IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/canjag/v57y2009i2p205-221.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Choice Context Affect the Results from Incentive‐Compatible Experiments? The Case of Non‐GM and Country‐of‐Origin Premia in Canola Oil

Author

Listed:
  • Dmitriy Volinskiy
  • Wiktor L. Adamowicz
  • Michele Veeman
  • Lorie Srivastava

Abstract

We seek to design and implement a WTP elicitation instrument closely resembling an actual grocery shopping experience. An incentive‐compatible choice experiment is used to elicit values for a non‐GM attribute and a country‐of‐origin attribute of Canola oil. The choice context is varied to assess whether revealed‐preference choice experiments are affected by choice variety. A median premium for non‐GM Canola oil is found to approximate C$0.45 or C$0.62/liter according to the choice variety context; different country‐of‐origin effects are also found as choice context varies. Hypotheses as to why these significant effects of choice contexts occur are suggested. Nous cherchons à concevoir et à mettre en application un instrument de révélation de la VDP qui ressemble étroitement aux choix que fait un consommateur lorsqu’il effectue son marché. Nous avons utilisé une méthode expérimentale compatible avec les incitations des participants afin de découvrir la valeur accordée à deux caractéristiques de l’huile de canola: non génétiquement modifiée et étiquetée selon le pays d’origine. La liste des choix est variée afin d’évaluer si les préférences révélées sont influencées par la gamme de choix. La prime médiane de l’huile de canola non génétiquement modifiée est d’environ 0,45 $CAN ou 0,62 $CAN le litre selon les choix proposés. Différents pays d’origine figurent aussi dans cette liste de choix. Nous avons formulé des hypothèses quant aux raisons pour lesquelles la gamme de choix a des effets importants.

Suggested Citation

  • Dmitriy Volinskiy & Wiktor L. Adamowicz & Michele Veeman & Lorie Srivastava, 2009. "Does Choice Context Affect the Results from Incentive‐Compatible Experiments? The Case of Non‐GM and Country‐of‐Origin Premia in Canola Oil," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 57(2), pages 205-221, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:57:y:2009:i:2:p:205-221
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2009.01148.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2009.01148.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2009.01148.x?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. Jason F. Shogren & John A. List & Dermot J. Hayes, 2000. "Preference Learning in Consecutive Experimental Auctions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(4), pages 1016-1021.
    2. Noussair, Charles & Robin, Stephane & Ruffieux, Bernard, 2004. "Revealing consumers' willingness-to-pay: A comparison of the BDM mechanism and the Vickrey auction," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 725-741, December.
    3. Michael Burton & Dan Rigby & Trevor Young, 2001. "Consumer attitudes to genetically modified organisms in food in the UK," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 28(4), pages 479-498, December.
    4. Huffman, Wallace E. & Rousu, Matthew & Shogren, Jason F. & Tegene, Abebayehu, 2007. "The effects of prior beliefs and learning on consumers' acceptance of genetically modified foods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 193-206, May.
    5. Jayson L. Lusk & W. Bruce Traill & Lisa O. House & Carlotta Valli & Sara R. Jaeger & Melissa Moore & Bert Morrow, 2006. "Comparative Advantage in Demand: Experimental Evidence of Preferences for Genetically Modified Food in the United States and European Union," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 1-21, March.
    6. Dermot J. Hayes & Jason F. Shogren & Seung Youll Shin & James B. Kliebenstein, 1995. "Valuing Food Safety in Experimental Auction Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(1), pages 40-53.
    7. Wuyang Hu, 2004. "Trading off health, environmental and genetic modification attributes in food," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 31(3), pages 389-408, September.
    8. Huffman Wallace E. & Rousu Matthew & Shogren Jason F & Tegene Abebayehu, 2004. "Consumer's Resistance to Genetically Modified Foods: The Role of Information in an Uncertain Environment," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 2(2), pages 1-15, May.
    9. Frode Alfnes, 2004. "Stated preferences for imported and hormone-treated beef: application of a mixed logit model," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 31(1), pages 19-37, March.
    10. Dhar, Ravi, 1997. "Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(2), pages 215-231, September.
    11. Heiner, Ronald A, 1983. "The Origin of Predictable Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 560-595, September.
    12. 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.
    13. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    14. Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2001. "The Influence of Task Complexity on Consumer Choice: A Latent Class Model of Decision Strategy Switching," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(1), pages 135-148, June.
    15. Wendy J. Umberger & Dillon M. Feuz, 2004. "The Usefulness of Experimental Auctions in Determining Consumers' Willingness-to-Pay for Quality-Differentiated Products," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 170-185.
    16. Ehmke, Mariah D., 2006. "International Differences in Consumer Preferences for Food Country-of-Origin: A Meta-Analysis," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21193, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    17. Hayes, Dermot J. & Kliebenstein, James & Shogren, Jason F. & Fox, John A., 1995. "Economics of Food Safety," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10453, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    18. 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.
    19. Keller, Kevin Lane & Staelin, Richard, 1987. "Effects of Quality and Quantity of Information on Decision Effectiveness," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 14(2), pages 200-213, September.
    20. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Schroeder, Ted C. & Fox, John A. & Biere, Arlo W., 2005. "European Preferences for Beef Steak Attributes," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 30(2), pages 1-14, August.
    21. Bernard, John C. & Zhang, Chao & Gifford, Katie, 2006. "An Experimental Investigation of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Non-GM Foods When an Organic Option Is Present," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 35(2), pages 1-12, October.
    22. Bernard, John C. & Zhang, Chao & Gifford, Katie, 2006. "An Experimental Investigation of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Non-GM Foods When an Organic Option Is Present," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(2), pages 374-385, October.
    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. Weng, Weizhe & Morrison, Mark D. & Boyle, Kevin J. & Boxall, Peter C. & Rose, John, 2021. "Effects of the number of alternatives in public good discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    2. Weng, Weizhe & Morrison, Mark & Boyle, Kevin J. & Boxall, Peter C., 2017. "The effect of the number of alternatives in choice experiment questions," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 259179, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Bazzani, Claudia & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Canavari, Maurizio & Danforth, Diana M., 2016. "On the Use of the BDM Mechanism in Non-Hypothetical Choice Experiments," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235904, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & Livingston, Michael J. & Mitchell, Lorraine & Wechsler, Seth, 2014. "Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States," Economic Research Report 164263, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. Ballco, Petjon & Gracia, Azucena, 2020. "Do market prices correspond with consumer demands? Combining market valuation and consumer utility for extra virgin olive oil quality attributes in a traditional producing country," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    6. Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Campbell, Danny, 2014. "Behavioral implications of providing real incentives in stated choice experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 102-116.
    7. Jing Zhang & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2011. "Unraveling the Choice Format Effect: A Context-Dependent Random Utility Model," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(4), pages 730-743.
    8. Weng, Weizhe & Morrison, Mark & Boyle, Kevin & Boxall, Peter, 2017. "The effect of the number of alternatives in a choice experiment with an application to the Macquarie Marshes, AU," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252836, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    9. Zheng, Qiujie & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr. & Yang, Wei & Tokunaga, Kanae, 2022. "Do U.S. consumers value genetically modified farmed salmon?," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322154, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Azucena Gracia, 2014. "Consumers’ preferences for a local food product: a real choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 111-128, August.
    11. Cash, Sean B. & McAlister, Anna R., 2017. "Young Food Consumers: How do Children Respond to Point-of-Purchase Interventions?," 2017 Allied Social Sciences Association (ASSA) Annual Meeting, January 6-8, 2017, Chicago, Illinois 252700, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Glenk, Klaus, 2015. "Learning how to choose—effects of instructional choice sets in discrete choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 122-142.

    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. 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.
    2. Frode Alfnes & Kyrre Rickertsen & Øydis Ueland, 2008. "Consumer attitudes toward low stake risk in food markets," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(23), pages 3039-3049.
    3. Bansal, Sangeeta & Chakravarty, Sujoy & Ramaswami, Bharat, 2013. "The informational and signaling impacts of labels: experimental evidence from India on GM foods," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(6), pages 701-722, December.
    4. Disdier, Anne-Célia & Marette, Stéphan, 2012. "How do consumers in developed countries value the environment and workers’ social rights in developing countries?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 1-11.
    5. Roosen, Jutta & Bieberstein, Andrea & Marette, Stephan & Blanchemanche, Sandrine & Vandermoere, Frederic, 2011. "The Effect of Information Choice and Discussion on Consumers' Willingness-to-Pay for Nanotechnologies in Food," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-10, August.
    6. Loureiro, Maria L. & Umberger, Wendy J., 2007. "A choice experiment model for beef: What US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin labeling and traceability," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 496-514, August.
    7. Wu, Linhai & Wang, Shuxian & Zhu, Dian & Hu, Wuyang & Wang, Hongsha, 2015. "Chinese consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food quality and safety attributes: The case of pork," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 121-136.
    8. Lusk Jayson L & Alexander Corinne & Rousu Matthew C., 2007. "Designing Experimental Auctions for Marketing Research: The Effect of Values, Distributions, and Mechanisms on Incentives for Truthful Bidding," Review of Marketing Science, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 1-32, October.
    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. Frode Alfnes, 2007. "Willingness to Pay versus Expected Consumption Value in Vickrey Auctions for New Experience Goods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 921-931.
    11. Yulian Ding & Michele M. Veeman & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2012. "The influence of attribute cutoffs on consumers' choices of a functional food," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 39(5), pages 745-769, December.
    12. Alfnes, Frode & Rickertsen, Kyrre & Ueland, Oydis, 2005. "Experimental Evidence of Risk Aversion in Consumer Markets: The Case of Beef Tenderness," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19285, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. Kayode Ajewole & Elliott Dennis & Ted C. Schroeder & Jason Bergtold, 2021. "Relative valuation of food and non‐food risks with a comparison to actuarial values: A best–worst approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 927-943, November.
    14. Alfnes, Frode & Rickertsen, Kyrre, 2003. "Sc-X: Calibrating Stated Choice Surveys With Experimental Auction Markets," 2003 Annual Meeting, August 16-22, 2003, Durban, South Africa 25814, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Liaukonyte, Jura & Streletskaya, Nadia A. & Kaiser, Harry M., 2015. "Noisy Information Signals and Endogenous Preferences for Labeled Attributes," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 40(2), pages 1-24, May.
    16. Frank van Tongeren & John Beghin & Stéphane Marette, 2009. "A Cost-Benefit Framework for the Assessment of Non-Tariff Measures in Agro-Food Trade," OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 21, OECD Publishing.
    17. Zhihao Zheng & Shida R. Henneberry & Chuanzhong Sun & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2018. "Consumer Demand for Genetically Modified Rice in Urban China," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(3), pages 705-725, September.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Wang, Shuxian & Wu, Linhai & Zhu, Dian & Wang, Hongsha & Xu, Lingling, 2014. "Chinese consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food attributes: The case of pork," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 165639, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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:canjag:v:57:y:2009:i:2:p:205-221. 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/caefmea.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.