Tradeoffs between emotional and sensory perceptions of freshness influence the price consumers will pay for apples: Results from an experimental market

Postharvest Biology and Technology

Volumn 41, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 172-180

  Lund, Cynthia M ^a   Jaeger, Sara R ^b   Amos, Rachel L ^a   Brookfield, Paul ^a   Harker, F Roger ^a  

^a THE NEW ZEALAND INSTITUTE FOR PLANT AND FOOD RESEARCH LIMITED   (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Experimental auction; Fruit texture; Granny Smith; Storage duration; Willingness to accept; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

EID: 33745953834     PISSN: 09255214     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2006.03.011     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Aarnio K., and Lindeman M. Magical food and health beliefs: a portrait of believers and functions of the beliefs. Appetite 43 (2004) 65-74
2. Alston F.H., Evans K.M., MacFie H.J.H., King G.J., and Beyts P.K. The potential for improving organoleptic quality in apples through marker assisted breeding related to consumer preference studies. Agri-food Quality: An Interdisciplinary Approach (1996), Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge 35-38
3. Baker S., Thompson K.E., and Engelken J. Mapping the values driving organic food choice: Germany vs. the UK. Eur. J. Market. 38 (2004) 995-1012
4. Blankenship S.M., and Dole J.M. 1-Methycyclopropene: a review. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 28 (2003) 1-25
5. Boyce R.R., Brown T.C., McClelland G.H., Peterson G.L., and Schulze W.D. An experimental examination of intrinsic values as a source of the WTA-WTP disparity. Am. Econ. Rev. 82 (1992) 1366-1373
6. Cacioppo J.T., von Hippel W., and Ernst J.M. Mapping cognitive structures and processes through verbal content: the thought-listing technique. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 65 (1997) 928-940
7. Cardello A.V., and Schutz H.G. The concept of food freshness: uncovering its meaning and importance to consumers. In: Cadwallader K.R., and Weenen H. (Eds). Freshness and Shelf Life of Foods (2003), American Chemical Society 22-41
8. Clements H.F. Morphology and physiology of the pome lenticels. Bot. Gaz. 97 (1935) 101-117
9. Coursey D.L., Hovis J.L., and Schulze W.D. The disparity between willingness to accept and willingness to pay measures of value. Quart. J. Econ. (1987) 679-690
10. Daillant-Spinnler B., MacFie H.J.H., Beyts P.K., and Hedderley D. Relationships between perceived sensory properties and major preference directions of 12 varieties of apples from the southern hemisphere. Food Qual. Pref. 7 (1996) 113-126
11. Fillion L., and Kilcast D. The meaning of freshness in fruit and vegetables: a preliminary study. Symposium Program and Abstract Book, Proceedings of the Fourth Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium. Dijon, France, July 22-26, 2001 (2001) (Poster 002)
12. Harker F.R., Maindonald J.H., and Jackson P.J. Penetrometer measurement of apple and kiwifruit firmness: operator and instrument differences. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 121 (1996) 927-936
13. Harker F.R., Gunson F.A., Brookfield P.B., and White A. An apple a day: the influence of memory of consumer judgement of quality. Food Qual. Pref. 13 (2002) 173-179
14. Harker F.R., Maindonald J., Murray S.H., Gunson F.A., Hallett I.C., and Walker S.B. Sensory interpretation of instrumental measurements. 1. Texture of apple fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 24 (2002) 225-239
15. Harker F.R., Gunson F.A., and Jaeger S.R. The case for fruit quality: an interpretive review of consumer attitudes and preferences for apples. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 28 (2003) 333-347
16. Harker F.R., Gunson F.A., and Triggs C.M. Apple firmness: creating a tool for product evaluation based on a sensory-instrumental relationship. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 39 (2006) 327-330
17. Hayes D.J., Shogren J.F., Shin S.Y., and Kliebenstein J.B. Valuing food safety in experimental auction markets. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 77 (1995) 40-53
18. Hayes D.J., Shogren J.F., Fox J.A., and Kliebenstein J.B. Test marketing new food products using multitrial nonhypothetical experimental auction. Psychol. Market. 13 (1996) 365-379
19. Hemphill S. Diversion plan cuts carryover. Good Fruit Grower 52 (2001) 16
20. Jaeger S.R., and Harker F.R. Consumer evaluation of novel kiwifruit: willingness to pay. J. Sci. Food Agric. 85 (2005) 2519-2526
21. Jaeger S.R., and MacFie H.J.H. The effect of advertising format and means-end information on consumer expectations for apples. Food Qual. Pref. 12 (2001) 189-205
22. Jaeger S.R., Andani Z., Wakeling I.N., and MacFie H.J.H. Consumer preferences for fresh and aged apples: a cross-cultural comparison. Food Qual. Pref. 9 (1998) 355-366
23. Jaeger S.R., Lusk J.L., House L.O., Valli C., Moore M., Morrow B., and Traill W.B. The use of non-hypothetical experimental markets for measuring acceptance of genetically modified foods. Food Qual. Pref. 15 (2004) 701-714
24. Kader A.A. Controlled atmosphere storage. In: Gross K.C., Wang C.Y., and Saltveit M. (Eds). The Commercial Storage of Fruits, Vegetables, and Florist and Nursery Stocks (2004). http://www.ba.ars.usda.gov//hb66
25. Krishna V. Auction Theory (2002), Academic Press, San Diego
26. Kupferman E. Controlled atmosphere storage of apples. Proceedings of Seventh International Controlled Atmosphere Research Conference, Apples and Pears, Postharvest Horticulture Series No. 16 (1997) 1-30
27. Lusk J.L., Daniel M.S., Mark D.R., and Lusk C.L. Alternative calibration and auction institutions for predicting consumer willingness to pay for nongenetically modified corn chips. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 26 (2001) 40-57
28. Melton B.E., Huffman W.E., Shogren J.F., and Fox J.A. Consumer preferences for fresh food items with multiple quality attributes: evidence from an experimental auction of pork chops. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 78 (1996) 916-923
29. Peneau S., Escher F., Hoehn E., and Nuessli J. Consumer perceptions of freshness in apples and its relationship to sensory properties. Symposium Program and Abstract Book, Proceedings of the Fifth Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium. Boston, MA, USA, July 20-24, 2003 (2003) (Poster 238)
30. Roininen K., and Tuorila H. Health and taste attitudes in the prediction of use frequency and choice between less healthy and more healthy snacks. Food Qual. Pref. 10 (1999) 357-365
31. Roosen J., Fox J.A., Hennessy D.A., and Schreiber A. Consumers' valuation of insecticide use restrictions: an application to apples. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 23 2 (1998) 367-384
32. Shogren J.F., Fox J.A., Hayes D.J., and Kliebenstein J.B. Bid sensitivity and the structure of the Vickrey auction. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 76 (1994) 1089-1095
33. Shogren J., Shin S., Hayes D., and Kliebenstein J. Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept. Am. Econ. Rev. 84 (1994) 255-270
34. Shogren J.F., List J.A., and Hayes D.J. Preference learning in consecutive experimental auctions. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 82 (2000) 1016-1021
35. Shogren J.F., Margolis M., Koo C., and List J.A. A random nth-price auction. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 46 (2001) 409-421
36. Smith V.L. Papers in Experimental Economics (1991), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
37. Szczesniak A.S., and Kahn E.L. Consumer awareness of and attitudes to food texture. I. Adults. J. Texture Stud. 2 (1971) 280-295
38. Vickrey W. Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. J. Finan. 16 (1961) 8-37