IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rnd/arjebs/v10y2018i5p156-166.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

High-Quality Input Choice under Uncertainty and Ambiguity: An Exploratory Study of Costa Rica's Coffee Sector

Author

Listed:
  • Joselyne Najera
  • Paula Arzadun
  • Monica Navarro
  • Martin Solis

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to analyze the effect of multiple variables on the decision to invest in high versus regular-quality coffee production inputs. Thereby, a laboratory experiment was conducted with one hundred twenty-three undergraduate students, and posterior logistic regressions with random intercept were executed to analyze the collected data. The results showed that when there is a difference in the investment cost between a coffee of higher quality and a coffee of lower quality (regular), there is a slight increase in the odds ratio of investment in quality coffee, when going from an uncertainty condition of income to one with certainty in income of a higher quality coffee. On the other hand, when the cost is equal for both types of coffee, there is a strong increase in the odds ratio when going from an uncertainty condition to one with certainty. In addition, it was found that both the possibility of loss if there is an investment in a higher quality coffee and the ambiguity in the probability of facing a favorable business climate, reduce the odds ratio of investing in higher-quality coffee.

Suggested Citation

  • Joselyne Najera & Paula Arzadun & Monica Navarro & Martin Solis, 2018. "High-Quality Input Choice under Uncertainty and Ambiguity: An Exploratory Study of Costa Rica's Coffee Sector," Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, AMH International, vol. 10(5), pages 156-166.
  • Handle: RePEc:rnd:arjebs:v:10:y:2018:i:5:p:156-166
    DOI: 10.22610/jebs.v10i5.2505.g1717
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ojs.amhinternational.com/index.php/jebs/article/view/2505/1717
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://ojs.amhinternational.com/index.php/jebs/article/view/2505
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeffrey Butler & Luigi Guiso & Tullio Jappelli, 2014. "The role of intuition and reasoning in driving aversion to risk and ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(4), pages 455-484, December.
    2. Lyle Brenner & Yuval Rottenstreich & Sanjay Sood & Baler Bilgin, 2007. "On the Psychology of Loss Aversion: Possession, Valence, and Reversals of the Endowment Effect," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(3), pages 369-376, May.
    3. Gary Charness & Marie-Claire Villeval, 2009. "Cooperation and Competition in Intergenerational Experiments in the Field and the Laboratory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(3), pages 956-978, June.
    4. Matthias Sutter & Martin G. Kocher & Daniela Glätzle-Rützler & Stefan T. Trautmann, 2013. "Impatience and Uncertainty: Experimental Decisions Predict Adolescents' Field Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(1), pages 510-531, February.
    5. Danielson, Anders J. & Holm, Hakan J., 2007. "Do you trust your brethren?: Eliciting trust attitudes and trust behavior in a Tanzanian congregation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 255-271, February.
    6. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    7. Werner Güth & Carsten Schmidt & Matthias Sutter, 2007. "Bargaining outside the lab - a newspaper experiment of a three-person ultimatum game," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(518), pages 449-469, March.
    8. Huettel, Silke & Narayana, Rashmi & Odening, Martin, 2011. "Measuring dynamic efficiency under uncertainty," Structural Change in Agriculture/Strukturwandel im Agrarsektor (SiAg) Working Papers 129062, Humboldt University Berlin, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    9. Christoph Saenger & Matin Qaim & Maximo Torero & Angelino Viceisza, 2013. "Contract farming and smallholder incentives to produce high quality: experimental evidence from the Vietnamese dairy sector," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 44(3), pages 297-308, May.
    10. Alpaslan Akay & Peter Martinsson & Haileselassie Medhin & Stefan Trautmann, 2012. "Attitudes toward uncertainty among the poor: an experiment in rural Ethiopia," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(3), pages 453-464, September.
    11. Mulebeke, Robert & Kironchi, Geoffrey & Tenywa, Moses M., 2015. "Exploiting Cropping Management to Improve Agricultural Water Use Efficiency in the Drylands of Eastern Uganda," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 4(2).
    12. repec:eee:jfpoli:v:69:y:2017:i:c:p:231-242 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    14. Marc F. Bellemare, 2010. "Agricultural extension and imperfect supervision in contract farming: evidence from Madagascar," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(6), pages 507-517, November.
    15. Brent Hueth & Ethan Ligon & Steven Wolf & Steven Wu, 1999. "Incentive Instruments in Fruit and Vegetable Contracts: Input Control, Monitoring, Measuring, and Price Risk," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 21(2), pages 374-389.
    16. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    17. James Alm & Kim M. Bloomquist & Michael McKee, 2015. "On The External Validity Of Laboratory Tax Compliance Experiments," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 53(2), pages 1170-1186, April.
    18. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    19. Werner Güth & Oliver Kirchkamp, 2012. "Will you accept without knowing what? The Yes-No game in the newspaper and in the lab," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(4), pages 656-666, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:rnd:arjebs:v:10:y:2018:i:5:p:156-166. 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: (Muhammad Tayyab). General contact details of provider: https://ojs.amhinternational.com/index.php/jebs .

    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 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.

    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.