IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ecinqu/v57y2019i1p584-599.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Releasing The Trap: A Method To Reduce Inattention Bias In Survey Data With Application To U.S. Beer Taxes

Author

Listed:
  • Trey Malone
  • Jayson L. Lusk

Abstract

This study uses discrete choice experiments to explore the efficacy of prompts targeted at reducing inattention bias. Upon receiving feedback, inattentive respondents are given the opportunity to reanswer a so‐called “trap question” that checks for attentiveness. We find that individuals who miss trap questions and do not correctly revise their responses have significantly different choice patterns as compared to individuals who correctly answer the trap question. Adjusting for these inattentive responses has a substantive impact on policy impacts. Results, based on attentive participant responses, indicate that a minimum beer price would have to be substantial to substantially reduce beer demand. (JEL C83, Q18, Q51)

Suggested Citation

  • Trey Malone & Jayson L. Lusk, 2019. "Releasing The Trap: A Method To Reduce Inattention Bias In Survey Data With Application To U.S. Beer Taxes," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 57(1), pages 584-599, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ecinqu:v:57:y:2019:i:1:p:584-599
    DOI: 10.1111/ecin.12706
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12706
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ecin.12706?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 & Lisa A. House & Jing Xie, 2016. "Online Survey Data Quality and Its Implication for Willingness-to-Pay: A Cross-Country Comparison," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(2), pages 199-221, June.
    2. David Hensher & William Greene, 2010. "Non-attendance and dual processing of common-metric attributes in choice analysis: a latent class specification," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 413-426, October.
    3. Anne Ludbrook, 2009. "Minimum pricing of alcohol," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(12), pages 1357-1360, December.
    4. Michael Clark & Domino Determann & Stavros Petrou & Domenico Moro & Esther Bekker-Grob, 2014. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(9), pages 883-902, September.
    5. Stirling Bryan & Paul Dolan, 2004. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 5(3), pages 199-202, September.
    6. Elzinga, Kenneth G. & Tremblay, Carol Horton & Tremblay, Victor J., 2015. "Craft Beer in the United States: History, Numbers, and Geography," Journal of Wine Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 242-274, December.
    7. Jacquemet, Nicolas & Joule, Robert-Vincent & Luchini, Stéphane & Shogren, Jason F., 2013. "Preference elicitation under oath," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 110-132.
    8. Alan Brennan & Petra Meier & Robin Purshouse & Rachid Rafia & Yang Meng & Daniel Hill‐Macmanus & Colin Angus & John Holmes, 2015. "The Sheffield Alcohol Policy Model – A Mathematical Description," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(10), pages 1368-1388, October.
    9. Bruce D. Meyer & Wallace K. C. Mok & James X. Sullivan, 2015. "Household Surveys in Crisis," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 29(4), pages 199-226, Fall.
    10. 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.
    11. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2001. "Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?: Application to the Valuation of the Environment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 179-192, March.
    12. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    13. Hole, Arne Risa, 2011. "A discrete choice model with endogenous attribute attendance," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 110(3), pages 203-205, March.
    14. Hole, Arne Risa & Kolstad, Julie Riise & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte, 2013. "Inferred vs. stated attribute non-attendance in choice experiments: A study of doctors’ prescription behaviour," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 21-31.
    15. Hensher, David & Louviere, Jordan & Swait, Joffre, 1998. "Combining sources of preference data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 197-221, November.
    16. 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.
    17. Victor J. Tremblay & Carol Horton Tremblay, 2005. "The US Brewing Industry: Data and Economic Analysis," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262201518, December.
    18. Kathleen Brooks & Jayson L. Lusk, 2010. "Stated and Revealed Preferences for Organic and Cloned Milk: Combining Choice Experiment and Scanner Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1229-1241.
    19. 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.
    20. Resul Cesur & Inas Rashad Kelly, 2014. "Who Pays The Bar Tab? Beer Consumption And Economic Growth In The United States," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 52(1), pages 477-494, January.
    21. Bethany L. Peters & Edward Stringham, 2006. "No Booze? You May Lose: Why Drinkers Earn More Money Than Nondrinkers," Journal of Labor Research, Transaction Publishers, vol. 27(3), pages 411-421, June.
    22. 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.
    23. Trey Malone & Jayson L. Lusk, 2016. "Brewing up entrepreneurship: government intervention in beer," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 5(3), pages 325-342, November.
    24. Joffre Swait & Rick L. Andrews, 2003. "Enriching Scanner Panel Models with Choice Experiments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 442-460, September.
    25. Stephan F. Gohmann, 2016. "Why Are There so Few Breweries in the South?," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 40(5), pages 1071-1092, September.
    26. Nelson, Jon P., 2014. "Estimating the price elasticity of beer: Meta-analysis of data with heterogeneity, dependence, and publication bias," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 180-187.
    27. Scott, Anthony, 2002. "Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: An application in health care," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 383-398, June.
    28. Barrie M. Craven & Michael L. Marlow & Alden F. Shiers, 2013. "The Economics of Minimum Pricing for Alcohol," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 174-189, June.
    29. Jeremy W. Bray & Brett R. Loomis & Mark Engelen, 2009. "You save money when you buy in bulk: does volume‐based pricing cause people to buy more beer?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(5), pages 607-618, May.
    30. John A. List, 2001. "Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1498-1507, December.
    31. Edward Stringham & Ilkay Pulan, 2006. "Evaluating Economic Justifications for Alcohol Restrictions," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(4), pages 971-990, October.
    32. Donald Freeman, 2001. "Beer and the business cycle," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 51-54.
    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. Riccardo Vecchio & Gerarda Caso & Luigi Cembalo & Massimiliano Borrello, 2020. "Is respondents? inattention in online surveys a major issue for research?," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 22(1), pages 1-18.
    2. Hyojae Jung & Chanjin Chung, 2024. "Consumers’ WTP for Sustainability Turfgrass Attributes with Consideration of Aesthetic Attributes and Water Conservation Policies," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-16, January.
    3. Maurizio Canavari & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2018. "How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances," Working Papers 2018-5, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    4. Brittney Goodrich & Marieke Fenton & Jerrod Penn & John Bovay & Travis Mountain, 2023. "Battling bots: Experiences and strategies to mitigate fraudulent responses in online surveys," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 762-784, June.
    5. Vecchio, Riccardo & Caso, Gerarda & Cembalo, Luigi & Borrello, Massimiliano, 2020. "Is respondents’ inattention in online surveys a major issue for research?," Economia agro-alimentare / Food Economy, Italian Society of Agri-food Economics/Società Italiana di Economia Agro-Alimentare (SIEA), vol. 22(1), March.
    6. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2019. "Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    7. Nguyen, Ly & Gao, Zhifeng & Anderson, James L., 2022. "Regulating menu information: What do consumers care and not care about at casual and fine dining restaurants for seafood consumption?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    8. Sunjin Ahn & Jayson L. Lusk, 2021. "Non‐Pecuniary Effects of Sugar‐Sweetened Beverage Policies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(1), pages 53-69, January.
    9. Haotian Cheng & Dayton M. Lambert & Karen L. DeLong & Kimberly L. Jensen, 2022. "Inattention, availability bias, and attribute premium estimation for a biobased product," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(2), pages 274-288, March.
    10. Dan Rigby & Caroline Vass & Katherine Payne, 2020. "Opening the ‘Black Box’: An Overview of Methods to Investigate the Decision-Making Process in Choice-Based Surveys," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(1), pages 31-41, February.
    11. Héctor Tavárez & Alicia Barriga, 2023. "Economic Viability of Developing Passive Recreational Opportunities in Puerto Rico: Insights for Sustainable Forest Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-17, October.
    12. Nguyen, Ly & Gao, Zhifeng & Anderson, James L. & House, Lisa A., 2022. "The Impacts of Covid-19 on Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Information Transparency at Casual and Fine Dining Restaurants," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322463, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Caputo, Vincenzina & Lusk, Jayson L., 2022. "The Basket-Based Choice Experiment: A Method for Food Demand Policy Analysis," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    14. Kolstoe, Sonja & Naald, Brian Vander & Cohan, Alison, 2022. "A tale of two samples: Understanding WTP differences in the age of social media," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    15. Kazi, Oishi & Miller, Steven R. & Malone, Trey & Wolf, Christopher A., 2022. "The Changing Role of Fat Perceptions in Fluid Milk Labeling: Would the Dairy Industry Sell More if 2% Milk Was Called “98% Fat Free”?," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 53(2), July.

    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. 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.
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    3. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Johan Lagerkvist, Carl, 2005. "Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 147-152, November.
    4. Hofstetter, Reto & Miller, Klaus M. & Krohmer, Harley & Zhang, Z. John, 2021. "A de-biased direct question approach to measuring consumers' willingness to pay," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 70-84.
    5. 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).
    6. Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2016. "Making the Most of Cheap Talk in an Online Survey," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236171, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods," Papers 2102.02945, arXiv.org.
    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. 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.
    10. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    11. Chen, Xuqi & Shen, Meng & Gao, Zhifeng, 2017. "Impact of Intra-respondent Variations in Attribute Attendance on Consumer Preference in Food Choice," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258509, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Shyamal Chowdhury & J. V. Meenakshi & Keith I. Tomlins & Constance Owori, 2010. "Are Consumers in Developing Countries Willing to Pay More for Micronutrient-Dense Biofortified Foods? Evidence from a Field Experiment in Uganda," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(1), pages 83-97.
    13. 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.
    14. Richartz, P. Christoph & Abdulai, Awudu & Kornher, Lukas, 2020. "Attribute Non Attendance and Consumer Preferences for Online Food Products in Germany," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 69(1), March.
    15. Alfnes, Frode & Steine, Gro, 2005. "None-of-These Bias in Stated Choice Experiments," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24761, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Katherine Fuller & Carola Grebitus, 2023. "Consumers' preferences and willingness to pay for coffee sustainability labels," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(4), pages 1007-1025, October.
    17. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga Jr., Rodolfo M., 2017. "When does real become consequential in non-hypothetical choice experiments?," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266327, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Lauren Chenarides & Carola Grebitus & Jayson L Lusk & Iryna Printezis, 2022. "A calibrated choice experiment method [Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(5), pages 971-1004.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    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:ecinqu:v:57:y:2019:i:1:p:584-599. 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/weaaaea.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.