IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/arerjl/59231.html

Which Consumers Are Most Responsive to Media-Induced Food Scares?

Author

Listed:
  • Payne, Collin R.
  • Messer, Kent D.
  • Kaiser, Harry M.

Abstract

In understanding decreases in demand after exposure to media-induced food scares, aggregate data are almost exclusively presented without taking into consideration potential confounding variables. However, a better approach may be to use an experimental design coupled with targeting homogeneous willingness-to-pay (WTP) subgroups based on similarities in behavioral, psychological, and demographic characteristics of those who are most vulnerable to food scare information. This is accomplished through experimental economics and an analysis strategy called a classification and regression tree (CART). A stigma framework—which guides conceptual understanding of effects of media-induced food scares—suggests controlling contextual variables to better approximate ceteris paribus. To this end, we conducted an experiment that exposed people to information about mad cow disease and then asked them to bid their willingness-to-pay for an actual hamburger. The CART found distinct homogeneous WTP subgroups of individuals that could be used by government and industry professionals to create interventions to reduce potential consumer concern and producer losses.

Suggested Citation

  • Payne, Collin R. & Messer, Kent D. & Kaiser, Harry M., 2009. "Which Consumers Are Most Responsive to Media-Induced Food Scares?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-16, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:arerjl:59231
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.59231
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/59231/files/ARER%2038-3%20295-310%20Payne.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.59231?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lusk, Jayson L. & Daniel, M. Scott & Mark, Darrell R. & Lusk, Christine L., 2001. "Alternative Calibration And Auction Institutions For Predicting Consumer Willingess To Pay For Nongenetically Modified Corn Chips," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(01), pages 1-18, July.
    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. Li, Tongzhe & McCluskey, Jill J. & Messer, Kent D., 2018. "Ignorance Is Bliss? Experimental Evidence on Wine Produced from Grapes Irrigated with Recycled Water," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 100-110.
    2. Lagerkvist, Carl Johan & Hess, Sebastian & Ngigi, Marther W. & Okello, Julius Juma, 2011. "Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Food Safety in Nairobi: The Case of Fresh Vegetables," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114409, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Yadavalli, Anita & Jones, Keithly, 2014. "Does media influence consumer demand? The case of lean finely textured beef in the United States," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 219-227.
    4. Robinson, Chadelle, . "Exploring the Hierarchy of Product Attributes in U.S. Pecan Consumption," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 51(2).
    5. Jaakko Heikkilä & Eija Pouta & Sari Forsman-Hugg & Johanna Mäkelä, 2013. "Heterogeneous Risk Perceptions: The Case of Poultry Meat Purchase Intentions in Finland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-19, October.
    6. Yingqi Zhong & Linhai Wu & Xiujuan Chen & Zuhui Huang & Wuyang Hu, 2018. "Effects of Food-Additive-Information on Consumers’ Willingness to Accept Food with Additives," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-17, October.
    7. Hao, Na & Wang, H. Holly & Zhang, Yi & Chen, Zhuo, 2025. "Measuring COVID-19 stigma and mitigating effect with hypothetical and non-hypothetical auction experiments," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).

    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. repec:ken:wpaper:0602 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. McFadden, Brandon R. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2013. "Effects of Cost and Campaign Advertising on Support for California’s Proposition 37," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 1-13, August.
    3. Karavolias, Joanna & House, Lisa & Haas, Rainer & Briz, Teresa, "undated". "Impact Of Producer And Use Of Biotechonology On Consumer Willingness To Pay: Discounts Required For Oranges Produced With Biotechnology," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 261176, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Matthew Rousu & Wallace E. Huffman & Jason F. Shogren & Abebayehu Tegene, 2007. "Effects And Value Of Verifiable Information In A Controversial Market: Evidence From Lab Auctions Of Genetically Modified Food," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(3), pages 409-432, July.
    5. Laurent Muller & Bernard Ruffieux, 2011. "Do price-tags influence consumers’ willingness to pay? On the external validity of using auctions for measuring value," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(2), pages 181-202, May.
    6. Alevy, Jonathan E. & Cristi, Oscar & Melo, Oscar, 2010. "Right-to-Choose Auctions: A Field Study of Water Markets in the Limari Valley of Chile," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 39(2), pages 1-14, April.
    7. Mario F. Teisl & Julie A. Caswell, 2003. "Information Policy and Genetically Modified Food: Weighting the Benefits and Costs," QA - Rivista dell'Associazione Rossi-Doria, Associazione Rossi Doria, issue 4, March.
    8. Baker, Gregory A. & Mazzocco, Michael A., 2002. "Consumer Response To Gmo Foods: Branding, Certification, And Consumer Characteristics," 2002 Annual Meeting, July 28-31, 2002, Long Beach, California 36562, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    9. Carina Cavalcanti & Andreas Leibbrandt, 2017. "A glance into the willingness to reduce overfishing: Field evidence from a fishnet exchange program," Monash Economics Working Papers 09-17, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    10. Maurice Doyon & Virginie Simard & Kent D. Messer & Lota D. Tamini & Harry M. Kaiser, 2008. "An Experimental Analysis of Modifications to the Centralized Milk Quota Exchange System in Quebec," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 56(3), pages 295-312, September.
    11. Huffman, Wallace E. & Shogren, Jason F. & Rousu, Matthew C. & Tegene, Abebayehu, 2003. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Food Labels in a Market with Diverse Information: Evidence from Experimental Auctions," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 28(3), pages 1-22, December.
    12. Xue, Hong & Mainville, Denise Y. & You, Wen & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2009. "Nutrition Knowledge, Sensory Characteristics and Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pasture-Fed Beef," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49277, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Hirotsugu Uchida & Cathy A. Roheim & Hiroki Wakamatsu & Christopher M. Anderson, 2014. "Do Japanese consumers care about sustainable fisheries? Evidence from an auction of ecolabelled seafood," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 58(2), pages 263-280, April.
    14. Bruno Larue & Gale E. West & Carole Gendron & Rémy Lambert, 2004. "Consumer response to functional foods produced by conventional, organic, or genetic manipulation," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(2), pages 155-166.
    15. Rousu, Matthew C. & Monchuk, Daniel C. & Shogren, Jason F. & Kosa, Katherine M., 2005. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for “Second-Generation” Genetically Engineered Products and the Role of Marketing Information," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(3), pages 647-657, December.
    16. Parcell, Joseph L., 2002. "Emerging Ip Markets: The Tokyo Grain Exchange Non-Gmo Soybean Contract," Working Papers 26038, University of Missouri Columbia, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    17. Colson, Gregory & Huffman, Wallace E. & Rousu, Matthew C., 2011. "Improving the Nutrient Content of Food through Genetic Modification: Evidence from Experimental Auctions on Consumer Acceptance," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-22, August.
    18. Hurley, Terrance M. & Yue, Chengyan & Anderson, Neil O., 2013. "Polarized Preferences in Homegrown Value Auctions," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 1-17, August.
    19. Huffman, Wallace E. & Shogren, Jason F. & Rousu, Matthew & Tegene, Abe, 2001. "The Value of Consumers of Genetically Modified Food Labels in a Market with Diverse Information: Evidence from Experimental Auctions," ISU General Staff Papers 200112010800001346, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    20. Hirotsugu Uchida & Cathy A. Roheim & Robert J. Johnston, 2017. "Balancing the Health Risks and Benefits of Seafood: How Does Available Guidance Affect Consumer Choices?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1056-1077.
    21. Christensen, Bryan J. & Bailey, DeeVon & Hunnicutt, Lynn & Ward, Ruby A., 2003. "Consumer Preferences for Public and Private Sector Certifications for Beef Products in the United States and the United Kingdom," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 6(3), pages 1-21.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:ags:arerjl:59231. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nareaea.html .

    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.