IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v119y2025ics2214804325001259.html

Risk perception in food safety and the Value of Statistical Mild Food-Induced Adverse Reactions

Author

Listed:
  • Vassilopoulos, Achilleas
  • Antoniak, Marcin Adam
  • Cerjak, Marija

Abstract

This paper presents a novel approach to structurally estimating the value of eliminating mild adverse food reactions (Value of Statistical Mild Food-Induced Adverse Reactions, VSFAR) using a discrete choice experiment (DCE), without assuming objective perception of risk or any particular functional form for utility. We showcase our method using a Forthright panel of 1,190 US consumers with some type of food intolerance and find VSFAR values ranging from 22 to 229 USD per case, with substantial variation across models and consumer classes. We also find meaningful differences in likelihood insensitivity and pessimism across consumer segments, underscoring the need to incorporate flexible probability weighting functions and account for heterogeneity in preferences when valuing food-related health risks. Because our estimates are not tied to specific food items or types of adverse reactions, they can be scaled by the expected case numbers to inform societal cost estimates for mild food-borne illness or used in marketing to quantify the effect of risk reduction on the value chain of relevant products.

Suggested Citation

  • Vassilopoulos, Achilleas & Antoniak, Marcin Adam & Cerjak, Marija, 2025. "Risk perception in food safety and the Value of Statistical Mild Food-Induced Adverse Reactions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:119:y:2025:i:c:s2214804325001259
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2025.102461
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804325001259
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2025.102461?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fernando-Ignacio Sánchez-Martínez & Jorge-Eduardo Martínez-Pérez & José-María Abellán-Perpiñán & José-Luis Pinto-Prades, 2021. "The value of statistical life in the context of road safety: new evidence on the contingent valuation/standard gamble chained approach," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(2), pages 203-228, October.
    2. Luce, R. Duncan, 1991. "Rank- and sign-dependent linear utility models for binary gambles," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 75-100, February.
    3. Evans, William N & Viscusi, W Kip, 1991. "Estimation of State-Dependent Utility Functions Using Survey Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 73(1), pages 94-104, February.
    4. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    5. Mary F. Evans & V. Kerry Smith, 2022. "Complementary and the measurement of Individual Risk Tradeoffs: Accounting for Quantity and Quality of Life Effects," Chapters, in: The Economics of Environmental Risk, chapter 5, pages 77-96, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Agamoni Majumder & S. Madheswaran, 2020. "Compensation for Occupational Risk and Valuation of Statistical Life," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 149(3), pages 967-989, June.
    7. W. Kip Viscusi, 2019. "Utility functions for mild and severe health risks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 58(2), pages 143-166, June.
    8. Spencer Henson, 1996. "Consumer Willingness To Pay For Reductions In The Risk Of Food Poisoning In The Uk," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1‐4), pages 403-420, January.
    9. David E. Bell, 1985. "Disappointment in Decision Making Under Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(1), pages 1-27, February.
    10. Hess, Stephane & Palma, David, 2019. "Apollo: A flexible, powerful and customisable freeware package for choice model estimation and application," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    11. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Kenneth Train, 2008. "Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 994-1010.
    12. Itzhak Gilboa, 1988. "A Combination of Expected Utility and Maxmin Decision Criteria," Post-Print hal-00753244, HAL.
    13. James K. Hammitt & Kevin Haninger, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Food Safety: Sensitivity to Duration and Severity of Illness," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1170-1175.
    14. George L. Van Houtven, 1997. "Altruistic Preferences for Life‐Saving Public Programs: Do Baseline Risks Matter?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 85-92, February.
    15. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    16. REZE, Jacques H. & RUSTICHINI, Aldo, 2004. "State-dependent utility and decision theory," LIDAM Reprints CORE 1714, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    17. Nathalie B Simon & Chris Dockins & Kelly B Maguire & Stephen C Newbold & Alan J Krupnick & Laura O Taylor, 2019. "Policy Brief—What’s in a Name? A Search for Alternatives to “VSL”," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(1), pages 155-161.
    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. Wakker, Peter P. & Zank, Horst, 2002. "A simple preference foundation of cumulative prospect theory with power utility," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1253-1271, July.
    2. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier L’Haridon & Horst Zank, 2010. "Separating curvature and elevation: A parametric probability weighting function," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 39-65, August.
    3. Diecidue, Enrico & Schmidt, Ulrich & Zank, Horst, 2009. "Parametric weighting functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(3), pages 1102-1118, May.
    4. Sudeep Bhatia & Graham Loomes & Daniel Read, 2021. "Establishing the laws of preferential choice behavior," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(6), pages 1324-1369, November.
    5. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Horst Zank, 2023. "Source and rank-dependent utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(4), pages 949-981, May.
    6. Epper, Thomas & Fehr-Duda, Helga, 2017. "A Tale of Two Tails: On the Coexistence of Overweighting and Underweighting of Rare Extreme Events," Economics Working Paper Series 1705, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    7. Miles S. Kimball & Collin B. Raymond & Jiannan Zhou & Junya Zhou & Fumio Ohtake & Yoshiro Tsutsui, 2024. "Happiness Dynamics, Reference Dependence, and Motivated Beliefs in U.S. Presidential Elections," NBER Working Papers 32078, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Matthew D. Rablen, 2023. "Loss Aversion, Risk Aversion, and the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function," Working Papers 2023013, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics.
    9. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    10. Armantier, Olivier & Treich, Nicolas, 2009. "Star-shaped probability weighting functions and overbidding in first-price auctions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 83-85, August.
    11. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    12. Rablen, Matthew D., 2019. "Foundations of the Rank-Dependent Probability Weighting Function," IZA Discussion Papers 12701, IZA Network @ LISER.
    13. Henry Stott, 2006. "Cumulative prospect theory's functional menagerie," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 101-130, March.
    14. Sneddon, Robert & Luce, R. Duncan, 2001. "Empirical Comparisons of Bilinear and Nonbilinear Utility Theories," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 71-94, January.
    15. Ulrich Schmidt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2008. "Third-generation prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 203-223, June.
    16. Andrea C. Hupman & Jay Simon, 2023. "The Legacy of Peter Fishburn: Foundational Work and Lasting Impact," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 1-15, March.
    17. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2011. "Uncertainty Equivalents: Testing the Limits of the Independence Axiom," NBER Working Papers 17342, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Ulrich Schmidt & Christian Seidl, 2014. "Reconsidering the common ratio effect: the roles of compound independence, reduction, and coalescing," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(3), pages 323-339, October.
    19. Levon Barseghyan & Francesca Molinari & Ted O'Donoghue & Joshua C. Teitelbaum, 2013. "The Nature of Risk Preferences: Evidence from Insurance Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(6), pages 2499-2529, October.
    20. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Horst Zank, 2022. "Source and Rank-dependent Utility," Post-Print hal-03924295, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:soceco:v:119:y:2025:i:c:s2214804325001259. 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.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175 .

    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.