IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v30y2021i2p289-310.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Information and sin goods: Experimental evidence on cigarettes

Author

Listed:
  • Johanna Catherine Maclean
  • John Buckell

Abstract

We test the importance of information source on consumer choice in the context of sin goods, specifically electronic and tobacco cigarettes, among adult smokers. We proxy choice with intentions to vape and quit smoking in the next 30 days. We experimentally vary the information source: government, private companies, physicians, and no source. Our findings suggest that information source matters in the context of cigarettes choice for adult smokers. Private companies appear to be an important information source for cigarettes among adult smokers.

Suggested Citation

  • Johanna Catherine Maclean & John Buckell, 2021. "Information and sin goods: Experimental evidence on cigarettes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(2), pages 289-310, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:30:y:2021:i:2:p:289-310
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.4189
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4189
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.4189?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. Dave, Dhaval & Dench, Daniel & Grossman, Michael & Kenkel, Donald S. & Saffer, Henry, 2019. "Does e-cigarette advertising encourage adult smokers to quit?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    2. Dolan, P. & Hallsworth, M. & Halpern, D. & King, D. & Metcalfe, R. & Vlaev, I., 2012. "Influencing behaviour: The mindspace way," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 264-277.
    3. David Bradford & Charles Courtemanche & Garth Heutel & Patrick McAlvanah & Christopher Ruhm, 2017. "Time preferences and consumer behavior," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 55(2), pages 119-145, December.
    4. Rosemary Avery & Donald Kenkel & Dean R. Lillard & Alan Mathios, 2007. "Private Profits and Public Health: Does Advertising of Smoking Cessation Products Encourage Smokers to Quit?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 115, pages 447-481.
    5. Alberto Abadie & Susan Athey & Guido W Imbens & Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2023. "When Should You Adjust Standard Errors for Clustering?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 138(1), pages 1-35.
    6. Dean Karlan & John A List, 2012. "How Can Bill and Melinda Gates Increase Other People’s Donations to Fund Public Goods?," Working Papers id:4880, eSocialSciences.
    7. Charles J. Courtemanche & Daniela Zapata, 2014. "Does Universal Coverage Improve Health? The Massachusetts Experience," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(1), pages 36-69, January.
    8. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    9. Julio J. Elías & Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis, 2019. "Paying for Kidneys? A Randomized Survey and Choice Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(8), pages 2855-2888, August.
    10. Dean Karlan and John A. List, 2012. "How Can Bill and Melinda Gates Increase Other People’s Donations to Fund Public Goods? - Working Paper 292," Working Papers 292, Center for Global Development.
    11. Joshua D. Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2009. "Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 8769.
    12. Javdani, Mohsen & Chang, Ha-Joon, 2019. "Who Said or What Said? Estimating Ideological Bias in Views Among Economists," IZA Discussion Papers 12738, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Hoenig J. M. & Heisey D. M., 2001. "The Abuse of Power: The Pervasive Fallacy of Power Calculations for Data Analysis," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 55, pages 19-24, February.
    14. Brady P. Horn & Johanna Catherine Maclean & Michael R. Strain, 2017. "Do Minimum Wage Increases Influence Worker Health?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(4), pages 1986-2007, October.
    15. Karlan, Dean & List, John A., 2020. "How can Bill and Melinda Gates increase other people's donations to fund public goods?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    16. Dhaval Dave & Daniel Dench & Donald Kenkel & Alan Mathios & Hua Wang, 2020. "News that takes your breath away: risk perceptions during an outbreak of vaping-related lung injuries," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 60(3), pages 281-307, June.
    17. Becker-Olsen, Karen L. & Cudmore, B. Andrew & Hill, Ronald Paul, 2006. "The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 46-53, January.
    18. Donald S. Kenkel & Sida Peng & Michael F. Pesko & Hua Wang, 2020. "Mostly harmless regulation? Electronic cigarettes, public policy, and consumer welfare," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(11), pages 1364-1377, November.
    19. Meer, Jonathan, 2011. "Brother, can you spare a dime? Peer pressure in charitable solicitation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 926-941.
    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 8th March 2021
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2021-03-08 12:00:01

    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. Johanna Catherine Maclean & John Buckell & Joachim Marti, 2019. "Information Source and Cigarettes: Experimental Evidence on the Messenger Effect," NBER Working Papers 25632, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Drouvelis, Michalis & Marx, Benjamin M., 2022. "Can charitable appeals identify and exploit belief heterogeneity?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 631-649.
    3. Michalis Drouvelis & Benjamin M. Marx, 2021. "Dimensions of donation preferences: the structure of peer and income effects," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 274-302, March.
    4. Lenka Fiala & Charles N. Noussair, 2017. "Charitable Giving, Emotions, And The Default Effect," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(4), pages 1792-1812, October.
    5. Cagala, Tobias & Glogowsky, Ulrich & Grimm, Veronika & Rincke, Johannes & Tuset-Cueva, Amanda, 2019. "Rent extraction and prosocial behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 709-723.
    6. Luca Corazzini & Christopher Cotton & Enrico Longo & Tommaso Reggiani, 2021. "The Gates Effect in Public Goods Experiments: How Donations Flow to the Recipients Favored by the Wealthy," MUNI ECON Working Papers 2021-13, Masaryk University, revised Feb 2023.
    7. Feine, Gregor & Groh, Elke D. & von Loessl, Victor & Wetzel, Heike, 2021. "The double dividend of social information in charitable giving: Evidence from a framed field experiment," VfS Annual Conference 2021 (Virtual Conference): Climate Economics 242437, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    8. Jack, B. Kelsey & Recalde, María P., 2015. "Leadership and the voluntary provision of public goods: Field evidence from Bolivia," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 80-93.
    9. Samantha Horn & Dean Karlan, 2018. "Intuitive Donating: Testing One-Line Solicitations for $1 Donations in a Large Online Experiment," NBER Working Papers 24327, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Popovici, Ioana & Maclean, J. Catherine & French, Michael, 2017. "The Effects of Health Insurance Parity Laws for Substance Use Disorder Treatment on Traffic Fatalities: Evidence of Unintended Benefits," IZA Discussion Papers 10746, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Raphael Duguay, 2022. "The Economic Consequences of Financial Audit Regulation in the Charitable Sector," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(4), pages 1463-1498, September.
    12. Ebeling, Felix & Feldhaus, Christoph & Fendrich, Johannes, 2017. "A field experiment on the impact of a prior donor’s social status on subsequent charitable giving," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 124-133.
    13. Ioana Popovici & Johanna Catherine Maclean & Michael T. French, 2017. "Health Insurance and Traffic Fatalities: The Effects of Substance Use Disorder Parity Laws," NBER Working Papers 23388, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Luca Corazzini & Christopher Cotton & Enrico Longo & Tommaso Reggiani, 2022. "Pro-Rich and Progressive: Policy Selection and Contributions in Threshold Public Goods Experiments," Working Paper 1471, Economics Department, Queen's University.
    15. G. Pino & M. Nieto Garcia & A. Peluso & G. Viglia & R. Filieri, 2023. "Understanding how virtuous lenders encourage support for peer-to-peer platforms’ prosocial initiatives," Post-Print hal-04248928, HAL.
    16. Indranil Goswami & Indranil Goswami, 2020. "No Substitute for the Real Thing: The Importance of In-Context Field Experiments in Fundraising," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(6), pages 1052-1070, November.
    17. Sadoff, Sally & Samek, Anya, 2019. "The effect of recipient contribution requirements on support for social programs," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 1-16.
    18. Bastian Hartmann & Martin Werding, 2012. "Donating Time or Money: Are they Substitutes or Complements?," CESifo Working Paper Series 3835, CESifo.
    19. Indranil Goswami & Oleg Urminsky, 2018. "No Substitute for the Real Thing: The Importance of In-Context Field Experiments In Fundraising," Natural Field Experiments 00660, The Field Experiments Website.
    20. Bartels, Lara & Kesternich, Martin, 2022. "Motivate the crowd or crowd- them out? The impact of local government spending on the voluntary provision of a green public good," ZEW Discussion Papers 22-040, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.

    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:30:y:2021:i:2:p:289-310. 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.