IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-06c50003.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Mixture Model of Consumers' Intended Purchase Decisions for Genetically Modified Foods

Author

Listed:
  • Kristine M. Grimsrud

    (Assistant Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of New Mexico)

  • Robert P. Berrens

    (Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of New Mexico)

  • Ron C. Mittelhammer

    (School of Economic Sciences and Dept. of Statistics, Washington State University)

Abstract

A finite probability mixture model is used to analyze the existence of multiple market segments for a pre-market good. The approach has at least two principal benefits. First, the model is capable of identifying likely market segments and their differentiating characteristics. Second, the model can be used to estimate the discount different consumer groups require to purchase the good. The model is illustrated using stated preference survey data collected on consumer responses to the potential introduction in Norway of bread made with genetically modified wheat.

Suggested Citation

  • Kristine M. Grimsrud & Robert P. Berrens & Ron C. Mittelhammer, 2006. "A Mixture Model of Consumers' Intended Purchase Decisions for Genetically Modified Foods," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(23), pages 1-11.
    • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-06c50003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/pubs/EB/2006/Volume3/EB-06C50003A.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McCluskey, Jill J. & Grimsrud, Kristine M. & Ouchi, Hiromi & Wahl, Thomas I., 2003. "Consumer Response to Genetically Modified Food Products in Japan," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 222-231, October.
    2. Kristine M. Grimsrud & Jill J. McCluskey & Maria L. Loureiro & Thomas I. Wahl, 2004. "Consumer Attitudes to Genetically Modified Food in Norway," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(1), pages 75-90, March.
    3. Maguire, Kelly B. & Owens, Nicole N. & Simon, Nathalie B., 2004. "The Price Premium for Organic Babyfood: A Hedonic Analysis," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(1), pages 1-18, April.
    4. Frank, Joshua, 2006. "Process attributes of goods, ethical considerations and implications for animal products," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 538-547, June.
    5. Loureiro, Maria L. & Lotade, Justus, 2005. "Do fair trade and eco-labels in coffee wake up the consumer conscience?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 129-138, April.
    6. Jill J. McCluskey & Kristine M. Grimsrud & Thomas I. Wahl, 2006. "Comparison of Consumer Responses to Genetically Modified Foods in Asia, North America, and Europe," Natural Resource Management and Policy, in: Richard E. Just & Julian M. Alston & David Zilberman (ed.), Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology: Economics and Policy, chapter 0, pages 227-240, Springer.
    7. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & John A. Fox, 2003. "Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 16-29.
    8. David F. Layton & Gardner Brown, 2000. "Heterogeneous Preferences Regarding Global Climate Change," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(4), pages 616-624, November.
    9. Baker, Gregory A. & Burnham, Thomas A., 2001. "The Market For Genetically Modified Foods: Consumer Characteristics And Policy Implications," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 4(4), pages 1-10.
    10. 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.
    11. Tirtha Dhar & Jeremy D. Foltz, 2005. "Milk by Any Other Name … Consumer Benefits from Labeled Milk," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(1), pages 214-228.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2006:i:23:p:1-11 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Kaneko, Naoya & Chern, Wen S., 2005. "Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Oil, Cornflakes, and Salmon: Evidence from a U.S. Telephone Survey," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(3), pages 1-19, December.
    3. Grimsrud, Kristine M. & Mittelhammer, Ronald C., 2003. "Market Segmentation Within Contingent Valuation," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22108, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Delmond, Anthony R. & McCluskey, Jill J. & Yormirzoev, Mirzobobo & Rogova, Maria A., 2018. "Russian consumer willingness to pay for genetically modified food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 91-100.
    5. 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.
    6. Kaneko, Naoya & Chern, Wen S., 2005. "Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods in Taiwan: Is Positive Discount the Same as Negative Premium?," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19491, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    7. Wendy J. Umberger & Dawn D. Thilmany McFadden & Amanda R. Smith, 2009. "Does altruism play a role in determining U.S. consumer preferences and willingness to pay for natural and regionally produced beef?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(2), pages 268-285.
    8. Dias, Vitor & Belcher, Ken, 2015. "Value and provision of ecosystem services from prairie wetlands: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 35-44.
    9. Lusk, Jayson L. & Jamal, Mustafa & Kurlander, Lauren & Roucan, Maud & Taulman, Lesley, 2005. "A Meta-Analysis of Genetically Modified Food Valuation Studies," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 30(1), pages 1-17, April.
    10. Birol, Ekin & Karousakis, Katia & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2006. "Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 145-156, November.
    11. Marco A. Palma & Alba J. Collart & Christopher J. Chammoun, 2015. "Information Asymmetry in Consumer Perceptions of Quality-Differentiated Food Products," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(3), pages 596-612, November.
    12. Gunderson, Michael A. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey, 2005. "Getting Something From Nothing: An Investigation of Beef Demand Expansion and Substitution in the Presence of Quality Heterogeneity," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19465, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. McCluskey, Jill J. & Loureiro, Maria L., 2003. "Consumer Preferences And Willingness To Pay For Food Labeling: A Discussion Of Empirical Studies," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 34(3), pages 1-8, November.
    14. Zhao, Li & Gu, Haiying & Yue, Chengyan & Ahlstrom, David, 2013. "Consumer welfare and GM food labeling: A simulation using an adjusted Kumaraswamy distribution," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 58-70.
    15. Jeff Luckstead & Heather A. Snell & Lawton Lanier Nalley & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Joshua Sarpaning, 2022. "A multi‐country study on consumers' valuation for child‐labor‐free chocolate: Implications for child labor in cocoa production," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(2), pages 1021-1048, June.
    16. Bond, Craig A. & Thilmany, Dawn D. & Bond, Jennifer Keeling, 2008. "What to Choose? The Value of Label Claims to Fresh Produce Consumers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 1-26.
    17. Kontoleon Andreas & Yabe Mitsuyasu, 2006. "Market Segmentation Analysis of Preferences for GM Derived Animal Foods in the UK," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-38, December.
    18. D Rigby & M Burton, 2003. "Capturing Preference Heterogeneity in Stated Choice Models: A Random Parameter Logit Model of the Demand for GM Food," Economics Discussion Paper Series 0319, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    19. 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.
    20. Peschel, Anne O. & Grebitus, Carola & Steiner, Bodo & Veeman, Michele, 2015. "A Behavioral Approach to Understanding Green Consumerism Using Latent Class Choice Analysis," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202727, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    21. Hu, R. & Deng, H., 2018. "A Crisis of Consumers’ Trust in Scientists and Influence on Consumer Attitude," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276047, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C5 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling
    • D1 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior

    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:ebl:ecbull:eb-06c50003. 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: John P. Conley (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.