IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/agecon/v49y2018i6p741-751.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Value of labeling credence attributes—common structures and individual preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Johanna Lena Dahlhausen
  • Cam Rungie
  • Jutta Roosen

Abstract

This article analyzes the common preference structure underlying purchase intentions for food products labeled with credence attributes. In three consecutive, hypothetical discrete choice experiments, consumers selected pork, eggs, and pasta containing egg based on the attributes organic, local, animal welfare, certified “free of antibiotics,” and price. The data were analyzed using structural choice modeling, a factor‐analytic approach modeling latent sources of preference heterogeneity. The results of this analysis show that preference heterogeneity is stable across products and can be explained best by common characteristics in credence attributes. The article gives guidance as to how to use factors in the analysis of multiple discrete choice experiments.

Suggested Citation

  • Johanna Lena Dahlhausen & Cam Rungie & Jutta Roosen, 2018. "Value of labeling credence attributes—common structures and individual preferences," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(6), pages 741-751, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:agecon:v:49:y:2018:i:6:p:741-751
    DOI: 10.1111/agec.12456
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12456
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/agec.12456?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. Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John M., 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 1-30.
    2. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    3. Azucena Gracia & Maria L. Loureiro & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2011. "Valuing an EU Animal Welfare Label using Experimental Auctions," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 42(6), pages 669-677, November.
    4. Giuseppe Nocella & Lionel Hubbard & Riccardo Scarpa, 2010. "Farm Animal Welfare, Consumer Willingness to Pay, and Trust: Results of a Cross-National Survey," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 32(2), pages 275-297.
    5. Jing Xie & Zhifeng Gao & Marilyn Swisher & Xin Zhao, 2016. "Consumers’ preferences for fresh broccolis: interactive effects between country of origin and organic labels," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(2), pages 181-191, March.
    6. Rungie, Cam & Scarpa, Riccardo & Thiene, Mara, 2014. "The influence of individuals in forming collective household preferences for water quality," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 161-174.
    7. 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.
    8. Hess, Stephane & Hensher, David A. & Daly, Andrew, 2012. "Not bored yet – Revisiting respondent fatigue in stated choice experiments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 626-644.
    9. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Johan Lagerkvist, Carl, 2005. "Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 147-152, November.
    10. Ben-Akiva, Moshe & McFadden, Daniel & Train, Kenneth & Börsch-Supan, Axel, 2002. "Hybrid Choice Models: Progress and Challenges," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 02-29, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    11. Hess, Stephane & Stathopoulos, Amanda, 2013. "Linking response quality to survey engagement: A combined random scale and latent variable approach," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 1-12.
    12. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(8), pages 827-840, August.
    13. McFadden, Daniel, 1980. "Econometric Models for Probabilistic Choice among Products," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(3), pages 13-29, July.
    14. Yuko Onozaka & Dawn Thilmany Mcfadden, 2011. "Does Local Labeling Complement or Compete with Other Sustainable Labels? A Conjoint Analysis of Direct and Joint Values for Fresh Produce Claim," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(3), pages 689-702.
    15. Shunsuke Managi & Yasutaka Yamamoto & Hiroyuki Iwamoto & Kiyotaka Masuda, 2008. "Valuing the influence of underlying attitudes and the demand for organic milk in Japan," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 39(3), pages 339-348, November.
    16. Karsten Hansen & Vishal Singh & Pradeep Chintagunta, 2006. "Understanding Store-Brand Purchase Behavior Across Categories," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(1), pages 75-90, 01-02.
    17. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    18. Elrod, Terry & Keane, Michael, 1995. "A Factor-Analytic Probit Model for Representing the Market Structure in Panel Data," MPRA Paper 52434, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Frykblom & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2007. "Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare: mobile abattoirs versus transportation to slaughter," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 34(3), pages 321-344, September.
    20. Carl Johan Lagerkvist & Sebastian Hess, 2011. "A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(1), pages 55-78, March.
    21. Mariel, Petr & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Hess, Stephane, 2015. "Heterogeneous preferences toward landscape externalities of wind turbines – combining choices and attitudes in a hybrid model," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 647-657.
    22. Terry Elrod, 1988. "Choice Map: Inferring a Product-Market Map from Panel Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(1), pages 21-40.
    23. Rungie, Cam M. & Coote, Leonard V. & Louviere, Jordan J., 2012. "Latent variables in discrete choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 145-156.
    24. Maria Kamargianni & Moshe Ben-Akiva & Amalia Polydoropoulou, 2014. "Incorporating social interaction into hybrid choice models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 41(6), pages 1263-1285, November.
    25. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    26. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder & Glynn T. Tonsor, 2014. "Editor's choice Distinguishing beliefs from preferences in food choice," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 41(4), pages 627-655.
    27. Magor, Thomas J. & Coote, Leonard V., 2014. "Latent variables as a proxy for inherent preferences: A test of antecedent volition," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 24-36.
    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. Ildiko Kovacs & Eva Reka Keresztes, 2022. "Perceived Consumer Effectiveness and Willingness to Pay for Credence Product Attributes of Sustainable Foods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-17, April.
    2. Hempel, Corinna & Roosen, Jutta, 2020. "Die Bedeutung des bayerischen Bio-Siegels für Konsumenten in Bayern," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305597, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    3. Daniel E. Chavez & Marco A. Palma, 2019. "Pushing subjects beyond rationality with more alternatives in experimental auctions," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 50(2), pages 207-217, March.
    4. Hempel, Corinna & Roosen, Jutta, 2020. "Die Bedeutung des bayerischen Bio-Siegels für Konsumenten in Bayern," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305597, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    5. Ildikó Kovács & Marietta Balázsné Lendvai & Judit Beke, 2022. "The Importance of Food Attributes and Motivational Factors for Purchasing Local Food Products: Segmentation of Young Local Food Consumers in Hungary," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-14, March.
    6. Neves, Marcos Fava & Gray, Allan Wayne & Lourenco, Carlos Eduardo & Scott, Francisco Albert, 2021. "Mantiqueira: innovating and disrupting in the egg business," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 24(1).
    7. Cindy G Grappe & Cindy Lombart & Didier Louis & Fabien Durif, 2021. ""Not tested on animals": How consumers react to cruelty-free cosmetics proposed by manufacturers and retailers?," Post-Print hal-03379593, HAL.
    8. Ching-Hua Yeh & Monika Hartmann, 2021. "To Purchase or Not to Purchase? Drivers of Consumers’ Preferences for Animal Welfare in Their Meat Choice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-25, August.
    9. Giovanna Piracci & Emilia Lamonaca & Fabio Gaetano Santeramo & Fabio Boncinelli & Leonardo Casini, 2024. "On the willingness to pay for food sustainability labelling: A meta‐analysis," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 55(2), pages 329-345, March.

    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. Rungie, Cam & Scarpa, Riccardo & Thiene, Mara, 2014. "The influence of individuals in forming collective household preferences for water quality," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 161-174.
    2. Van Loo, Ellen J. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Verbeke, Wim, 2014. "Consumers’ valuation of sustainability labels on meat," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 137-150.
    3. Susaeta, Andres & Lal, Pankaj & Alavalapati, Janaki & Mercer, Evan, 2011. "Random preferences towards bioenergy environmental externalities: A case study of woody biomass based electricity in the Southern United States," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1111-1118.
    4. Ching-Hua Yeh & Monika Hartmann, 2021. "To Purchase or Not to Purchase? Drivers of Consumers’ Preferences for Animal Welfare in Their Meat Choice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-25, August.
    5. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Vossler, Christian A. & Budziński, Wiktor & Wiśniewska, Aleksandra & Zawojska, Ewa, 2017. "Addressing empirical challenges related to the incentive compatibility of stated preferences methods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 47-63.
    6. Hasselbach, Johanna Lena & Rungie, Cam & Roosen, Jutta, 2015. "The value of ethical concern - Willingness to pay for animal welfare, local origin and organic production," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202729, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Johnston, Robert J. & Börger, Tobias & Hanley, Nick & Meginnis, Keila & Ndebele, Tom & Siyal, Ghamz E. Ali & Beaumont, Nicola & de Vries, Frans P., 2024. "Consequences of omitting non-lethal wildlife impacts from stated preference scenarios," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    8. Jianhua Wang & Jiaye Ge & Yuting Ma, 2018. "Urban Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pork with Certified Labels: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, February.
    9. 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.
    10. Akinwehinmi, Oluwagbenga & Ogundari, Kolawole & Amos, Taiwo, 2021. "Consumers' Food Control Risk Perception and Preference for Government-Controlled Safety Certification in Emerging Food Markets," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315312, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    12. Bernadeta Gołębiowska & Anna Bartczak & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2020. "Energy Demand Management and Social Norms," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-20, July.
    13. Nordén, Anna & Coria, Jessica & Jönsson, Anna Maria & Lagergren, Fredrik & Lehsten, Veiko, 2017. "Divergence in stakeholders' preferences: Evidence from a choice experiment on forest landscapes preferences in Sweden," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 179-195.
    14. Daziano, Ricardo A., 2015. "Inference on mode preferences, vehicle purchases, and the energy paradox using a Bayesian structural choice model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-26.
    15. Leonard Maaya & Michel Meulders & Nick Surmont & Martina Vandebroek, 2018. "Effect of Environmental and Altruistic Attitudes on Willingness-to-Pay for Organic and Fair Trade Coffee in Flanders," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-21, November.
    16. Howard, Gregory & Roe, Brian E., 2013. "Stripping Because You Want to Versus Stripping Because the Money is Good: A Latent Class Analysis of Farmer Preferences Regarding Filter Strip Programs," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 149821, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Haile, Kaleab K. & Tirivayi, Nyasha & Tesfaye, Wondimagegn, 2019. "Farmers’ willingness to accept payments for ecosystem services on agricultural land: The case of climate-smart agroforestry in Ethiopia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    18. Panchalingam, Thadchaigeni & Howard, Gregory & Allen Klaiber, H. & Roe, Brian E., 2023. "Food choice behavior of adolescents under parent-child interaction in the context of US school lunch programs," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    19. Robert Donnelly & Francisco J.R. Ruiz & David Blei & Susan Athey, 2021. "Counterfactual inference for consumer choice across many product categories," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 369-407, December.
    20. Shijiu Yin & Shanshan Lv & Yusheng Chen & Linhai Wu & Mo Chen & Jiang Yan, 2018. "Consumer preference for infant milk‐based formula with select food safety information attributes: Evidence from a choice experiment in China," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 66(4), pages 557-569, December.

    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:bla:agecon:v:49:y:2018:i:6:p:741-751. 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: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.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.