IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/agecon/v52y2021i6p945-962.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choosing quantities impacts individuals choice, rationality, and willingness to pay estimates

Author

Listed:
  • Elliott J. Dennis
  • Glynn T. Tonsor
  • Jayson L. Lusk

Abstract

Conventional choice experiments ask respondents to choose their most preferred item, but in reality, consumers select both an item and quantity. Using a split sample design focused on U.S. meat demand, we find that flexibility in consumer quantity choice provides similar choice rationality and consumer segmentation as the conventional restricted quantity framework. Improvements include generating choice frequencies consistent with historical purchase data and willingness‐to‐pay estimates more comparable to observed retail price data. Additional benefits include the ability to understand consumer preferences for variety and habit formation and generated data that is compatible with traditional demand estimation, all of which are not possible under the conventional restricted quantity framework.

Suggested Citation

  • Elliott J. Dennis & Glynn T. Tonsor & Jayson L. Lusk, 2021. "Choosing quantities impacts individuals choice, rationality, and willingness to pay estimates," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 945-962, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:agecon:v:52:y:2021:i:6:p:945-962
    DOI: 10.1111/agec.12678
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12678
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/agec.12678?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. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    2. Glynn T. Tonsor & Robert S. Shupp, 2011. "Cheap Talk Scripts and Online Choice Experiments: "Looking Beyond the Mean"," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(4), pages 1015-1031.
    3. Maynard, Leigh J. & Hartell, Jason G. & Meyer, A. Lee & Hao, Jianqiang, 2004. "An experimental approach to valuing new differentiated products," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 31(2-3), pages 317-325, December.
    4. Richard W. Blundell & Martin Browning & Ian A. Crawford, 2003. "Nonparametric Engel Curves and Revealed Preference," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(1), pages 205-240, January.
    5. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    6. 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.
    7. Raghuram Iyengar & Kamel Jedidi, 2012. "A Conjoint Model of Quantity Discounts," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 334-350, March.
    8. Jayson L. Lusk, 2017. "Consumer Research with Big Data: Applications from the Food Demand Survey (FooDS)," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(2), pages 303-320.
    9. Veronica F. Pozo & Glynn T. Tonsor & Ted C. Schroeder, 2012. "How Choice Experiment Design Affects Estimated Valuation of Use of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(3), pages 639-655, September.
    10. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    11. Glynn T. Tonsor, 2011. "Consumer inferences of food safety and quality," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(2), pages 213-235, June.
    12. 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.
    13. Lusk, Jayson L. & Tonsor, Glynn T. & Schroeder, Ted C. & Hayes, Dermot J., 2018. "Effect of government quality grade labels on consumer demand for pork chops in the short and long run," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 91-102.
    14. Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
    15. James S. Eales & Laurian J. Unnevehr, 1988. "Demand for Beef and Chicken Products: Separability and Structural Change," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(3), pages 521-532.
    16. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
    17. repec:ken:wpaper:0901 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Mas-Colell, Andreu & Whinston, Michael D. & Green, Jerry R., 1995. "Microeconomic Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195102680, Decembrie.
    19. McKENDREE, MELISSA G.S. & TONSOR, GLYNN T. & WOLF, CHRISTOPHER A., 2018. "Animal Welfare Perceptions Of The U.S. Public And Cow-Calf Producers," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(4), pages 544-578, November.
    20. Giancarlo Moschini & Daniele Moro & Richard D. Green, 1994. "Maintaining and Testing Separability in Demand Systems," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(1), pages 61-73.
    21. Jayson L. Lusk & Glynn T. Tonsor, 2016. "How Meat Demand Elasticities Vary with Price, Income, and Product Category," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 38(4), pages 673-711.
    22. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    23. Malone, Trey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2018. "Consequences of Participant Inattention with an Application to Carbon Taxes for Meat Products," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 218-230.
    24. Jayson L. Lusk, 2003. "Effects of Cheap Talk on Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for Golden Rice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(4), pages 840-856.
    25. Levan Elbakidze & Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr. & Hao Li & Chris McIntosh, 2014. "Value elicitation for multiple quantities of a quasi-public good using open ended choice experiments and uniform price auctions," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(2), pages 253-265, March.
    26. Train, Kenneth, 2016. "Mixed logit with a flexible mixing distribution," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 40-53.
    27. Caputo, Vincenzina & Scarpa, Riccardo & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Ortega, David L., 2018. "Are preferences for food quality attributes really normally distributed? An analysis using flexible mixing distributions," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 10-27.
    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. Staples, Aaron J. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Ellison, Brenna & Malone, Trey, 2022. "Implications of halo effects in the U.S. alcohol market: An open-ended choice experiment with beer and hard seltzer," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322507, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. 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.
    3. Herrington, Caitlin L. & Ortega, David L. & Maredia, Mywish K. & Reyes, Byron A., 2023. "Does Bid Quantity Matter? Comparing Farmer Willingness-to-Pay for Specified vs Open-Ended Quantities of Biofortified Bean and Maize Seed in a Non-hypothetical Field Experiment," 2023 Annual Meeting, July 23-25, Washington D.C. 335919, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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. Lusk, Jayson L. & Tonsor, Glynn T. & Schroeder, Ted C. & Hayes, Dermot J., 2018. "Effect of government quality grade labels on consumer demand for pork chops in the short and long run," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 91-102.
    2. 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.
    3. Wolf, Christopher A. & Tonsor, Glynn T., 2017. "Cow Welfare in the U.S. Dairy Industry: Willingness-to-Pay and Willingness-to-Supply," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 42(2), May.
    4. Sergio Colombo & Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Klaus Glenk, 2020. "Ex-ante and ex-post measures to mitigate hypothetical bias. Are they alternative or complementary tools to increase the reliability and validity of DCE estimates?," Working Papers 2020-20, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    5. Sergio Colombo & Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Klaus Glenk, 2022. "The relative performance of ex‐ante and ex‐post measures to mitigate hypothetical and strategic bias in a stated preference study," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 845-873, September.
    6. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    7. 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.
    8. Carnegie, Rachel & Wang, Holly & Widmar, Nicole & Ortega, David, 2014. "Consumer Preferences for Quality and Safety Attributes of Duck in Restaurant Entrees: Is China A Viable Market for The U.S. Duck Industry?," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170717, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole & Wolf, Christopher, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 713-730, December.
    10. Collins Asante‐Addo & Daniela Weible, 2020. "Is there hope for domestically produced poultry meat? A choice experiment of consumers in Ghana," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(2), pages 281-298, April.
    11. Rombach, Meike & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Byrd, Elizabeth & Bitsch, Vera, 2018. "Do all roses smell equally sweet? Willingness to pay for flower attributes in specialized retail settings by German consumers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 91-99.
    12. 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.
    13. Shijiu Yin & Shanshan Lv & Yusheng Chen & Linhai Wu & Mo Chen & Jiang Yan, 2018. "Consumer preference for infant milk‐based formula with select food safety information attributes: Evidence from a choice experiment in China," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 66(4), pages 557-569, December.
    14. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    15. 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).
    16. McKendree, Melissa G.S. & Tonsor, Glynn T. & Schulz, Lee L., 2021. "Management of Multiple Sources of Risk in Livestock Production," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(1), pages 75-93, February.
    17. 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.
    18. Gao, Zhifeng & House, Lisa & Bi, Xiang, 2016. "Impact of satisficing behavior in online surveys on consumer preference and welfare estimates," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 26-36.
    19. Krueger, Rico & Rashidi, Taha H. & Vij, Akshay, 2020. "A Dirichlet process mixture model of discrete choice: Comparisons and a case study on preferences for shared automated vehicles," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    20. Caputo, Vincenzina & Lusk, Jayson L., 2022. "The Basket-Based Choice Experiment: A Method for Food Demand Policy Analysis," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).

    More about this item

    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:bla:agecon:v:52:y:2021:i:6:p:945-962. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.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.