IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v4y2020i2d10.1007_s41669-019-0168-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Touch for Health: Use of Pavlovian Processes with Physical Touch as a Means to Improve Menstrual Hygiene Management Initiatives, Measured by Willingness to Pay

Author

Listed:
  • Siobhan K. Yilmaz

    (University of New Mexico)

  • Alok K. Bohara

    (University of New Mexico)

  • Soumi Roy Chowdhury

    (National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER))

Abstract

Background To combat the lack of proper facilities and menstrual health knowledge in developing countries, many WASH (Water, Hygiene, and Sanitation) initiatives are including menstrual hygiene management (MHM) components. However, evidence shows that prior efforts have not been ultimately successful in inducing relevant behavior changes, due in part to cultural constraints and unidimensional interventions. As such, MHM research may need to include consideration of new theories/approaches. Evidence is growing of the role that physical presence/proximity and ability to touch objects has on incentives for consumers to purchase goods, captured through willingness to pay (WTP) figures. Such findings can be partially explained by Pavlovian processes. Objective This study sought to provide field-work validation of such findings of the role of Pavlovian processes and endowment effect on WTP figures for a female hygiene kit, reflecting motivation to adopt better hygiene behaviors. Methods This study used primary survey data collected from females in two upper-level schools in southwestern Nepal (n = 169). When presented in conjunction with a hygiene education session, one group of females was allowed physical interaction with a female hygiene kit, while another was not, before being surveyed on their WTP for the kit. Both non-parametric and parametric statistical analyses were performed to assess the impact of this ability to touch the kits on WTP figures. Results Results show a statistically significant difference between the WTP figures of those females allowed interaction with the kits prior to being surveyed and those who did not. This confirms the positive impact of physical presence/touch on motivations to use/acquire hygiene-related tools. Conclusions Such findings reveal how, through application of the theory of Pavlovian processes, future (menstrual) health education efforts could harness the human instinct to consume, remember, and use those objects presented in physical form, and include personal contact and demonstrations of better health practices in future MHM and WASH education initiatives. Such an approach may allow protocols and interventions to have more success, and dissemination of healthier behaviors and knowledge to be more prominent.

Suggested Citation

  • Siobhan K. Yilmaz & Alok K. Bohara & Soumi Roy Chowdhury, 2020. "Touch for Health: Use of Pavlovian Processes with Physical Touch as a Means to Improve Menstrual Hygiene Management Initiatives, Measured by Willingness to Pay," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 263-276, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:4:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s41669-019-0168-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-019-0168-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-019-0168-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-019-0168-6?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anjali Adukia, 2017. "Sanitation and Education," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 23-59, April.
    2. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    3. Benjamin Hermalin & Alice Isen, 2008. "A model of the effect of affect on economic decision making," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 17-40, March.
    4. Julie Hennegan & Paul Montgomery, 2016. "Do Menstrual Hygiene Management Interventions Improve Education and Psychosocial Outcomes for Women and Girls in Low and Middle Income Countries? A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-21, February.
    5. Foreit, James R. & Foreit, Karen G. Fleischman, 2003. "The reliability and validity of willingness to pay surveys for reproductive health pricing decisions in developing countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 37-47, January.
    6. Ronald G. Cummings & Laura Osborne Taylor, 1998. "Does Realism Matter in Contingent Valuation Surveys?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 203-215.
    7. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    8. John A. List, 2001. "Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1498-1507, December.
    9. Emily Oster & Rebecca Thornton, 2009. "Menstruation and Education in Nepal," NBER Working Papers 14853, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Kazi Faisal Bin Seraj, 2008. "Willingness to Pay for Improved Sanitation Services and its Implication on Demand Responsive Approach of BRAC Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Programme," Working Papers id:1590, eSocialSciences.
    11. Benjamin Bushong & Lindsay M. King & Colin F. Camerer & Antonio Rangel, 2010. "Pavlovian Processes in Consumer Choice: The Physical Presence of a Good Increases Willingness-to-Pay," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1556-1571, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 1st June 2020
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2020-06-01 11:00:00

    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. John A. List & Robert P. Berrens & Alok K. Bohara & Joe Kerkvliet, 2004. "Examining the Role of Social Isolation on Stated Preferences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(3), pages 741-752, June.
    2. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander James & Stéphane Luchini & Jason Shogren, 2011. "Social Psychology and Environmental Economics: A New Look at ex ante Corrections of Biased Preference Evaluation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 413-433, March.
    3. Bulte, Erwin & Gerking, Shelby & List, John A. & de Zeeuw, Aart, 2005. "The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values: evidence from a field study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 330-342, March.
    4. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood, 2009. "An Inferred Valuation Method," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 500-514.
    5. Craig D. Broadbent, 2014. "Evaluating mitigation and calibration techniques for hypothetical bias in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(12), pages 1831-1848, December.
    6. John List & Michael Price, 2013. "Using Field Experiments in Environmental and Resource Economics," Artefactual Field Experiments 00447, The Field Experiments Website.
    7. Paul Raschky & Reimund Schwarze & Manijeh Schwindt & Ferdinand Zahn, 2013. "Uncertainty of Governmental Relief and the Crowding out of Flood Insurance," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(2), pages 179-200, February.
    8. Dominique Ami & Frédéric Aprahamian & Olivier Chanel & Stéphane Luchini, 2011. "A Test of Cheap Talk in Different Hypothetical Contexts: The Case of Air Pollution," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(1), pages 111-130, September.
    9. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    10. Hensher, David A., 2010. "Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 735-752, July.
    11. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    12. Silva, Andres & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Campbell, Benjamin L. & Park, John L., 2011. "Revisiting Cheap Talk with New Evidence from a Field Experiment," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-12, August.
    13. Stavroula Tsigou & Stathis Klonaris, 2018. "Factors affecting farmers’ WTP for innovative fertilizer against soil salinity," Working Papers 2018-3, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    14. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods," Papers 2102.02945, arXiv.org.
    15. John K. Horowitz & Kenneth E. McConnell & James J. Murphy, 2013. "Behavioral foundations of environmental economics and valuation," Chapters, in: John A. List & Michael K. Price (ed.), Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment, chapter 4, pages 115-156, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Félix Muñoz-García & Tongzhe Li, 2018. "Explaining Hypothetical Bias Variations Using Income Elasticity of Demand," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 207-224, September.
    17. Stephane Bergeron & Maurice Doyon & Laurent Muller, 2019. "Strategic response: A key to understand how cheap talk works," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 67(1), pages 75-83, March.
    18. Merk, Christine & Rehdanz, Katrin & Schröder, Carsten, 2019. "How consumers trade off supply security and green electricity: Evidence from Germany and Great Britain," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(S1).
    19. Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang & Ye, Tao, 2018. "Cheap Talk, Consequentiality, and Certainty Follow-up as Hypothetical Bias Mitigation Techniques: A Cross Country Comparison," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274018, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Sardana, Kavita, 2019. "Tourists' Willingness to Pay for Restoration of Traditional Agro-forest Ecosystems Providing Biodiversity: Evidence from India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 362-372.

    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:spr:pharmo:v:4:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s41669-019-0168-6. 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: . General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.