Separating Myth from Reality: An Analysis of Socially Acceptable Credence Attributes

Annual Review of Resource Economics

Volumn 10, Issue , 2018, Pages 65-82

  Lusk, Jayson L ^a  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Ballot initiative; Labels; Organic; Social desirability bias; Warm glow; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

EID: 85052495695     PISSN: 19411340     EISSN: 19411359     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-resource-100517-023153     Document Type: Article

References (119)

1. Ajzen I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50(2):179-211
2. Alfnes F, Yue C, Jensen HH. 2010. Cognitive dissonance as a means of reducing hypothetical bias. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 37(2):147-63
3. Allender WJ, Richards TJ. 2010. Consumer impact of animal welfare regulation in the California poultry industry. J. Agric. Resourc. Econ. 35(3):424-42
4. Alphonce R, Alfnes F. 2017. Eliciting consumerWTP for food characteristics in a developing context: application of four valuation methods in an African market. J. Agric. Econ. 68(1):123-42
5. Andreoni J. 1990. Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving. Econ. J. 100(401):464-77
6. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H. 1993. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed. Regist. 58(10):4601-14
7. Artuso A. 2003. Risk perceptions, endogenous demand and regulation of agricultural biotechnology. Food Policy 28(2):131-45
8. Bar-Gill O, Schkade D, Sunstein CR. 2017. Drawing false inferences from mandated disclosures. Harvard Public LawWork. Pap. 17-06, Harvard Univ.
9. Bell E, Norwood FB, Lusk JL. 2017. Are consumers willfully ignorant about animal welfare? Anim. Welf. 26(4):399-402
10. Ben-Akiva M, Bradley M, Morikawa T, Benjamin J, Novak T, et al. 1994. Combining revealed and stated preferences data. Mark. Lett. 5(4):335-49
11. Blamey RK, Common MS, Quiggin JC. 1995. Respondents to contingent valuation surveys: Consumers or citizens? Aust. J. Agric. Resourc. Econ. 39(3):263-88
12. Bonroy O, Constantatos C. 2014. On the economics of labels: how their introduction affects the functioning of markets and the welfare of all participants. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 97(1):239-59
13. Bovay J, Alston JM. 2016. GM labeling regulation by plebiscite: analysis of voting on Proposition 37 in California. J. Agric. Resourc. Econ. 41(2):161-88
14. Bovay J, Sumner DA. 2014. Voter and consumer evaluation of restrictions of farm animal management practices. Presented at Annu. Meet. Agric. Appl. Econ. Assoc.,Washington, DC
15. Brennan G, Lomasky L. 1997. Democracy and Decision: The Pure Theory of Electoral Preference. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
16. Brooks K, Lusk JL. 2010. Stated and revealed preferences for organic and cloned milk: combining choice experiment and scanner data. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 92(4):1229-41
17. Caplan B. 2011. The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
18. Carlsson F, Frykblom P, Lagerkvist CJ. 2007 a. Consumer benefits of labels and bans on GM foods-choice experiments with Swedish consumers. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 89(1):152-61
19. Carlsson F, Frykblom P, Lagerkvist CJ. 2007 b. Farm animal welfare-testing formarket failure. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 39(1):61-73
20. Carlsson F, Martinsson P. 2001. Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments? Application to the valuation of the environment. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 41(2):179-92
21. Carson RT, Flores NE,Meade NF. 2001. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ. Resourc. Econ. 19(2):173-210
22. Carson RT, Groves T. 2007. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ. Resourc. Econ. 37(1):181-210
23. Caswell JA, Mojduszka EM. 1996. Using informational labeling to influence the market for quality in food products. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 78(5):1248-53
24. Champ PA, Bishop RC. 2001. Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: an empirical study of hypothetical bias. Environ. Resourc. Econ. 19(4):383-402
25. Chang JB, Lusk JL, Norwood FB. 2009. How closely do hypothetical surveys and laboratory experiments predict field behavior? Am. J. Agric. Econ. 91(2):518-34
26. Cicia G, Colantuoni F. 2010. Willingness to pay for traceable meat attributes: a meta-analysis. Int. J. Food Syst. Dyn. 1(3):252-63
27. Corneo G, Jeanne O. 1997. Conspicuous consumption, snobbism and conformism. J. Public Econ. 66(1):55-71
28. Costanigro M, Lusk JL. 2014. The signaling effect of mandatory labels on genetically engineered food. Food Policy 49(Pt. 1):259-67
29. Cummings RG, Taylor LO. 1999. Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am. Econ. Rev. 89(3):649-65
30. Dannenberg A. 2009. The dispersion and development of consumer preferences for genetically modified food-A meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 68(8):2182-92
31. De Gorter H, Swinnen J. 2002. Political economy of agricultural policy. Handb. Agric. Econ. 2:1893-943
32. De-Magistris T, Gracia A, Nayga RM Jr. 2013. On the use of honesty priming tasks to mitigate hypothetical bias in choice experiments. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 95(5):1136-54
33. Deselnicu OC, Costanigro M, Souza-Monteiro DM, McFadden DT. 2013. A meta-analysis of geographical indication food valuation studies: what drives the premium for origin-based labels? J. Agric. Resourc. Econ. 38(2):204-19
34. Drichoutis AC, Vassilopoulos A, Lusk JL, NaygaRM. 2017. Consumer preferences for fair labour certification. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 44(3):455-74
35. Ehmke MD, Lusk JL, List JA. 2008. Is hypothetical bias a universal phenomenon? A multinational investigation. Land Econ. 84(3):489-500
36. Falbe J, Thompson HR, Becker CM, Rojas N, McCulloch CE, Madsen KA. 2016. Impact of the Berkeley excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverage consumption. Am. J. Public Health 106(10):1865-71
37. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
38. Foster W, Just RE. 1989. Measuring welfare effects of product contamination with consumer uncertainty. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 17(3):266-83
39. Fox JA, Shogren JF,Hayes DJ, Kliebenstein JB. 1998.CVM-X:calibrating contingent values with experimental auction markets. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 80(3):455-65
40. Frederick S. 2005. Cognitive reflection and decision making. J. Econ. Perspect. 19(4):25-42
41. Frederick S. 2011. Overestimating others' willingness to pay. J. Consum. Res. 39(1):1-21
42. Frederick S, Loewenstein G, O'Donoghue T. 2002. Time discounting and time preference: a critical review. J. Econ. Lit. 40(2):351-401
43. Gardner BL. 1987. Causes of US farm commodity programs. J. Political Econ. 95(2):290-310
44. Goeree JK, Holt CA. 2001. Ten little treasures of game theory and ten intuitive contradictions. Am. Econ. Rev. 91(5):1402-22
45. Golman R, Hagmann D, Loewenstein G. 2017. Information avoidance. J. Econ. Lit. 55(1):96-135
46. Grebitus C, Lusk JL, Nayga RM. 2013. Explaining differences in real and hypothetical experimental auctions and choice experiments with personality. J. Econ. Psychol. 36:11-26
47. Hamilton SF, Sunding DL, Zilberman D. 2003. Public goods and the value of product quality regulations: the case of food safety. J. Public Econ. 87(3):799-817
48. Hanemann M, Loomis J, Kanninen B. 1991. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 73(4):1255-63
49. Harrison GW, Rutstr öm EE. 2008. Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods. Handb. Exp. Econ. Results 1:752-67
50. Heffetz O. 2011. A test of conspicuous consumption: visibility and income elasticities. Rev. Econ. Stat. 93(4):1101-17
51. Hensher DA. 2010. Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay. Transp. Res. B Methodol. 44(6):735-52
52. Hensher D, Louviere J, Swait J. 1998. Combining sources of preference data. J. Econom. 89:197-221
53. Hensher DA, BradleyM. 1993. Using stated response choice data to enrich revealed preference discrete choice models. Mark. Lett. 4(2):139-51
54. Hofler RA, List JA. 2004. Valuation on the frontier: calibrating actual and hypothetical statements of value. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 86(1):213-21
55. Hu W, Veeman MM, Adamowicz WL. 2005. Labelling genetically modified food: heterogeneous consumer preferences and the value of information. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 53(1):83-102
56. JacquemetN, James A, Luchini S, Shogren JF. 2016. Referenda under oath. Environ. Resourc. Econ. 67(3):479-504
57. Jacquemet N, Joule RV, Luchini S, Shogren JF. 2013. Preference elicitation under oath. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 65(1):110-32
58. Kanter C, Messer KD, Kaiser HM. 2009. Does production labeling stigmatize conventional milk? Am. J. Agric. Econ. 91(4):1097-109
59. Kim S, Lusk JL, Brorsen BW. 2017. 'Look at me, I'm buying organic': the effects of social pressure on organic food purchases.Work. Pap., Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN
60. Klain TJ, Lusk JL, Tonsor GT, Schroeder TC. 2014. An experimental approach to valuing information. Agric. Econ. 45(5):635-48
61. Lagerkvist CJ, Hess S. 2010. A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 38(1):55-78
62. Lee WCJ, Shimizu M, Kniffin KM, Wansink B. 2013. You taste what you see: Do organic labels bias taste perceptions? Food Qual. Preference 29(1):33-39
63. Leggett CG. 2002. Environmental valuation with imperfect information: the case of the random utilitymodel. Environ. Resourc. Econ. 23(3):343-55
64. List JA. 2001. Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auctions for sportscards. Am. Econ. Rev. 91(5):1498-507
65. List JA, Gallet CA. 2001. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environ. Resourc. Econ. 20(3):241-54
66. List JA, Shogren JF. 1998. Calibration of the difference between actual and hypothetical valuations in a field experiment. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 37(2):193-205
67. Little J, Berrens R. 2004. Explaining disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values: further investigation using meta-analysis. Econ. Bull. 3(6):1-13
68. Loomis J. 2011. What's to know about hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation studies? J. Econ. Surv. 25(2):363-70
69. Loomis JB. 2014. Strategies for overcoming hypothetical bias in stated preference surveys. J. Agric. Resourc. Econ. 39(1):34-46
70. Louriero ML. 2011. Ethical considerations and food demand. In Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Food Consumption and Policy, ed. JL Lusk, J Roosen, JF Shogren, pp. 869-82. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
71. Lusk JL. 2003. Effects of cheap talk on consumer willingness-to-pay for golden rice. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 85(4):840-56
72. Lusk JL. 2012. The political ideology of food. Food Policy 37(5):530-42
73. Lusk JL. 2013. The Food Police: A Well-Fed Manifesto About the Politics of Your Plate. New York: Crown Forum
74. Lusk JL. 2017. Consumer research with big data: applications from the food demand survey (FooDS). Am. J. Agric. Econ. 99(2):303-20
75. Lusk JL, Marette S. 2012. Can labeling and information policies harm consumers? J. Agric. Food Ind. Organ. 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/1542-0485.1373
76. Lusk JL, McLaughlin L, Jaeger SR. 2007 a. Strategy and response to purchase intention questions. Mark. Lett. 18(1-2):31-44
77. Lusk JL, Nilsson T, Foster K. 2007 b. Public preferences and private choices: effect of altruism and free riding on demand for environmentally certified pork. Environ. Resourc. Econ. 36(4):499-521
78. Lusk JL, Norwood FB. 2009 a. An inferred valuation method. Land Econ. 85(3):500-14
79. Lusk JL, Norwood FB. 2009 b. Bridging the gap between laboratory experiments and naturally occurring markets: an inferred valuation method. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 58(2):236-50
80. Lusk JL, Norwood FB. 2011. Animal welfare economics. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 33(4):463-83
81. Lusk JL, Roosen J, Bieberstein A. 2014. Consumer acceptance of new food technologies: causes and roots of controversies. Annu. Rev. Resourc. Econ. 6:381-405
82. Lusk JL, Rozan A. 2008. Public policy and endogenous beliefs: the case of genetically modified food. J. Agric. Resourc. Econ. 33(2):270-89
83. Lusk JL, Schroeder TC. 2004. Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 86(2):467-82
84. McFadden BR, Lusk JL. 2013. Effects of cost and campaign advertising on support for California's Proposition 37. J. Agric. Resourc. Econ. 38(2):174-86
85. McFadden BR, Lusk JL. 2016. What consumers don't know about genetically modified food, and how that affects beliefs. FASEB J. 30(9):3091-96
86. Messer KD, Costanigro M, Kaiser HM. 2017. Labeling food processes: the good, the bad and the ugly. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 39(3):407-27
87. Morwitz VG, Steckel JH,GuptaA. 2007.Whendo purchase intentions predict sales? Int. J. Forecast. 23(3):347-64
88. Mullally C, Lusk JL. 2018. The impact of farm animal housing restrictions on egg prices, consumer welfare, and production in California. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 100:649-69
89. Murphy JJ, Allen PG, Stevens TH, Weatherhead D. 2005. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environ. Resourc. Econ. 30(3):313-25
90. NASS (Natl. Agric. Stat. Serv.). 2016 a. Certified organic survey: 2015 summary. Rep., Natl. Agric. Stat. Serv., US Dep. Agric.,Washington, DC. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/OrganicProduction// 2010s/2016/OrganicProduction-09-15-2016.pdf
91. NASS (Natl. Agric. Stat. Serv.). 2016 b. Quick stats. Quick Stats database, Natl. Agric. Stat. Serv., US Dep. Agric.,Washington, DC. https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov
92. Norwood FB, Lusk JL. 2011 a. Compassion, by the Pound: The Economics of Farm Animal Welfare. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
93. Norwood FB, Lusk JL. 2011 b. Social desirability bias in real, hypothetical, and inferred valuation experiments. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 93(2):528-34
94. Olynk NJ, Tonsor GT, Wolf CA. 2010. Consumer willingness to pay for livestock credence attribute claim verification. J. Agric. Resourc. Econ. 35(2):261-80
95. Portney PR. 1992. Trouble in happyville. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 11(1):131-32
96. Ready RC, Champ PA, Lawton JL. 2010. Using respondent uncertainty to mitigate hypothetical bias in a stated choice experiment. Land Econ. 86(2):363-81
97. RigbyD,CáceresD. 2001. Organic farming and the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agric. Syst. 68(1):21-40
98. Saitone TL, Sexton RJ, Sumner DA. 2015. What happens when food marketers require restrictive farming practices? Am. J. Agric. Econ. 97(4):1021-43
99. Salanié F, Treich N. 2009. Regulation in happyville. Econ. J. 119(537):665-79
100. Schroeder TC, Tonsor GT. 2011. Demand for meat quality attributes. In Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Food Consumption and Policy, ed. JL Lusk, J Roosen, JF Shogren, pp. 791-810. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
101. Schuldt JP, Schwarz N. 2010. The "organic" path to obesity? Organic claims influence calorie judgments and exercise recommendations. Judgm. Decis. Making 5(3):144-50
102. Seufert V, Ramankutty N, Foley JA. 2012. Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 485(7397):229-32
103. Sexton RJ. 2012. Market power, misconceptions, and modern agricultural markets. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 95(2):209-19
104. Sexton SE, Sexton AL. 2014. Conspicuous conservation: the Prius halo and willingness to pay for environmental bona fides. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 67(3):303-17
105. Sheeran P. 2002. Intention-behavior relations: a conceptual and empirical review. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 12(1):1-36
106. Smithson K, Corbin M, Lusk JL, Norwood FB. 2014. Predicting state-wide votes on ballot initiatives to ban battery cages and gestation crates. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 46(1):107-24
107. Stachtiaris S, Drichoutis AC, Klonaris S. 2012. Preference reversals in contingent and inferred valuation methods. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 40(2):379-404
108. Sumner D. 2017. Economics of US state and local regulation of farm practices, with emphasis on restrictions of interstate trade. Annu. Rev. Resourc. Econ. 9:13-31
109. Sun B, Morwitz VG. 2010. Stated intentions and purchase behavior: a unified model. Int. J. Res. Mark. 27(4):356-66
110. Teisl MF. 2011. Environmental concerns and food demand. In Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Food Consumption and Policy, ed. JL Lusk, J Roosen, JF Shogren, pp. 843-68. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
111. Thunstr öm L, Nordstr öm J, Shogren JF, Ehmke M, van't Veld K. 2016. Strategic self-ignorance. J. Risk Uncertain. 52(2):117-36
112. Tonsor GT, Shupp RS. 2011. Cheap talk scripts and online choice experiments: "looking beyond the mean." Am. J. Agric. Econ. 93(4):1015-31
113. Tonsor GT, Wolf CA. 2010. Drivers of resident support for animal care oriented ballot initiatives. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 42(3):419-28
114. Tonsor GT,WolfC,Olynk N. 2009. Consumer voting and demand behavior regarding swine gestation crates. Food Policy 34(6):492-98
115. USDA (US Dep. Agric.). 2017. New products. New Product Database, updated Apr. 5. https://www.ers. usda.gov/topics/food-markets-prices/processing-marketing/new-products/
116. Vermeir I, Verbeke W. 2006. Sustainable food consumption: exploring the consumer "attitude-behavioral intention" gap. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 19(2):169-94
117. Verneau F, La Barbera F, Del Giudice T. 2017. The role of implicit associations in the hypothetical bias. J. Consum. Aff. 51(2):312-28
118. Videras J. 2006. Religion and animal welfare: evidence from voting data. J. Socio-Econ. 35(4):652-59
119. Vossler CA, Evans MF. 2009. Bridging the gap between the field and the lab: environmental goods, policy maker input, and consequentiality. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 58(3):338-45