IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eejocm/v44y2022ics1755534522000264.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Matching reality: A basket and expenditure based choice experiment with sensory preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Neill, Clinton L.
  • Lahne, Jacob

Abstract

This article introduces a basket and expenditure based choice experiment design to elicit consumer preferences for multiple products. This design is utilized to imitate a more realistic shopping scenario for consumers when choosing among many different products simultaneously. This approach allows participants to choose both multiple items, in this case vegetables, and related quantities/expenditures to place in a basket of goods. We provide an application of the experimental design to a vegetable choice experiment. This is done in conjunction with a sensory experiment to provide a contextual component to the experiment and econometric model. This type of experiment lends itself to the use of the Multiple Discrete-Continuous Extreme Value (MDCEV) class of models. More specifically, we use the extended version of the MDCEV model proposed by Palma and Hess (2020) that relaxes the need for a budget while also accounting for substitution and complementarity among products. We find that the proposed design and class of econometric methods present a flexible way to analyze consumer choice when the desire is to elicit preferences for a basket of goods rather than simple discrete alternatives or attributes.

Suggested Citation

  • Neill, Clinton L. & Lahne, Jacob, 2022. "Matching reality: A basket and expenditure based choice experiment with sensory preferences," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:44:y:2022:i:c:s1755534522000264
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2022.100369
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534522000264
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jocm.2022.100369?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Vasquez Lavin, Felipe & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2008. "Functional Forms in Discrete/Continuous Choice Models With General Corner Solution," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt7z25t659, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    3. Ariely, Dan & Levav, Jonathan, 2000. "Sequential Choice in Group Settings: Taking the Road Less Traveled and Less Enjoyed," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(3), pages 279-290, December.
    4. Timothy Richards & Koichi Yonezawa & Sophie Winter, 2015. "Cross-category effects and private labels," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 42(2), pages 187-216.
    5. Timothy J. Richards & Lisa Mancino, 2014. "Demand for food-away-from-home: a multiple-discrete–continuous extreme value model," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 41(1), pages 111-133, February.
    6. Bonnet, Céline & Richards, Timothy J., 2016. "Models of Consumer Demand for Differentiated Products," TSE Working Papers 16-741, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    7. Neill, Clinton L. & Holcomb, Rodney B., 2019. "Does a food safety label matter? Consumer heterogeneity and fresh produce risk perceptions under the Food Safety Modernization Act," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 7-14.
    8. Neill, Clinton L. & Williams, Ryan B., 2016. "Consumer Preference For Alternative Milk Packaging: The Case Of An Inferred Environmental Attribute," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(3), pages 241-256, August.
    9. Brock,W.A. & Durlauf,S.N., 2003. "Multinomial choice with social interactions," Working papers 1, Wisconsin Madison - Social Systems.
    10. Jayson L. Lusk & John A. Fox & Ted C. Schroeder & James Mintert & Mohammad Koohmaraie, 2001. "In-Store Valuation of Steak Tenderness," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(3), pages 539-550.
    11. Megan E. Waldrop & Jill J. McCluskey, 2019. "Does information about organic status affect consumer sensory liking and willingness to pay for beer?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(2), pages 149-167, April.
    12. Gurmu, Shiferaw & Trivedi, Pravin K., 1992. "Overdispersion tests for truncated Poisson regression models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 54(1-3), pages 347-370.
    13. Axsen, Jonn & Orlebar, Caroline & Skippon, Stephen, 2013. "Social influence and consumer preference formation for pro-environmental technology: The case of a U.K. workplace electric-vehicle study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 96-107.
    14. Kelvin Lancaster, 1990. "The Economics of Product Variety: A Survey," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 189-206.
    15. Wales, T. J. & Woodland, A. D., 1983. "Estimation of consumer demand systems with binding non-negativity constraints," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 263-285, April.
    16. Gregory Howard & Brian E. Roe & Matthew G. Interis & Jay Martin, 2020. "Addressing Attribute Value Substitution in Discrete Choice Experiments to Avoid Unintended Consequences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(4), pages 813-838, December.
    17. repec:ken:wpaper:0901 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Caputo, Vincenzina & Lusk, Jayson L., 2022. "The Basket-Based Choice Experiment: A Method for Food Demand Policy Analysis," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    19. Richards, Timothy J. & Gómez, Miguel I. & Pofahl, Geoffrey, 2012. "A Multiple-discrete/Continuous Model of Price Promotion," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 206-225.
    20. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder & Glynn T. Tonsor, 2014. "Editor's choice Distinguishing beliefs from preferences in food choice," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 41(4), pages 627-655.
    21. Thiele, S. & Weiss, C., 2003. "Consumer demand for food diversity: evidence for Germany," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 99-115, April.
    22. Bhat, Chandra R., 2008. "The multiple discrete-continuous extreme value (MDCEV) model: Role of utility function parameters, identification considerations, and model extensions," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 274-303, March.
    23. Bhat, Chandra R., 2005. "A multiple discrete-continuous extreme value model: formulation and application to discretionary time-use decisions," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 679-707, September.
    24. Tozer, Peter R. & Galinato, Suzette P. & Ross, Carolyn F. & Miles, Carol A. & McCluskey, Jill J., 2015. "Sensory Analysis and Willingness to Pay for Craft Cider," Journal of Wine Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 314-328, December.
    25. Zijun Wang & David A. Bessler, 2006. "Price and quantity endogeneity in demand analysis: evidence from directed acyclic graphs," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 87-95, January.
    26. Bhat, Chandra R. & Castro, Marisol & Pinjari, Abdul Rawoof, 2015. "Allowing for complementarity and rich substitution patterns in multiple discrete–continuous models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 81(P1), pages 59-77.
    27. Deaton, Angus S & Muellbauer, John, 1980. "An Almost Ideal Demand System," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 312-326, June.
    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. Zhaoxin Liu & Erik Ansink, 2024. "Price elasticities of meat, fish and plant-based meat substitutes: evidence from store-level Dutch supermarket scanner data," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 24-046/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    2. repec:ags:aaea22:335680 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Hernandez, Jose Ignacio & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Chorus, Caspar & Mouter, Niek, 2023. "Data-driven assisted model specification for complex choice experiments data: Association rules learning and random forests for Participatory Value Evaluation experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).

    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. Bonnet, Céline & Richards, Timothy J., 2016. "Models of Consumer Demand for Differentiated Products," TSE Working Papers 16-741, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    2. Kidokoro, Yukihiro, 2016. "A micro foundation for discrete choice models with multiple categories of goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 54-72.
    3. Saxena, Shobhit & Pinjari, Abdul Rawoof & Paleti, Rajesh, 2022. "A multiple discrete-continuous extreme value model with ordered preferences (MDCEV-OP): Modelling framework for episode-level activity participation and time-use analysis," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 259-283.
    4. Pinjari, Abdul Rawoof & Bhat, Chandra, 2021. "Computationally efficient forecasting procedures for Kuhn-Tucker consumer demand model systems: Application to residential energy consumption analysis," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    5. Palma, David & Hess, Stephane, 2022. "Extending the Multiple Discrete Continuous (MDC) modelling framework to consider complementarity, substitution, and an unobserved budget," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 13-35.
    6. Bhat, Chandra R., 2022. "A new closed-form two-stage budgeting-based multiple discrete-continuous model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 162-192.
    7. Jing Li & Edward C. Jaenicke & Tobenna D. Anekwe & Alessandro Bonanno, 2018. "Demand for ready‐to‐eat cereals with household‐level censored purchase data and nutrition label information: A distance metric approach," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(4), pages 687-713, October.
    8. Bhat, Chandra R. & Castro, Marisol & Pinjari, Abdul Rawoof, 2015. "Allowing for complementarity and rich substitution patterns in multiple discrete–continuous models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 81(P1), pages 59-77.
    9. Alessandro Bonanno & Carlo Russo & Luisa Menapace, 2018. "Market power and bargaining in agrifood markets: A review of emerging topics and tools," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(1), pages 6-23, December.
    10. Castro, Marisol & Bhat, Chandra R. & Pendyala, Ram M. & Jara-Díaz, Sergio R., 2012. "Accommodating multiple constraints in the multiple discrete–continuous extreme value (MDCEV) choice model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 46(6), pages 729-743.
    11. Rodrigo J. Tapia & Gerard Jong & Ana M. Larranaga & Helena B. Bettella Cybis, 2021. "Exploring Multiple‐discreteness in Freight Transport. A Multiple Discrete Extreme Value Model Application for Grain Consolidators in Argentina," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 581-608, September.
    12. Sikder, Sujan & Pinjari, Abdul Rawoof, 2013. "The benefits of allowing heteroscedastic stochastic distributions in multiple discrete-continuous choice models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 39-56.
    13. Saxena, Shobhit & Pinjari, Abdul Rawoof & Bhat, Chandra R., 2022. "Multiple discrete-continuous choice models with additively separable utility functions and linear utility on outside good: Model properties and characterization of demand functions," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 526-557.
    14. Kuriyama, Koichi & Shoji, Yasushi & Tsuge, Takahiro, 2020. "The value of leisure time of weekends and long holidays: The multiple discrete–continuous extreme value (MDCEV) choice model with triple constraints," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    15. Kim, Chul & Smith, Adam N. & Kim, Jaehwan & Allenby, Greg M., 2023. "Outside good utility and substitution patterns in direct utility models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    16. Richards, Timothy J. & Gómez, Miguel I. & Pofahl, Geoffrey, 2012. "A Multiple-discrete/Continuous Model of Price Promotion," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 206-225.
    17. Dr. Timothy J. Richards, 2015. "A Shameless Pitch for Quantitative Marketing," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(4), pages 564-567, October.
    18. Vardges Hovhannisyan & Hayk Khachatryan, 2017. "Ornamental Plants in the United States: An Econometric Analysis of a Household‐Level Demand System," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(2), pages 226-241, April.
    19. Koichi Yonezawa & Miguel I Gómez & Timothy J Richards, 2020. "The Robinson–Patman Act and Vertical Relationships," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(1), pages 329-352, January.
    20. Bhat, Chandra R. & Mondal, Aupal & Asmussen, Katherine E. & Bhat, Aarti C., 2020. "A multiple discrete extreme value choice model with grouped consumption data and unobserved budgets," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 196-222.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Consumer choice; Sensory; Basket and expenditure based choice experiment; Vegetables;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • Q13 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Markets and Marketing; Cooperatives; Agribusiness
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis

    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:eee:eejocm:v:44:y:2022:i:c:s1755534522000264. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-choice-modelling .

    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.