IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/isu/genres/852.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Comparison of Preferences for Pork Sandwiches Produced from Animals With and Without Somatotropin Administration (A)

Author

Listed:
  • Fox, John A.
  • Buhr, Brian L.
  • Shogren, Jason F.
  • Kliebenstein, James
  • Hayes, Dermot J.

Abstract

Experimental auction markets were designed and used to investigate consumer preferences for sandwiches produced with meat from pigs treated with porcine somatotropin. A second-price, sealed-bid auction procedure was used to determine willingness to pay to exchange a pork loin sandwich with leaner meat from pigs treated with somatotropin for a similar sandwich with meat from untreated pigs. The research was conducted using a sample of 114 undergraduate students in Iowa, Arkansas, Massachusetts, and California. At the end of the experiment 33 of 58 subjects would not bid to change their leaner pork for typical pork, whereas 15 of 56 subjects would not bid to change their typical pork for leaner pork. The results suggest a preference for leaner meat from the treated pigs, but also the potential for niche markets for meat and meat products from untreated pigs.

Suggested Citation

  • Fox, John A. & Buhr, Brian L. & Shogren, Jason F. & Kliebenstein, James & Hayes, Dermot J., 1995. "Comparison of Preferences for Pork Sandwiches Produced from Animals With and Without Somatotropin Administration (A)," Staff General Research Papers Archive 852, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:isu:genres:852
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dyer, Douglas & Kagel, John H & Levin, Dan, 1989. "A Comparison of Naive and Experienced Bidders in Common Value Offer Auctions: A Laboratory Analysis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 108-115, March.
    2. Bennett, J. W., 1987. "Strategic behaviour : Some experimental evidence," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 355-368, April.
    3. Shogren, Jason F., 1993. "Experimental Markets and Environmental Policy," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(2), pages 117-129, October.
    4. Don Coursey, 1987. "Markets and the measurement of value," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 55(3), pages 291-297, October.
    5. William Vickrey, 1961. "Counterspeculation, Auctions, And Competitive Sealed Tenders," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 16(1), pages 8-37, March.
    6. Menkhaus, Dale J. & Borden, George W. & Whipple, Glen D. & Hoffman, Elizabeth & Field, Ray A., 1992. "An Empirical Application Of Laboratory Experimental Auctions In Marketing Research," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 17(1), pages 1-12, July.
    7. Dejong, Douglas V. & Forsythe, Robert & Uecker, Wilfred C., 1988. "A note on the use of businessmen as subjects in sealed offer markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 87-100, January.
    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. repec:ken:wpaper:0602 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Bruner, David M. & Huth, William L. & McEvoy, David M. & Morgan, O. Ashton, 2014. "Consumer Valuation of Food Safety: The Case of Postharvest Processed Oysters," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 43(2), pages 1-19, August.
    3. Todd Cherry & Peter Frykblom & Jason Shogren & John List & Melonie Sullivan, 2004. "Laboratory Testbeds and Non-Market Valuation: The Case of Bidding Behavior in a Second-Price Auction with an Outside Option," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(3), pages 285-294, November.
    4. Hurley, Sean P. & Kliebenstein, James B., 2003. "Interpreting Bids From A Vickrey Auction When There Are Public Good Attributes," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 21965, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Hurley, Sean P. & Kliebenstein, James B., 1999. "The Potential For Marketing Pork Products With Embedded Environmental Attributes: Results From An Experimental Study," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 21598, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. Hurley, Sean P. & Kliebenstein, James B., 2005. "An Examination of Additively Separable Willingness-To-Pay for Environmental Attributes: Evidence from a Pork Experiment," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19370, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    7. David M. Bruner & William L. Huth & David M. McEvoy & O. Ashton Morgan, 2011. "Accounting for Taste: Consumer Valuations for Food-Safety Technologies," Working Papers 11-09, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    8. Hurley, Sean P. & Kliebenstein, James B., 2003. "A Tale Of Two Premiums- Examining Bids From A Multiple Round Vickrey Auction With Differing Information Sets," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22192, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & John A. Fox, 2003. "Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 16-29.
    10. 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).
    11. repec:ken:wpaper:0601 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Hurley, Sean P. & Miller, Douglas J. & Kliebenstein, James B., 2004. "Estimating Willingness-To-Pay Using A Polychotomous Choice Function: An Application To Pork Products With Environmental Attributes," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 19924, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).

    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. 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.
    2. Fox, John Andrew, 1994. "Essays in the measurement of consumer preferences in experimental auction markets," ISU General Staff Papers 1994010108000012254, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    3. Anderson, Johan & Vadnjal, Dan & Uhlin, Hans-Erik, 2000. "Moral dimensions of the WTA-WTP disparity: an experimental examination," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 153-162, January.
    4. Vincent P. Crawford & Nagore Iriberri, 2007. "Level-k Auctions: Can a Nonequilibrium Model of Strategic Thinking Explain the Winner's Curse and Overbidding in Private-Value Auctions?," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(6), pages 1721-1770, November.
    5. Wagner, Alexander F. & Gibson Brandon, Rajna & Sohn, Matthias & Tanner, Carmen, 2018. "Earnings Management and Managerial Honesty: The Investors’ Perspectives," CEPR Discussion Papers 13207, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Enrique Fatás & Tibor Neugebauer & Pilar Tamborero, 2004. "How politicians make decisions under risk: a political choice experiment," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2004/58, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    7. Cramton, Peter C, 1995. "Money Out of Thin Air: The Nationwide Narrowband PCS Auction," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(2), pages 267-343, Summer.
    8. Demont, Matty & Zossou, Esperance & Rutsaert, Pieter & Ndour, Maimouna & Mele, Paul Van & Verbeke, Wim, 2011. "Willingness to Pay for Enhanced Food Quality: Rice Parboiling in Benin," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114443, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Brown, Jennifer & Cranfield, John A.L. & Henson, Spencer J., 2003. "Misassessed Risk In Consumer Valuation Of Food Safety: An Experimental Approach," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22194, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Offerman, T.J.S. & Potters, J.J.M., 2000. "Does Auctioning of Entry Licences Affect Consumers Prices? An Experimental Study," Discussion Paper 2000-53, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    11. Klaus Abbink & Bettina Rockenbach, 2006. "Option pricing by students and professional traders: a behavioural investigation," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(6), pages 497-510.
    12. Anne Rozan & Anne Stenger & Marc Willinger, 2004. "Willingness-to-pay for food safety: An experimental investigation of quality certification on bidding behaviour," Framed Field Experiments 00197, The Field Experiments Website.
    13. Enrique Fatas & Tibor Neugebauer & Pilar Tamborero, 2007. "How Politicians Make Decisions: A Political Choice Experiment," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 92(2), pages 167-196, October.
    14. van der Heijden, E. C. M. & Nelissen, J. H. M. & Potters, J. J. M. & Verbon, H. A. A., 1998. "Transfers and the effect of monitoring in an overlapping-generations experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(7), pages 1363-1391, July.
    15. Fisher, Ann & Wheeler, William J. & Zwick, Rami, 1993. "Experimental Methods in Agricultural and Resource Economics: How Useful are They?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(2), pages 103-116, October.
    16. Werner Güth & Radosveta Ivanova–Stenzel & Manfred Königstein & Martin Strobel, 2002. "Bid Functions in Auctions and Fair Division Games: Experimental Evidence," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 3(4), pages 461-484, November.
    17. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    18. Lorentziadis, Panos L., 2016. "Optimal bidding in auctions from a game theory perspective," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(2), pages 347-371.
    19. Potters, Jan & van Winden, Frans, 2000. "Professionals and students in a lobbying experiment: Professional rules of conduct and subject surrogacy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 499-522, December.
    20. Potters, J.J.M. & van Winden, F.A.A.M., 1996. "The Performance of Professionals and Students in an Experimental Study of Lobbying," Discussion Paper 1996-06, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.

    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:isu:genres:852. 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: Curtis Balmer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deiasus.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.