Affect Preferences for Irradiated Pork in Experimental Auctions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 75-95, January.
    7. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
    8. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & John A. Fox, 2003. "Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 16-29.
    9. Rodolfo M. Nayga & Richard Woodward & Wipon Aiew, 2006. "Willingness to Pay for Reduced Risk of Foodborne Illness: A Nonhypothetical Field Experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 54(4), pages 461-475, December.
    10. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Javier Calatrava‐Requena, 2005. "Designing Policy for Reducing the Off‐farm Effects of Soil Erosion Using Choice Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(1), pages 81-95, March.
    11. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    13. Vincenzina Caputo & Achilleas Vassilopoulos & Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr. & Maurizio Canavari, 2013. "Welfare Effects of Food Miles Labels," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(2), pages 311-327, July.
    14. Jin, Hyun Joung & Han, Dae Hee, 2014. "Interaction between message framing and consumers’ prior subjective knowledge regarding food safety issues," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 95-102.
    15. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    16. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.
    17. Silva, Andres & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Campbell, Benjamin L. & Park, John L., 2011. "Revisiting Cheap Talk with New Evidence from a Field Experiment," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-12, August.
    18. David F. Layton & Gardner Brown, 2000. "Heterogeneous Preferences Regarding Global Climate Change," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(4), pages 616-624, November.
    19. Lusk, Jayson L. & Marette, Stephan, 2010. "Appendix to: Welfare Effects of Food Labels and Bans with Alternative Willingness to Pay Measures," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy Appendices 55428, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Mukhopadhaya, Kaushik & Adhikari, Bishwa B. & Mumma, Gerald A. & Teisl, Mario F., 2004. "Consumers' Willingness To Pay For Food Safety: A Pathogen Specific Analysis," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20064, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    21. Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr. & Ximing Wu & Robert G. Brummett, 2007. "On the Use of Cheap Talk in New Product Valuation," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 2(1), pages 1-9.
    22. Teisl, Mario F. & Roe, Brian E., 2010. "Consumer willingness-to-pay to reduce the probability of retail foodborne pathogen contamination," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 521-530, December.
    23. Jason F. Shogren & John A. Fox & Dermot J. Hayes & Jutta Roosen, 1999. "Observed Choices for Food Safety in Retail, Survey, and Auction Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1192-1199.
    24. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    25. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:2:y:2007:i:1:p:1-9 is not listed on IDEAS
    26. Jayson L. Lusk & Stéphan Marette, 2010. "Welfare Effects of Food Labels and Bans with Alternative Willingness to Pay Measures," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 32(2), pages 319-337.
    27. Bergmann, Ariel & Hanley, Nick & Wright, Robert, 2006. "Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 1004-1014, June.
    28. Glynn Tonsor & Ted Schroeder, 2015. "Market impacts of E. Coli vaccination in U.S. Feedlot cattle," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 3(1), pages 1-15, December.
    29. James K. Hammitt & Kevin Haninger, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Food Safety: Sensitivity to Duration and Severity of Illness," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1170-1175.
    30. McCluskey, Jill J. & Wahl, Thomas I. & Li, Quan & Wandschneider, Philip R., 2005. "U.S. Grass-Fed Beef: Marketing Health Benefits," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 36(3), pages 1-8, November.
    31. Bosworth Ryan & Taylor Laura O., 2012. "Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments: Is Cheap Talk Effective at Eliminating Bias on the Intensive and Extensive Margins of Choice?," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-28, December.
    32. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    33. Umberger, Wendy J. & Boxall, Peter C. & Lacy, R. Curt, 2009. "Role of credence and health information in determining US consumers’ willingness-to-pay for grass-finished beef," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-21.
    34. Pruitt, J. Ross & Anderson, David P., 2012. "Assessing the Impact of LFTB in the Beef Cattle Industry," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 27(4), pages 1-6.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zhanguo Zhu & Qinyuan Shen & Zhifeng Gao, 2022. "Consumer choices in agricultural markets with multitier collective labels and private brands," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(4), pages 905-922, October.
    2. Lehberger, Mira & Grüner, Sven, 2021. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for plants protected by beneficial insects – Evidence from two stated-choice experiments with different subject pools," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    3. Yuan, Rao & Asioli, Daniele & Jin, Shaosheng & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2021. "Consumers’ Valuation for Cultured Chicken Meat: A Multi-city Choice Experiment in China," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313957, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Oliver Meixner & Felix Katt, 2020. "Assessing the Impact of COVID-19 on Consumer Food Safety Perceptions—A Choice-Based Willingness to Pay Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-18, September.
    5. Lin Bai & Zhanguo Zhu & Tong Zhang, 2021. "How to Improve Food Quality in the Domestic Market: The Role of “Same Line Same Standard Same Quality”—Evidence from a Consumer Choice Experiment in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-16, May.
    6. Chiara Mazzocchi & Guido Sali, 2022. "Tourists’ Perception of Ecosystem Services Provided by Mountain Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-14, September.
    7. Hongxu Shi & Peihua Ma & Yinchu Zeng & Jiping Sheng, 2022. "Understanding the Interaction between Regulatory Focus and Message Framing in Determining Chinese Consumers’ Attitudes toward Artificial Meat," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-17, April.
    8. Chiara Mazzocchi & Guido Sali, 2022. "Supporting mountain agriculture through “mountain product” label: a choice experiment approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 701-723, January.
    9. Zhang, Jun & Shi, Hongxu & Sheng, Jiping, 2022. "The effects of message framing on novel food introduction: Evidence from the artificial meat products in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    10. Wen Lin, 2023. "The effect of product quantity on willingness to pay: A meta‐regression analysis of beef valuation studies," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(3), pages 646-663, July.
    11. Jing Hou & Linhai Wu & Bo Hou, 2020. "Risk Attitude, Contract Arrangements and Enforcement in Food Safety Governance: A China’s Agri-Food Supply Chain Scenario," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-16, April.
    12. Zhu, Zhanguo & Zhang, Tong & Hu, Wuyang, 2023. "The accumulation and substitution effects of multi-nation certified organic and protected eco-origin food labels in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    13. Dimitris Skalkos & Ioanna S. Kosma & Eleni Chasioti & Thomas Bintsis & Haralabos C. Karantonis, 2021. "Consumers’ Perception on Traceability of Greek Traditional Foods in the Post-COVID-19 Era," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-17, November.
    14. Santeramo, Fabio Gaetano & Lamonaca, Emilia, 2020. "Objective risk and subjective risk: The role of information in food supply chains," MPRA Paper 104515, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. The Anh Phan & Pham Ngoc Quyen Nguyen & Ngoc Anh Pham & Nhan Phan, 2023. "A Cross-Cultural Study on the Role of Message Framing in the Promotion of Fair-Trade Buying Behavior," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Britwum, Kofi & Yiannaka, Amalia, 2016. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Food Safety Interventions: The Role of Message Framing and Involvement," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235884, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    3. Van Wezemael, Lynn & Caputo, Vincenzina & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Chryssochoidis, George & Verbeke, Wim, 2014. "European consumer preferences for beef with nutrition and health claims: A multi-country investigation using discrete choice experiments," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 167-176.
    4. Banerjee, Swagata (Ban) & Martin, Steven W. & Hudson, Darren, 2006. "A Choice-Based Conjoint Experiment with Genetically Engineered Cotton in the Mississippi Delta," 2006 Annual Meeting, February 5-8, 2006, Orlando, Florida 35389, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    5. Wongprawmas, Rungsaran & Canavari, Maurizio, 2017. "Consumers’ willingness-to-pay for food safety labels in an emerging market: The case of fresh produce in Thailand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 25-34.
    6. Jayson Lusk & Tomas Nilsson & Ken Foster, 2007. "Public Preferences and Private Choices: Effect of Altruism and Free Riding on Demand for Environmentally Certified Pork," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 36(4), pages 499-521, April.
    7. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole J. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 1-17, December.
    8. Wuepper, David & Clemm, Alexandra & Wree, Philipp, 2019. "The preference for sustainable coffee and a new approach for dealing with hypothetical bias," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 475-486.
    9. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Birol, Ekin & Karousakis, Katia & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2006. "Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 145-156, November.
    11. Chanjin Chung & Tracy Boyer & Sungill Han, 2009. "Valuing Quality Attributes and Country of Origin in the Korean Beef Market," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 682-698, September.
    12. Adalja, Aaron & Hanson, James & Towe, Charles & Tselepidakis, Elina, 2015. "An Examination of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Local Products," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(3), pages 253-274, December.
    13. Wongprawmas, Rungsaran & Canavari, Maurizio, 2015. "Heterogeneity in consumer preferences for food safety lavel in Thailand," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202744, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    15. Glynn T. Tonsor & Ted C. Schroeder & Joost M. E. Pennings & James Mintert, 2009. "Consumer Valuations of Beef Steak Food Safety Enhancement in Canada, Japan, Mexico, and the United States," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 57(3), pages 395-416, September.
    16. Ward, Patrick S. & Ortega, David L. & Spielman, David J. & Singh, Vartika, 2014. "Heterogeneous Demand for Drought-Tolerant Rice: Evidence from Bihar, India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 125-139.
    17. Wuyang Hu & Michele M. Veeman & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2005. "Labelling Genetically Modified Food: Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences and the Value of Information," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 53(1), pages 83-102, March.
    18. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    19. Maples, Joshua G. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Peel, Derrell S., 2018. "Unintended consequences of the quest for increased efficiency in beef cattle: When bigger isn’t better," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 65-73.
    20. Lilavanichakul, Apichaya & Boecker, Andreas, 2013. "Consumer Acceptance of a New Traceability Technology: A Discrete Choice Application to Ontario Ginseng," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 16(4), pages 1-26, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Food safety technologies; Gain and loss message framing; Issue involvement; Willingness to pay;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • Q13 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Markets and Marketing; Cooperatives; Agribusiness

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:86:y:2019:i:c:10. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.