Consequences of Participant Inattention with an Application to Carbon Taxes for Meat Products

Ecological Economics

Volumn 145, Issue , 2018, Pages 218-230

  Malone, Trey ^a   Lusk, Jayson L ^b  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Discrete choice experiment; Inattention bias; Meat demand; Trap question

Indexed keywords

DATA QUALITY; DEMAND ANALYSIS; DESIGN; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; EXPERIMENT; MEAT; POLLUTION TAX; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY; SURVEY METHOD;

EID: 85033441166     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.09.010     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Alemu, Mohammed Hussen, Mørkbak, Morten Raun, Olsen, Søren Bøye, Jensen, Carsten Lynge, Attending to the Reasons for Attribute Non-Attendance in Choice Experiments. Environ. Resour. Econ. 54:3 (2013), 333–359.
2. Baker, Reg, Blumberg, Stephen J., Michael Brick, J., Couper, Mick P., Melanie, Courtright, Michael Dennis, J., Dillman, Don, Frankel, Martin R., Garland, Philip, Groves, Robert M., Research Synthesis: AAPOR Report on Online Panels. Public Opin. Q. 74:4 (2010), 711–781.
3. Berinsky, Adam J., Margolis, Michele, Sances, Michael, Separating the Shirkers from the Workers? Making Sure Participants Pay Attention on Internet Surveys. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 58:3 (2014), 739–753.
4. Berinsky, Adam J., Margolis, Michele F., Sances, Michael W., Can We Turn Shirkers Into Workers?. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 66 (2016), 20–28.
5. Börger, Tobias, Are Fast Responses More Random? Testing the Effect of Response Time on Scale in an Online Choice Experiment. Environ. Resour. Econ. 65:2 (2016), 389–413.
6. Bowling, Nathan A., Huang, Jason L., Bragg, Caleb B., Khazon, Steve, Liu, Mengqiao, Blackmore, Caitlin E., Who Cares and Who is Careless? Insufficient Effort Responding as a Reflection of Respondent Personality. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 111:2 (2016), 218–229.
7. Briggs, Adam D.M., Kehlbacher, Ariane, Tiffin, Richard, Scarborough, Peter, Simulating the impact on health of internalising the cost of carbon in food prices combined with a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. BMC Public Health 16:1 (2016), 1–14.
8. Campbell, Danny, Hensher, David A., Scarpa, Riccardo, Non-Attendance to Attributes in Environmental Choice Analysis: a Latent Class Specification. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 54:8 (2011), 1061–1076.
9. Capper, Judith L., The environmental impact of beef production in the United States: 1977 compared with 2007. J. Anim. Sci. 89:12 (2011), 4249–4261.
10. Census Bureau, U.S., Housing units, 2014. Population Estimates Program, 2015, P94, 171 (Online).
11. Chalmers, Neil G., Revoredo-Giha, Cesar, Shackley, Simon, Socioeconomic effects of reducing household carbon footprints through meat consumption taxes. J. Food Prod. Mark. 22:2 (2016), 258–277.
12. Colombo, Sergio, Christie, Michael, Hanley, Nick, What are the consequences of ignoring attributes in choice experiments? Implications for ecosystem service valuation. Ecol. Econ. 96 (2013), 25–35.
13. Cornelsen, Laura, Mazzocchi, Mario, Green, Rosemary, Dangour, Alan D., Smith, Richard D., Estimating the relationship between food prices and food consumption - methods matter. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 38:3 (2016), 546–561.
14. Curran, Paul G., Methods for the detection of carelessly invalid responses in survey data. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 66 (2016), 4–19.
15. Curtin, Richard, Presser, Stanley, Singer, Eleanor, Changes in telephone survey nonresponse over the past quarter century. Public Opin. Q. 69:1 (2005), 87–98.
16. DeSimone, Justin A., Harms, Peter D., DeSimone, Alice J., Best practice recommendations for data screening. J. Organ. Behav. 36:2 (2015), 171–181.
17. Dunn, Alexandra M., Heggestad, Eric D., Shanock, Linda R., Theilgard, Nels, Intra-individual response variability as an indicator of insufficient effort responding: comparison to other indicators and relationships with individual differences. J. Bus. Psychol., 2016, 1–17.
18. Edjabou, Louise Dyhr, Smed, Sinne, The effect of using consumption taxes on foods to promote climate friendly diets–the case of denmark. Food Policy 39 (2013), 84–96.
19. Fiala, Nathan, Meeting the demand: an estimation of potential future greenhouse gas emissions from meat production. Ecol. Econ. 67:3 (2008), 412–419.
20. Foley, Jonathan A., Ramankutty, Navin, Brauman, Kate A., Cassidy, Emily S., Gerber, James S., Johnston, Matt, Mueller, Nathaniel D. et al., Solutions for a Cultivated Planet. Nature 478:7369 (2011), 337–342.
21. Gallet, Craig A., Meat meets meta: a quantitative review of the price elasticity of meat. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 92:1 (2010), 258–272.
22. Gao, Zhifeng, House, Lisa A., Xie, Jing, Online survey data quality and its implication for willingness-to-pay: a cross-country comparison. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 64:2 (2015), 199–221.
23. Gao, Zhifeng, House, Lisa, Bi, Xiang, Impact of satisficing behavior in online surveys on consumer preference and welfare estimates. Food Policy 64 (2016), 26–36.
24. Hauser, David J., Schwarz, Norbert, It's a trap! Instructional manipulation checks prompt systematic thinking on “tricky” tasks. SAGE Open. 5:2 (2015), 1–6.
25. Hauser, David J., Schwarz, Norbert, Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behav. Res. Methods 48:1 (2016), 400–407.
26. Hensher, David A., Rose, John M., Greene, William H., Applied Choice Analysis. 2nd Edition, 2015, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
27. Jones, Michael S., House, Lisa A., Gao, Zhifeng, Participant screening and revealed preference axioms: testing quarantining methods for enhanced data quality in web panel surveys. Public Opin. Q. 79:3 (2015), 687–709.
28. Kees, Jeremy, Berry, Christopher, Burton, Scot, Sheehan, Kim, An Analysis of Data Quality: Professional Panels, Student Subject Pools, and Amazon's Mechanical Turk. J. Advert. 46:1 (2017), 141–155.
29. Kragt, Marit E., Stated and inferred attribute attendance models: a comparison with environmental choice experiments. J. Agric. Econ. 64:3 (2013), 719–736.
30. Krinsky, Itzhak, Leslie Robb, A., On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev. Econ. Stat. 68:4 (1986), 715–719.
31. Lancsar, Emily, Louviere, Jordan, Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?. Health Econ. 15:8 (2006), 797–811.
32. Lusk, Jayson L., Consumer research with big data: applications from the food demand survey (FooDS). Am. J. Agric. Econ. 99:2 (2017), 303–320.
33. Lusk, Jayson L., Tonsor, Glynn T., How meat demand elasticities vary with price, income, and product category. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 38:1 (2016), 1–39.
34. Malone, Trey, Lusk, Jayson L., A Method to Reduce Inattention Bias in Discrete Choice Experiments: an Application to U.S. Beer Regulatory Reform. 2017 (Unpublished Manuscript).
35. McFadden, Daniel, Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Zarembka, (eds.) Frontiers of Econometrics, 1974, Academic, New York.
36. Meyer, Bruce D., Mok, Wallace K.C., Sullican, James X., Household surveys in crisis. J. Econ. Perspect. 29:4 (2015), 1–29.
37. Miller, Scot M., Wofsy, Steven C., Michalak, Anna M., Kort, Eric A., Andrews, Arlyn E., Biraud, Sebastien C., Dlugokencky, Edward J. et al., Anthropogenic emissions of methane in the United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110:50 (2013), 20018–20022.
38. Miura, Asako, Kobayashi, Tetsuro, Survey satisficing inflates stereotypical responses in online experiment: the case of immigration study. Front. Psychol. 7 (2016), 1–10.
39. Oppenheimer, Daniel, Meyvis, Tom, Davidenko, Nicolas, Instructional manipulation checks: detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 45:4 (2009), 867–872.
40. Povellato, Andrea, Bosello, Francesco, Giupponi, Carlo, Cost-effectiveness of greenhouse gases mitigation measures in the european agro-forestry sector: a literature survey. Environ. Sci. Pol. 10:5 (2007), 474–490.
41. Säll, Sarah, Gren, Ing-Marie, Effects of an environmental tax on meat and dairy consumption in Sweden. Food Policy 55 (2015), 41–53.
42. Scarpa, Riccardo, Zanoli, Raffaele, Bruschi, Viola, Naspetti, Simona, Inferred and stated attribute non-attendance in food choice experiments. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 95:1 (2013), 165–180.
43. Small, Kenneth A., Rosen, Harvey S., Applied welfare economics with discrete choice models. Econometrica 49:1 (1981), 105–130.
44. Stamp, Josiah, Some Economic Factors in Modern Life. 1929, P.S. King and Son (First Edition).
45. Stehfest, Elke, Bouwman, Lex, Van Vuuren, Detlef P., Den Elzen, Michel G., Eickhout, Bas, Kabat, Pavel, Climate benefits of changing diet. Clim. Chang. 95:1 (2009), 83–102.
46. Steinfeld, Henning, Pierre, Gerber, Wassenaar, T.D., Castel, Vincent, de Haan, Cees, Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. 2006, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
47. Subak, Susan, Global Environmental Costs of Beef Production. Ecol. Econ. 30:1 (1999), 79–91.
48. Swait, Joffre, Louviere, Jordan, The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. J. Mar. Res., 1993, 305–314.
49. Taylor, Mykel R., Tonsor, Glen T., Revealed demand for country of origin labeling of meat in the United States. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 38:2 (2013), 235–247.
50. Train, Kenneth E., Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. 2009, Cambridge University Press.
51. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Meat Price Spreads: Summary of Retail Prices and Price Spreads. 2016, William Hahn (Online).
52. U.S. Department of Agriculture – National Agricultural Statistics Service, QuickStats. 2016 (Online).
53. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. 2015 (Online).
54. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Agriculture.” U.S. greenhouse gas inventory report: 1990–2014. EPA 430-R-16-002, 2016 (Online).
55. Wirsenius, Stefan, Hedenus, Fredrik, Mohlin, Kristina, Greenhouse gas taxes on animal food products: Rationale, tax scheme and climate mitigation effects. Clim. Chang. 108:1 (2011), 159–184.