IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/erevae/v45y2018i5p749-782..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder mitigate hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products

Author

Listed:
  • Mohammed H Alemu
  • Søren B Olsen

Abstract

In this paper, we test whether a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder (ROOR) can mitigate hypothetical bias in stated discrete choice experiments (DCE). The data originate from a field experiment concerning consumer preferences for a novel food product made from cricket flour. Utilising a between-subject design with three treatments, we find significantly higher marginal willingness-to-pay values in hypothetical than in nonhypothetical settings, confirming the presence of hypothetical bias. Comparing this to a hypothetical setting where the ROOR is introduced, we find that the ROOR effectively mitigates hypothetical bias for one attribute and significantly reduces it for the rest of the attributes.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohammed H Alemu & Søren B Olsen, 2018. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder mitigate hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 45(5), pages 749-782.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:erevae:v:45:y:2018:i:5:p:749-782.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/erae/jby009
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Amilon, Anna & Kjær, Agnete Aslaug & Ladenburg, Jacob & Siren, Anu, 2022. "Trust in the publicly financed care system and willingness to pay for long-term care: A discrete choice experiment in Denmark," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 311(C).
    2. Qi, Danyi & Penn, Jerrod & Li, Ran & Roe, Brian E., 2022. "Winning ugly: Profit maximizing marketing strategies for ugly foods," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    3. Saparova, Gulkaiyr & Khan, Ghulam Dastgir & Joshi, Niraj Prakash, 2024. "Linking farmers to markets: Assessing small-scale farmers' preferences for an official phytosanitary regime in the Kyrgyz Republic," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 696-708.
    4. Wuepper, David & Clemm, Alexandra & Wree, Philipp, 2019. "The preference for sustainable coffee and a new approach for dealing with hypothetical bias," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 475-486.
    5. Zabala, José A. & Martínez-Paz, José M. & Alcon, Francisco, 2021. "Integrated valuation of semiarid Mediterranean agroecosystem services and disservices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    6. Mokas, Ilias & Lizin, Sebastien & Brijs, Tom & Witters, Nele & Malina, Robert, 2021. "Can immersive virtual reality increase respondents’ certainty in discrete choice experiments? A comparison with traditional presentation formats," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    7. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    8. Boto-García, David & Mariel, Petr & Baños-Pino, José Francisco, 2023. "Intra-household bargaining for a joint vacation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    9. Buckell, John & White, Justin S. & Shang, Ce, 2020. "Can incentive-compatibility reduce hypothetical bias in smokers’ experimental choice behavior? A randomized discrete choice experiment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    10. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    11. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    12. Balcombe, Kelvin & Bradley, Dylan & Fraser, Iain, 2022. "Consumer preferences for chlorine-washed chicken, attitudes to Brexit and implications for future trade agreements," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    13. Ladenburg, Jacob & Skotte, Maria, 2022. "Heterogeneity in willingness to pay for the location of offshore wind power development: An application of the willingness to pay space model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).

    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:oup:erevae:v:45:y:2018:i:5:p:749-782.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.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.