IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/erevae/v50y2023i2p457-496..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Experimental quantity, mental budgeting and food choice: a discrete choice experiment application

Author

Listed:
  • Wen Lin
  • David L Ortega
  • Vincenzina Caputo

Abstract

Food discrete choice experiments typically define product alternatives with a researcher-predetermined and sometimes arbitrary quantity. Results reveal that the use of a researcher-prespecified experimental quantity leads to biased welfare estimates. Differences in marginal utility of money are found with a resulting upward bias in willingness to pay estimates when small pre-defined product quantities are used. Higher-income consumers show more evident bias. This evidence cautions the use of a researcher-predetermined quantity to design alternatives in choice tasks and also proposes an alternative experimental design that accounts for these effects by matching the quantity in experiments to consumer’s actual purchase quantity.

Suggested Citation

  • Wen Lin & David L Ortega & Vincenzina Caputo, 2023. "Experimental quantity, mental budgeting and food choice: a discrete choice experiment application," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 50(2), pages 457-496.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:erevae:v:50:y:2023:i:2:p:457-496.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/erae/jbac017
    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.

    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:erevae:v:50:y:2023:i:2:p:457-496.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.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.