IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ssaaea/113240.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Social Desirability Bias on Willingness-To-Pay for Organic Beef

Author

Listed:
  • Cheek, Lindsey

Abstract

Researchers regularly conduct willingness-to-pay or valuation studies for product marketing or public policy purposes. However, a large volume of research suggests valuation tools such as conjoint analysis may be subject to social desirability bias, where subjects misrepresent their true preferences to create a favorable impression. The objective of this study is to measure the effects of social desirability bias on conjoint survey responses. Consumers were asked to rank organic ground beef relative to other ground beef products at various prices. A popular scale measuring individuals’ tendency to exhibit social desirability bias was also administered. Regression analysis found no correlation between individuals’ social desirability scale scores and their preferences for organic beef. Thus, in this study, social desirability bias does not appear to be a problem for valuation researchers.

Suggested Citation

  • Cheek, Lindsey, 2007. "The Effect of Social Desirability Bias on Willingness-To-Pay for Organic Beef," SS-AAEA Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 2007, pages 1-20.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ssaaea:113240
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.113240
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/113240/files/Paper4.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.113240?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fisher, Robert J, 1993. "Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(2), pages 303-315, September.
    2. Christopher G. Leggett & Naomi S. Kleckner & Kevin J. Boyle & John W. Dufield & Robert Cameron Mitchell, 2003. "Social Desirability Bias in Contingent Valuation Surveys Administered Through In-Person Interviews," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(4), pages 561-575.
    3. Lusk, Jayson L. & Pruitt, J.R. & Norwood, Bailey, 2006. "External validity of a framed field experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 285-290, November.
    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. Thomas B. Yaméogo & Aymar Y. Bossa & Bio M. Torou & Jean-Louis Fusillier & Dapola E. C. Da & Yacouba Yira & Georges Serpantié & Fourvouon Somé & Mariam M. Dama-Balima, 2018. "Socio-Economic Factors Influencing Small-Scale Farmers’ Market Participation: Case of Rice Producers in Dano," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-16, November.

    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. Frode Alfnes & Chengyan Yue & Helen H. Jensen, 2010. "Cognitive dissonance as a means of reducing hypothetical bias," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 37(2), pages 147-163, June.
    2. Alicia Entem & Patrick Lloyd‐Smith & Wiktor ( Vic) L. Adamowicz & Peter C. Boxall, 2022. "Using inferred valuation to quantify survey and social desirability bias in stated preference research," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(4), pages 1224-1242, August.
    3. Achilleas Vassilopoulos & Niki Avgeraki & Stathis Klonaris, 2020. "Social desirability and the WTP–WTA disparity in common goods," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(7), pages 6425-6444, October.
    4. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood, 2009. "An Inferred Valuation Method," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 500-514.
    5. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2011. "Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 706-724, September.
    6. John A. List & Michael K. Price, 2016. "Editor's Choice The Use of Field Experiments in Environmental and Resource Economics," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 206-225.
    7. Lava Yadav & Thomas M. van Rensburg & Hugh Kelley, 2013. "A Comparison Between the Conventional Stated Preference Technique and an Inferred Valuation Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(2), pages 405-422, June.
    8. Cai, Zhen & Aguilar, Francisco X., 2013. "Meta-analysis of consumer's willingness-to-pay premiums for certified wood products," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 15-31.
    9. Cai, Zhen & Xie, Yi & Aguilar, Francisco X., 2017. "Eco-label credibility and retailer effects on green product purchasing intentions," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 200-208.
    10. Stachtiaris, Spiros & Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Klonaris, Stathis, "undated". "The "more is less" phenomenon in Contingent and Inferred valuation," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 116013, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    12. Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey, 2006. "Social Desirability Bias in Willingness-to-Pay for Products with Normative Attributes," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21428, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. Tiesta Thakur & Terrance Hurley, 2023. "Do farmers need to be paid to grow milkweed for monarchs or will they volunteer if it is easy enough?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 1008-1024, June.
    14. Johnston, Andrew C., 2021. "Preferences, Selection, and the Structure of Teacher Pay," IZA Discussion Papers 14831, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Fredrik Carlsson, 2010. "Design of Stated Preference Surveys: Is There More to Learn from Behavioral Economics?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(2), pages 167-177, June.
    16. Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey, 2009. "Bridging the gap between laboratory experiments and naturally occurring markets: An inferred valuation method," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 236-250, September.
    17. Maria Loureiro & Justus Lotade, 2005. "Interviewer Effects on the Valuation of Goods with Ethical and Environmental Attributes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(1), pages 49-72, January.
    18. Chris P. Long, 2016. "Mapping the Main Roads to Fairness: Examining the Managerial Context of Fairness Promotion," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 137(4), pages 757-783, September.
    19. Manuel Mieres-Chacaltana & Sonia Salvo-Garrido & Sergio Dominguez-Lara, 2025. "Modeling the Effects of Teacher Resilience and Self-Efficacy on Prosocialness: Implications for Sustainable Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-12, April.
    20. Jaqueline Garcia-Yi, 2015. "Drugs and Protected Areas: Coca Cultivation and Social Acceptance of Bahuaja-Sonene National Park in Peru," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-27, June.

    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:ssaaea:113240. 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/aaeaaea.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.