IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea16/235766.html

What’s in a Price? The Impact of Starting Point Bias in WTP for Information in Taiwanese Wet Markets

Author

Listed:
  • Yang, Shang-Ho
  • Souza Monteiro, Diogo

Abstract

Traditional markets in Asian countries still account for the majority of fresh meat, fish and vegetable purchases. One of the reasons for their popularity is the relational trust between vendors and buyers. This trust may justify the limited availability of information on origin or production methods and other attributes of foods sold in these markets. However, a number of recent food safety outbreaks and food fraud cases raised consumer and government concerns on over the level information in these markets and ignited a reflection of possible action. This study aims to determine the consumer willingness to pay (WTP) for fresh meat traceability and free growth hormone information traditional markets in Taiwan. To estimate the values of information the payment card method was employed and to account for the starting point bias, the sample was divided into different treatments each with a different price of meat. A total of 2,381 completed survey were collected in mid-July, 2015. An interval regression model is utilized to examine how much consumers would be willing to pay for addition product information. The results suggest that WTP of information not consistent among groups with different starting point scenarios. There was a significant difference between respondents that were not given any indication of the price per quantity of meat and those that were prompted with a market price. Interestingly, we found that consumers treat the information of growth hormone-free examination and traceability differently.

Suggested Citation

  • Yang, Shang-Ho & Souza Monteiro, Diogo, 2016. "What’s in a Price? The Impact of Starting Point Bias in WTP for Information in Taiwanese Wet Markets," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235766, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea16:235766
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.235766
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/235766/files/AAEA_2016_Manuscripts_VF.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.235766?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. Wu, Linhai & Wang, Shuxian & Zhu, Dian & Hu, Wuyang & Wang, Hongsha, 2015. "Chinese consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food quality and safety attributes: The case of pork," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 121-136.
    2. Reinartz, Werner & Dellaert, Benedict & Krafft, Manfred & Kumar, V. & Varadarajan, Rajan, 2011. "Retailing Innovations in a Globalizing Retail Market Environment," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 87(S1), pages 53-66.
    3. Ji Yong Lee & Doo Bong Han & Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr & Song Soo Lim, 2011. "Valuing traceability of imported beef in Korea: an experimental auction approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(3), pages 360-373, July.
    4. Naspetti, Simona & Zanoli, Raffaele, 2006. "Organic food quality & safety perception throughout Europe," 98th Seminar, June 29-July 2, 2006, Chania, Crete, Greece 10086, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Berning, Joshua P. & Chouinard, Hayley H. & Manning, Kenneth C. & McCluskey, Jill J. & Sprott, David E., 2010. "Identifying consumer preferences for nutrition information on grocery store shelf labels," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 429-436, October.
    6. Stranieri, Stefanella & Banterle, Alessandro, . "Consumer Interest in Meat Labelled Attributes: Who Cares?," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 18(4), pages 1-18.
    7. Batte, Marvin T. & Hooker, Neal H. & Haab, Timothy C. & Beaverson, Jeremy, 2007. "Putting their money where their mouths are: Consumer willingness to pay for multi-ingredient, processed organic food products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 145-159, April.
    8. Stefanella Stranieri & Lucia Baldi & Alessandro Banterle, 2010. "Do Nutrition Claims Matter to Consumers? An Empirical Analysis Considering European Requirements," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 15-33, February.
    9. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping, 2009. "Food Safety and Demand: Consumer Preferences for Imported Pork in Urban China," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 40(3), pages 1-12, November.
    10. Green, Donald & Jacowitz, Karen E. & Kahneman, Daniel & McFadden, Daniel, 1998. "Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 85-116, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Liu, Ruifeng & ,, 2021. "What We Can Learn from the Interactions of Food Traceable Attributes? a Case Study of Fuji Apple in China," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315916, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Yang, Shang-Ho & Monteiro, Diogo Souza & Chan, Mei-Yen & Woods, Timothy A., 2016. "Preferences for Meat Labeling in Taiwanese Traditional Markets: What do Consumers Want?," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 47(01), pages 1-8, March.
    3. Linhai Wu & Hongsha Wang & Dian Zhu & Wuyang Hu & Shuxian Wang, 2016. "Chinese consumers’ willingness to pay for pork traceability information—the case of Wuxi," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(1), pages 71-79, January.
    4. My, Nguyen H.D. & Demont, Matty & Van Loo, Ellen J. & de Guia, Annalyn & Rutsaert, Pieter & Tuan, Tran Huu & Verbeke, Wim, 2018. "What is the value of sustainably-produced rice? Consumer evidence from experimental auctions in Vietnam," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 283-296.
    5. Wang, Erpeng & Gao, Zhifeng & Heng, Yan & Shi, Lijia, 2019. "Chinese consumers’ preferences for food quality test/measurement indicators and cues of milk powder: A case of Zhengzhou, China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    6. Shi, Longzhong & Chen, Xuan & Chen, Bo & Qiu, Jingran & Li, Li, 2021. "Assessing Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Covid-19-tested Food Labels," 2021 ASAE 10th International Conference (Virtual), January 11-13, Beijing, China 329403, Asian Society of Agricultural Economists (ASAE).
    7. Higgins, Kieran & Hutchinson, W. George & Longo, Alberto, 2020. "Willingness-to-Pay for Eco-Labelled Forest Products in Northern Ireland: An Experimental Auction Approach," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    8. Rebecca Boehm & Hannah Kitchel & Selena Ahmed & Anaya Hall & Colin M. Orians & John Richard Stepp & Al Robbat, Jr. & Timothy S. Griffin & Sean B. Cash, 2019. "Is Agricultural Emissions Mitigation on the Menu for Tea Drinkers?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-20, September.
    9. Bolton, Ruth N. & Gustafsson, Anders & Tarasi, Crina O. & Witell, Lars, 2022. "Managing a Global Retail Brand in Different Markets: Meta-Analyses of Customer Responses to Service Encounters," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 294-314.
    10. Schläpfer, Felix & Getzner, Michael, 2020. "Beyond Current Guidelines: A Proposal for Bringing Behavioral Economics to the Design and Analysis of Stated Preference Surveys," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    11. Chilton, S. M. & Hutchinson, W. G., 2003. "A qualitative examination of how respondents in a contingent valuation study rationalise their WTP responses to an increase in the quantity of the environmental good," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 65-75, February.
    12. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    13. Saarijärvi, Hannu & Mitronen, Lasse & Yrjölä, Mika, 2014. "From selling to supporting – Leveraging mobile services in the context of food retailing," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 26-36.
    14. Henrik Andersson & Mikael Svensson, 2008. "Cognitive ability and scale bias in the contingent valuation method," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(4), pages 481-495, April.
    15. Bond, Craig A. & Thilmany, Dawn D. & Bond, Jennifer Keeling, 2008. "What to Choose? The Value of Label Claims to Fresh Produce Consumers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 1-26.
    16. Ansita Aggarwal & Nisarg A. Joshi, 2025. "Impact of CSR Activities Towards Different Stakeholders on Indian Firms’ Performance," Corporate Reputation Review, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 28(1), pages 1-13, February.
    17. Hallstein, Eric & Villas-Boas, Sofia Berto, "undated". "Are Consumers Color Blind?: an empirical investigation of a traffic light advisory for sustainable seafood," CUDARE Working Papers 120535, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    18. Ferreira, Jennifer & Ferreira, Carlos, 2018. "Challenges and opportunities of new retail horizons in emerging markets: The case of a rising coffee culture in China," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 61(5), pages 783-796.
    19. Hite, Diane, 2000. "Information Impacts On Stated Vs. Revealed Preference Valuation Of Environmental Quality," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21791, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    20. Kumar, V. & Sunder, Sarang & Sharma, Amalesh, 2015. "Leveraging Distribution to Maximize Firm Performance in Emerging Markets," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 91(4), pages 627-643.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea16:235766. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.