IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jageco/v69y2018i1p35-57.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing Serial, and Choice Task Stated and Inferred Attribute Non†Attendance Methods in Food Choice Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Vincenzina Caputo
  • Ellen J. Van Loo
  • Riccardo Scarpa
  • Rodolfo M. Nayga
  • Wim Verbeke

Abstract

A number of choice experiment (CE) studies have shown that survey respondents employ heuristics such as attribute non†attendance (ANA) while evaluating food products. This paper addresses a set of related methodological questions using empirical consumer data from a CE on poultry meat with sustainability labels. First, it assesses whether there are differences in terms of marginal willingness to pay estimates between the two most common ways of collecting stated ANA (serial and choice task level). Second, it validates the self†reported ANA behaviour across both approaches. Third, it explores the concordance of stated methods with that of the inferred method. Results show that WTP estimates from serial†level data differ from those from choice task†level data. Also, self†reported measures on choice task ANA are found to be more congruent with model estimates than those for serial ANA, as well as with inferred ANA.

Suggested Citation

  • Vincenzina Caputo & Ellen J. Van Loo & Riccardo Scarpa & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Wim Verbeke, 2018. "Comparing Serial, and Choice Task Stated and Inferred Attribute Non†Attendance Methods in Food Choice Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(1), pages 35-57, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jageco:v:69:y:2018:i:1:p:35-57
    DOI: 10.1111/1477-9552.12246
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12246
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1477-9552.12246?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
    ---><---

    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:jageco:v:69:y:2018:i:1:p:35-57. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-857X .

    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.