IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v18y2009i5p503-518.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Parental response to health risk information: experimental results on willingness‐to‐pay for safer infant milk formula

Author

Listed:
  • Isabell Goldberg
  • Jutta Roosen
  • Rodolfo M. Nayga

Abstract

Enterobacter sakazakii, a pathogen that can be found in powdered infant milk formula, can cause adverse health effects on infants. Using Vickrey auction, this study examines parents' willingness to pay (WTP) for a quality assurance label on powdered infant milk formula. The influence of ambiguity with the incidence rate information and provision of safe‐handling information on WTP are also evaluated using three experimental treatments. Our findings generally imply that parents significantly value a quality assurance label. The mean price premium parents are willing to pay for the safer and quality assurance labelled powdered infant milk formula ranges from 61 to 133 Eurocents per 100 grams (53–116% of the base price per 100 grams) depending on the treatment. While no ambiguity effects are generally found, provision of safe‐handling information significantly reduced WTP to 39–69 Eurocents per 100 grams depending on the treatment. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Isabell Goldberg & Jutta Roosen & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2009. "Parental response to health risk information: experimental results on willingness‐to‐pay for safer infant milk formula," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(5), pages 503-518, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:18:y:2009:i:5:p:503-518
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.1381
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1381
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.1381?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. Roosen J. & Hennessy D.A., 2004. "Testing for the Monotone Likelihood Ratio Assumption," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 22, pages 358-366, July.
    2. Sethi, S. Prakash & Bhalla, Bharat B., 1993. "A new perspective on the international social regulation of business: An evaluation of the compliance status of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 141-158.
    3. Shogren, Jason F. & Crocker, Thomas D., 1999. "Risk and Its Consequences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 44-51, January.
    4. repec:feb:framed:0073 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Helen R. Neill & Ronald G. Cummings & Philip T. Ganderton & Glenn W. Harrison & Thomas McGuckin, 1994. "Hypothetical Surveys and Real Economic Commitments," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(2), pages 145-154.
    6. Jason F. Shogren & Tommy Stamland, 2002. "Skill and the Value of Life," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(5), pages 1168-1197, October.
    7. Craig R. Fox & Amos Tversky, 1995. "Ambiguity Aversion and Comparative Ignorance," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(3), pages 585-603.
    8. John A. List & Jason F. Shogren, 1999. "Price Information and Bidding Behavior in Repeated Second-Price Auctions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(4), pages 942-949.
    9. Glenn C. Blomquist, 2004. "Self-Protection and Averting Behavior, Values of Statistical Lives, and Benefit Cost Analysis of Environmental Policy," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 89-110, March.
    10. Craig E. Landry & John A. List, 2007. "Using Ex Ante Approaches to Obtain Credible Signals for Value in Contingent Markets: Evidence from the Field," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(2), pages 420-429.
    11. Chow, Clare Chua & Sarin, Rakesh K, 2001. "Comparative Ignorance and the Ellsberg Paradox," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 129-139, March.
    12. 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.
    13. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    14. 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.
    15. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Lazaridis, Panagiotis & Nayga Jr., Rodolfo M., 2008. "The role of reference prices in experimental auctions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(3), pages 446-448, June.
    16. Ty Feldkamp & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Experimental Auction Procedure: Impact on Valuation of Quality Differentiated Goods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 389-405.
    17. William Vickrey, 1961. "Counterspeculation, Auctions, And Competitive Sealed Tenders," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 16(1), pages 8-37, March.
    18. Blumenschein, Karen & Johannesson, Magnus & Blomquist, Glenn C. & Liljas, Bengt & O'Conor, Richard M., 1997. "Hypothetical versus real payments in Vickrey auctions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 177-180, October.
    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. Lawless, Lydia J.R. & Drichoutis, Andreas & Nayga, Rodolfo & Threlfall, Renee T. & Meullenet, Jean-François, 2012. "Identifying product attributes and consumer attitudes that impact willingness-to-pay for a nutraceutical-rich juice product," MPRA Paper 53023, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 18 Jan 2014.
    2. Anna Alberini, 2017. "Measuring the economic value of the effects of chemicals on ecological systems and human health," OECD Environment Working Papers 116, OECD Publishing.
    3. Espérance Zossou & Rose Fiamohe & Simple Davo Vodouhe & Matty Demont, 2022. "Experimental auctions with exogenous and endogenous information treatment: Willingness to pay for improved parboiled rice in Benin," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 806-825, September.

    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. 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.
    2. Shunda, Nicholas, 2009. "Auctions with a buy price: The case of reference-dependent preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 645-664, November.
    3. Chavez, Daniel & Palma, Marco, 2015. "Off the reservation: Pushing the bounds of rationality in experimental auctions," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 202164, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Mercè Roca & Robin Hogarth & A. Maule, 2006. "Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 175-194, May.
    5. Fox, Craig R. & Weber, Martin, 2002. "Ambiguity Aversion, Comparative Ignorance, and Decision Context," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 476-498, May.
    6. repec:ken:wpaper:0601 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Jean Desrochers & J. Francois Outreville, 2013. "Uncertainty, Ambiguity and Risk Taking: an experimental investigation of consumer behavior and demand for insurance," ICER Working Papers 10-2013, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    8. Paul Dolan & Martin Jones, 2004. "Explaining Attitudes Towards Ambiguity: An Experimental Test Of The Comparative Ignorance Hypothesis," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 51(3), pages 281-301, August.
    9. Enrico Rubaltelli & Rino Rumiati & Paul Slovic, 2010. "Do ambiguity avoidance and the comparative ignorance hypothesis depend on people’s affective reactions?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 243-254, June.
    10. Anne Rozan & Anne Stenger & Marc Willinger, 2004. "Willingness-to-pay for food safety: An experimental investigation of quality certification on bidding behaviour," Framed Field Experiments 00197, The Field Experiments Website.
    11. José Lara Resende & George Wu, 2010. "Competence effects for choices involving gains and losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 109-132, April.
    12. Koch, Christopher & Schunk, Daniel, 2007. "The Case for Limited Auditor Liability - The Effects of Liability Size on Risk Aversion and Ambiguity Aversion," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 07-04, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    13. Paul Dolan & Martin Jones, 2002. "Explaining Attitudes towards Ambiguity: An Experimental Test of the Comparative Ignorance Hypothesis," Dundee Discussion Papers in Economics 131, Economic Studies, University of Dundee.
    14. Shaw, W. Douglass & Woodward, Richard T., 2008. "Why environmental and resource economists should care about non-expected utility models," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 66-89, January.
    15. 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.
    16. Jonas Schmidt & Tammo H. A. Bijmolt, 2020. "Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: a meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 499-518, May.
    17. Levan Elbakidze & Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr. & Hao Li & Chris McIntosh, 2014. "Value elicitation for multiple quantities of a quasi-public good using open ended choice experiments and uniform price auctions," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(2), pages 253-265, March.
    18. 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.
    19. Cédric Gutierrez & Emmanuel Kemel, 2021. "Measuring natural source dependence," Working Papers hal-03330409, HAL.
    20. Stefan Trautmann & Ferdinand Vieider & Peter Wakker, 2008. "Causes of ambiguity aversion: Known versus unknown preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 225-243, June.
    21. Peter, Richard & Ying, Jie, 2020. "Do you trust your insurer? Ambiguity about contract nonperformance and optimal insurance demand," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 938-954.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:18:y:2009:i:5:p:503-518. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.