IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/agribz/v34y2018i2p407-425.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Combining sensory evaluations and experimental auctions to assess consumers’ preferences for fresh fruit quality characteristics

Author

Listed:
  • R. Karina Gallardo
  • Ines Hanrahan
  • Chengyan Yue
  • Vicki A. McCracken
  • James Luby
  • James R. McFerson
  • Carolyn Ross
  • Lilian Carrillo†Rodriguez

Abstract

A combination of sensory evaluation and experimental auctions was used to analyze consumer preferences for external and internal quality characteristics of two fresh apple varieties “Honeycrisp†and “Gala.†A group of 384 panelists in three locations in the United States evaluated the appearance, the internal quality characteristics, in three sequential rounds, for the two apple variety samples. Each panelist responded to a sensory evaluation questionnaire, and then bid on the samples in an incentive compatible second price auction. We found that panelists’ bids increased with the amount of information given. Also, we found that for some attributes such as sweetness, panelists preferred levels closer to their ideal rather than objectively measured higher levels. When evaluating consumers’ preference and valuation for different fresh fruit varieties, a greater explanatory power is obtained when including an indicator variable for the variety along with the set of quality attributes. The indicator variable could improve the control of inherent factors related with the varieties but cannot be observed or inferred easily. Finally, our findings add to previous studies in that flavor, when expressed as a combination of sweetness and acidity in addition to textural attributes, are important determinants of consumers’ acceptance. [EconLit citations: Q13]

Suggested Citation

  • R. Karina Gallardo & Ines Hanrahan & Chengyan Yue & Vicki A. McCracken & James Luby & James R. McFerson & Carolyn Ross & Lilian Carrillo†Rodriguez, 2018. "Combining sensory evaluations and experimental auctions to assess consumers’ preferences for fresh fruit quality characteristics," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 407-425, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:agribz:v:34:y:2018:i:2:p:407-425
    DOI: 10.1002/agr.21534
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21534
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/agr.21534?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. David M. Grether & James C. Cox, 1996. "The preference reversal phenomenon: Response mode, markets and incentives (*)," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 7(3), pages 381-405.
    2. Corrigan, Jay R. & Rousu, Matthew C., 2006. "AJAE Appendix: Posted Prices and Bid Affiliation: Evidence from Experimental Auctions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 1-12, November.
    3. Jay R. Corrigan & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Matthew C. Rousu, 2012. "Repeated Rounds with Price Feedback in Experimental Auction Valuation: An Adversarial Collaboration," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 97-115.
    4. Colson, Gregory & Huffman, Wallace E. & Rousu, Matthew C., 2011. "Improving the Nutrient Content of Food through Genetic Modification: Evidence from Experimental Auctions on Consumer Acceptance," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-22, August.
    5. repec:ken:wpaper:0602 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Richards, Timothy J. & Patterson, Paul M., 2000. "New Varieties And The Returns To Commodity Promotion: The Case Of Fuji Apples," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 29(1), pages 1-14, April.
    7. repec:ken:wpaper:0804 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. John A. List & Jason F. Shogren, 1999. "Price Information and Bidding Behavior in Repeated Second-Price Auctions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(4), pages 942-949.
    9. Shogren, Jason F. & Cho, Sungwon & Koo, Cannon & List, John & Park, Changwon & Polo, Pablo & Wilhelmi, Robert, 2001. "Auction mechanisms and the measurement of WTP and WTA," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 97-109, April.
    10. Manalo, Alberto B., 1990. "Assessing The Importance Of Apple Attributes: An Agricultural Application Of Conjoint Analysis," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 19(2), pages 1-7, October.
    11. Jill J. McCluskey & Brady P. Horn & Catherine A. Durham & Ron C. Mittelhammer & Ying Hu, 2013. "Valuation of Internal Quality Characteristics Across Apple Cultivars," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(2), pages 228-241, March.
    12. Milgrom, Paul R & Weber, Robert J, 1982. "A Theory of Auctions and Competitive Bidding," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(5), pages 1089-1122, September.
    13. Corrigan, Jay R. & Rousu, Matthew C., 2008. "Testing Whether Field Auction Experiments Are Demand Revealing in Practice," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(2).
    14. repec:feb:framed:0078 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Carl Shapiro, 1983. "Premiums for High Quality Products as Returns to Reputations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 98(4), pages 659-679.
    16. Colson, Gregory & Huffman, Wallace E. & Rousu, Matthew C., 2011. "Improving the Nutrient Content of Food through Genetic Modification: Evidence from Experimental Auctions on Consumer Acceptance," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-22, August.
    17. Chikako Kajikawa, 1998. "Quality level and price in Japanese apple market," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 227-234.
    18. Richards, Timothy J. & Patterson, Paul M., 2000. "New Varieties and the Returns to Commodity Promotion: The Case of Fuji Apples," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 10-23, April.
    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. Lijia Wang & Jianhua Wang & Xuexi Huo, 2019. "Consumer’s Willingness to Pay a Premium for Organic Fruits in China: A Double-Hurdle Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-14, January.
    2. Tong, Yen Dan & Khuu, Dong & Toan, Truong Duc & Nguyen, Phuong Duy & Pham, Nhai, 2021. "Consumer Responses Towards Non-GM Food: Evidence From Experimental Auctions In Vietnam," International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Department of Economics and Finance, vol. 9(4), October.
    3. Kokthi, Elena & Canco, Irina & Topulli, Eneida, 2021. "Whose salad is organic? An attribute segmentation perspective-evidence from Albania," Economia agro-alimentare / Food Economy, Italian Society of Agri-food Economics/Società Italiana di Economia Agro-Alimentare (SIEA), vol. 23(2), July.

    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. Dila Ikiz & R. Karina Gallardo & Amit Dhingra & Seanna Hewitt, 2018. "Assessing consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for novel sliced packed fresh pears: A latent class approach," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 321-337, March.
    2. Li, Yingzi & Gallardo, R. Karina & McCracken, Vicki A. & Yue, Chengyan & Luby, James & McFerson, James R., 2014. "How does the revelation of previous bid affect new bid?," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170439, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Azucena GRACIA & Tiziana DE-MAGISTRIS, 2015. "The role of participants' competitiveness in consumers' valuation for food products using experimental auctions," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 61(10), pages 484-491.
    4. Jay R. Corrigan & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Matthew C. Rousu, 2012. "Repeated Rounds with Price Feedback in Experimental Auction Valuation: An Adversarial Collaboration," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 97-115.
    5. Andreas C. Drichoutis & Panagiotis Lazaridis & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2009. "Would consumers value food-away-from-home products with nutritional labels?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(4), pages 550-575.
    6. Isoni, Andrea & Brooks, Peter & Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 2016. "Do markets reveal preferences or shape them?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 1-16.
    7. repec:ken:wpaper:0602 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Levan Elbakidze & Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr. & Hao Li & Chris McIntosh, 2014. "Value elicitation for multiple quantities of a quasi-public good using open ended choice experiments and uniform price auctions," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(2), pages 253-265, March.
    9. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Lazaridis, Panagiotis, 2012. "When a risky prospect is valued more than its best possible outcome," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 1-18, January.
    10. Gustafson, Christopher R. & Meerza, Syed Imran Ali, 2023. "The Impact of Information on Valuation in Experimental Auctions: A Comparison of Between and Within Subject Designs," OSF Preprints 3g4m5, Center for Open Science.
    11. Andrea Isoni, 2011. "The willingness-to-accept/willingness-to-pay disparity in repeated markets: loss aversion or ‘bad-deal’ aversion?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(3), pages 409-430, September.
    12. Loomes, Graham & Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 2010. "Preference reversals and disparities between willingness to pay and willingness to accept in repeated markets," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 374-387, June.
    13. Yanghao Wang & Metin Çakır, 2020. "Welfare impacts of new demand‐enhancing agricultural products: The case of Honeycrisp apples," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(3), pages 445-457, May.
    14. Braga, Jacinto & Humphrey, Steven J. & Starmer, Chris, 2009. "Market experience eliminates some anomalies--and creates new ones," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 401-416, May.
    15. R. Karina Gallardo & Huixin Li & Vicki McCracken & Chengyan Yue & James Luby & James R. McFerson, 2015. "Market Intermediaries’ Willingness to Pay for Apple, Peach, Cherry, and Strawberry Quality Attributes," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 259-280, April.
    16. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:1:p:1-18 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Andreas Drichoutis & Rodolfo Nayga & Panagiotis Lazaridis & Beom Park, 2011. "A Consistent Econometric Test for Bid Interdependence in Repeated Second-Price Auctions with Posted Prices," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 39(4), pages 329-341, December.
    18. Shogren, Jason F., 2006. "Experimental Methods and Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 19, pages 969-1027, Elsevier.
    19. Gregory Colson & Jay R. Corrigan & Carola Grebitus & Maria L. Loureiro & Matthew C. Rousu, 2016. "Which Deceptive Practices, If Any, Should Be Allowed in Experimental Economics Research? Results from Surveys of Applied Experimental Economists and Students," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(2), pages 610-621.
    20. Andreas C. Drichoutis & Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr. & Stathis Klonaris, 2014. "Decision-making in Home-grown Value Auctions under Induced Mood States," Studies in Microeconomics, , vol. 2(2), pages 141-163, December.
    21. Lusk, Jayson L. & Daniel, M. Scott & Mark, Darrell R. & Lusk, Christine L., 2001. "Alternative Calibration And Auction Institutions For Predicting Consumer Willingess To Pay For Nongenetically Modified Corn Chips," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(1), pages 1-18, July.
    22. Shunda, Nicholas, 2009. "Auctions with a buy price: The case of reference-dependent preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 645-664, November.

    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:agribz:v:34:y:2018:i:2:p:407-425. 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://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6297 .

    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.