IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v93y2010i1p226-240.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who Participates in Household Scanning Panels?

Author

Listed:
  • Jayson L. Lusk
  • Kathleen Brooks

Abstract

We compare two widely used household scanning panels maintained by the Nielsen Company and Information Resources Inc. to a random sample of the U.S. population. Results indicate that the demographic characteristics of the random sample more closely match the Census Bureau data than the household scanning panels. We also show that after controlling for demographic differences, participants in the household scanning panels are slightly more price sensitive than participants in the random sample. The two household scanning panels yield similar results in relation to one another, which suggests that the household scanning panels may suffer from sample selection and participation biases. Copyright 2010, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Jayson L. Lusk & Kathleen Brooks, 2010. "Who Participates in Household Scanning Panels?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(1), pages 226-240.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:93:y:2010:i:1:p:226-240
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ajae/aaq123
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    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. Shogren, Jason F. & Margolis, Michael & Koo, Cannon & List, John A., 2001. "A random nth-price auction," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 409-421, December.
    2. Marks, Melanie B & Croson, Rachel T A, 1999. "The Effect of Incomplete Information in a Threshold Public Goods Experiment," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 99(1-2), pages 103-118, April.
    3. Kinnucan, Henry W. & Chang, Hui-Shung (Christie) & Venkateswaran, Meenakshi, 1993. "Generic Advertising Wearout," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 61(03), December.
    4. Messer, Kent D. & Kaiser, Harry M. & Schulze, William D., 2004. "Status Quo Bias and Voluntary Contributions: Can Lab Experiments Parallel Real World Outcomes for Generic Advertising?," Research Bulletins 122094, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    5. Rose, Steven K. & Clark, Jeremy & Poe, Gregory L. & Rondeau, Daniel & Schulze, William D., 2002. "The private provision of public goods: tests of a provision point mechanism for funding green power programs," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 131-155, February.
    6. Marks, Melanie & Croson, Rachel, 1998. "Alternative rebate rules in the provision of a threshold public good: An experimental investigation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 195-220, February.
    7. Todd M. Schmit & Harry M. Kaiser, 2004. "Decomposing the Variation in Generic Advertising Response over Time," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 139-153.
    8. Alm, James & McClelland, Gary H & Schulze, William D, 1999. "Changing the Social Norm of Tax Compliance by Voting," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(2), pages 141-171.
    9. Mark Bagnoli & Barton L. Lipman, 1989. "Provision of Public Goods: Fully Implementing the Core through Private Contributions," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 56(4), pages 583-601.
    10. John D. Jackson, 1997. "Effects of Health Information and Generic Advertising on U.S. Meat Demand," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(1), pages 13-23.
    11. John M. Crespi & Adriana Chacón-Cascante, 2004. "Do U.S. marketing orders have much market power? An examination of the Almond Board of California," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 1-15.
    12. Coulibaly, Nouhoun & Brorsen, B. Wade, 1998. "Resolving The Conflicts Between Previous Meat Generic Advertising Studies," 1998 Annual meeting, August 2-5, Salt Lake City, UT 20897, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. Nouhoun Coulibaly & B. Wade Brorsen, 1999. "Explaining the differences between two previous meat generic advertising studies," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 501-515.
    14. Brian L. Buhr & Hanho Kim, 1997. "Dynamic Adjustment in Vertically Linked Markets: The Case of the U.S. Beef Industry," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(1), pages 126-138.
    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. Andrew Leicester, 2012. "How might in-home scanner technology be used in budget surveys?," IFS Working Papers W12/01, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    2. Schroeter, Christiane & Cai, Xiaowei, 2012. "The Impact of Food Environment on Branded vs. Private Label Produce Choice," 2012 AAEA/EAAE Food Environment Symposium, May 30-31, Boston, MA 123197, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Christoph, Inken B. & Buergelt, Doreen & Salamon, Petra & Weible, Daniela & Zander, Katrin, 2012. "A Holistic Approach to Consumer Research on Expectations Regarding Animal Husbandry," 2012 International European Forum, February 13-17, 2012, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 144963, International European Forum on Innovation and System Dynamics in Food Networks.
    4. Schroeter Christiane & Cai Xiaowei, 2012. "The Impact of Food Environment on Private Label versus Branded Produce Choice," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-23, November.

    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:oup:ajagec:v:93:y:2010:i:1:p:226-240. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.