1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Resource Economics
  4. Volume 10, 2018
  5. Article

Annual Review of Resource Economics

Volume 10, 2018

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

Abstract

There has been increasing interest in food characteristics that are broadly classified here as socially acceptable credence attributes. This review considers several demand-side issues associated with the economic analysis of these attributes. First, despite ample research and media discussion suggesting strong preference for these food attributes, market shares remain low. Hypothetical bias and social desirability bias likely play a prominent role in explaining this disconnect. There has also been an increase in government and food industry regulation aimed at socially acceptable credence attributes, and this article considers why public votes and policy positions appear discordant with retail shopping behavior. One set of policy proposals involves more information disclosure related to such attributes; however, the welfare economics associated with information provision is not straightforward. While much has been learned about consumers’ stated willingness-to-pay for socially acceptable credence attributes, this review suggests that more research is needed to understand the current environment surrounding these food characteristics.

Keyword(s): ballot initiative, JEL D12, JEL Q11, JEL Q12, JEL Q18, labels, organic, social desirability bias, warm glow, willingness-to-pay
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100517-023153
2018-10-05
2024-04-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/resource/10/1/annurev-resource-100517-023153.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100517-023153&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Ajzen I 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50:2179–211
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Alfnes F, Yue C, Jensen HH 2010. Cognitive dissonance as a means of reducing hypothetical bias. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 37:2147–63
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Allender WJ, Richards TJ 2010. Consumer impact of animal welfare regulation in the California poultry industry. J. Agric. Resourc. Econ. 35:3424–42
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Alphonce R, Alfnes F 2017. Eliciting consumer WTP for food characteristics in a developing context: application of four valuation methods in an African market. J. Agric. Econ. 68:1123–42
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Andreoni J 1990. Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving. Econ. J. 100:401464–77
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H 1993. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed. Regist. 58:104601–14
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Artuso A 2003. Risk perceptions, endogenous demand and regulation of agricultural biotechnology. Food Policy 28:2131–45
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bar-Gill O, Schkade D, Sunstein CR 2017. Drawing false inferences from mandated disclosures Harvard Public Law Work. Pap 17–06 Harvard Univ
  9. Bell E, Norwood FB, Lusk JL 2017. Are consumers willfully ignorant about animal welfare. ? Anim. Welf. 26:4399–402
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Ben-Akiva M, Bradley M, Morikawa T, Benjamin J, Novak T et al. 1994. Combining revealed and stated preferences data. Mark. Lett. 5:4335–49
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Blamey RK, Common MS, Quiggin JC 1995. Respondents to contingent valuation surveys: Consumers or citizens. ? Aust. J. Agric. Resourc. Econ. 39:3263–88
     [Google Scholar]
  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. 97:1239–59
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Bovay J, Alston JM 2016. GM labeling regulation by plebiscite: analysis of voting on Proposition 37 in California. J. Agric. Resourc. Econ. 41:2161–88
     [Google Scholar]
  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. 92:41229–41
     [Google Scholar]
  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. 89:1152–61
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Carlsson F, Frykblom P, Lagerkvist CJ 2007.b Farm animal welfare—testing for market failure. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 39:161–73
     [Google Scholar]
  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. 41:2179–92
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Carson RT, Flores NE, Meade NF 2001. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ. Resourc. Econ. 19:2173–210
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Carson RT, Groves T 2007. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ. Resourc. Econ. 37:1181–210
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Caswell JA, Mojduszka EM 1996. Using informational labeling to influence the market for quality in food products. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 78:51248–53
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Champ PA, Bishop RC 2001. Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: an empirical study of hypothetical bias. Environ. Resourc. Econ. 19:4383–402
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Chang JB, Lusk JL, Norwood FB 2009. How closely do hypothetical surveys and laboratory experiments predict field behavior. ? Am. J. Agric. Econ. 91:2518–34
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Cicia G, Colantuoni F 2010. Willingness to pay for traceable meat attributes: a meta-analysis. Int. J. Food Syst. Dyn. 1:3252–63
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Corneo G, Jeanne O 1997. Conspicuous consumption, snobbism and conformism. J. Public Econ. 66:155–71
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Costanigro M, Lusk JL 2014. The signaling effect of mandatory labels on genetically engineered food. Food Policy 49:Pt. 1259–67
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Cummings RG, Taylor LO 1999. Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am. Econ. Rev. 89:3649–65
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Dannenberg A 2009. The dispersion and development of consumer preferences for genetically modified food—a meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 68:82182–92
     [Google Scholar]
  31. De Gorter H, Swinnen J 2002. Political economy of agricultural policy. Handb. Agric. Econ. 2:1893–943
     [Google Scholar]
  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. 95:51136–54
     [Google Scholar]
  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. 38:2204–19
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Drichoutis AC, Vassilopoulos A, Lusk JL, Nayga RM 2017. Consumer preferences for fair labour certification. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 44:3455–74
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Ehmke MD, Lusk JL, List JA 2008. Is hypothetical bias a universal phenomenon? A multinational investigation. Land Econ 84:3489–500
     [Google Scholar]
  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 106:101865–71
     [Google Scholar]
  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. 17:3266–83
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Fox JA, Shogren JF, Hayes DJ, Kliebenstein JB 1998. CVM-X: calibrating contingent values with experimental auction markets. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 80:3455–65
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Frederick S 2005. Cognitive reflection and decision making. J. Econ. Perspect. 19:425–42
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Frederick S 2011. Overestimating others’ willingness to pay. J. Consum. Res. 39:11–21
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Frederick S, Loewenstein G, O'Donoghue T 2002. Time discounting and time preference: a critical review. J. Econ. Lit. 40:2351–401
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Gardner BL 1987. Causes of US farm commodity programs. J. Political Econ. 95:2290–310
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Goeree JK, Holt CA 2001. Ten little treasures of game theory and ten intuitive contradictions. Am. Econ. Rev. 91:51402–22
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Golman R, Hagmann D, Loewenstein G 2017. Information avoidance. J. Econ. Lit. 55:196–135
     [Google Scholar]
  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
     [Google Scholar]
  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. 87:3799–817
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Hanemann M, Loomis J, Kanninen B 1991. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 73:41255–63
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Harrison GW, Rutström EE 2008. Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods. Handb. Exp. Econ. Results 1:752–67
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Heffetz O 2011. A test of conspicuous consumption: visibility and income elasticities. Rev. Econ. Stat. 93:41101–17
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Hensher DA 2010. Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay. Transp. Res. B Methodol. 44:6735–52
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Hensher D, Louviere J, Swait J 1998. Combining sources of preference data. J. Econom. 89:197–221
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Hensher DA, Bradley M 1993. Using stated response choice data to enrich revealed preference discrete choice models. Mark. Lett. 4:2139–51
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Hofler RA, List JA 2004. Valuation on the frontier: calibrating actual and hypothetical statements of value. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 86:1213–21
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Hu W, Veeman MM, Adamowicz WL 2005. Labelling genetically modified food: heterogeneous consumer preferences and the value of information. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 53:183–102
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Jacquemet N, James A, Luchini S, Shogren JF 2016. Referenda under oath. Environ. Resourc. Econ. 67:3479–504
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Jacquemet N, Joule RV, Luchini S, Shogren JF 2013. Preference elicitation under oath. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 65:1110–32
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Kanter C, Messer KD, Kaiser HM 2009. Does production labeling stigmatize conventional milk. ? Am. J. Agric. Econ. 91:41097–109
     [Google Scholar]
  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. 45:5635–48
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Lagerkvist CJ, Hess S 2010. A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 38:155–78
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Lee WCJ, Shimizu M, Kniffin KM, Wansink B 2013. You taste what you see: Do organic labels bias taste perceptions. ? Food Qual. Preference 29:133–39
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Leggett CG 2002. Environmental valuation with imperfect information: the case of the random utility model. Environ. Resourc. Econ. 23:3343–55
     [Google Scholar]
  64. List JA 2001. Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auctions for sportscards. Am. Econ. Rev. 91:51498–507
     [Google Scholar]
  65. List JA, Gallet CA 2001. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values. ? Environ. Resourc. Econ. 20:3241–54
     [Google Scholar]
  66. List JA, Shogren JF 1998. Calibration of the difference between actual and hypothetical valuations in a field experiment. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 37:2193–205
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Little J, Berrens R 2004. Explaining disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values: further investigation using meta-analysis. Econ. Bull. 3:61–13
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Loomis J 2011. What's to know about hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation studies. ? J. Econ. Surv. 25:2363–70
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Loomis JB 2014. Strategies for overcoming hypothetical bias in stated preference surveys. J. Agric. Resourc. Econ. 39:134–46
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Louriero ML 2011. Ethical considerations and food demand. Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Food Consumption and Policy JL Lusk, J Roosen, JF Shogren 869–82 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Lusk JL 2003. Effects of cheap talk on consumer willingness-to-pay for golden rice. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 85:4840–56
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Lusk JL 2012. The political ideology of food. Food Policy 37:5530–42
     [Google Scholar]
  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. 99:2303–20
     [Google Scholar]
  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
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  76. Lusk JL, McLaughlin L, Jaeger SR 2007.a Strategy and response to purchase intention questions. Mark. Lett. 18:1–231–44
     [Google Scholar]
  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. 36:4499–521
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Lusk JL, Norwood FB 2009.a An inferred valuation method. Land Econ 85:3500–14
     [Google Scholar]
  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. 58:2236–50
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Lusk JL, Norwood FB 2011. Animal welfare economics. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 33:4463–83
     [Google Scholar]
  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
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Lusk JL, Rozan A 2008. Public policy and endogenous beliefs: the case of genetically modified food. J. Agric. Resourc. Econ. 33:2270–89
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Lusk JL, Schroeder TC 2004. Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 86:2467–82
     [Google Scholar]
  84. McFadden BR, Lusk JL 2013. Effects of cost and campaign advertising on support for California's Proposition 37. J. Agric. Resourc. Econ. 38:2174–86
     [Google Scholar]
  85. McFadden BR, Lusk JL 2016. What consumers don't know about genetically modified food, and how that affects beliefs. FASEB J 30:93091–96
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Messer KD, Costanigro M, Kaiser HM 2017. Labeling food processes: the good, the bad and the ugly. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 39:3407–27
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Morwitz VG, Steckel JH, Gupta A 2007. When do purchase intentions predict sales. ? Int. J. Forecast. 23:3347–64
     [Google Scholar]
  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
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Murphy JJ, Allen PG, Stevens TH, Weatherhead D 2005. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environ. Resourc. Econ. 30:3313–25
     [Google Scholar]
  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. 93:2528–34
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Olynk NJ, Tonsor GT, Wolf CA 2010. Consumer willingness to pay for livestock credence attribute claim verification. J. Agric. Resourc. Econ. 35:2261–80
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Portney PR 1992. Trouble in happyville. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 11:1131–32
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Ready RC, Champ PA, Lawton JL 2010. Using respondent uncertainty to mitigate hypothetical bias in a stated choice experiment. Land Econ 86:2363–81
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Rigby D, Cáceres D 2001. Organic farming and the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agric. Syst. 68:121–40
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Saitone TL, Sexton RJ, Sumner DA 2015. What happens when food marketers require restrictive farming practices. ? Am. J. Agric. Econ. 97:41021–43
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Salanié F, Treich N 2009. Regulation in happyville. Econ. J. 119:537665–79
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Schroeder TC, Tonsor GT 2011. Demand for meat quality attributes. Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Food Consumption and Policy JL Lusk, J Roosen, JF Shogren 791–810 Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Schuldt JP, Schwarz N 2010. The “organic” path to obesity? Organic claims influence calorie judgments and exercise recommendations. Judgm. Decis. Making 5:3144–50
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Seufert V, Ramankutty N, Foley JA 2012. Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 485:7397229–32
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Sexton RJ 2012. Market power, misconceptions, and modern agricultural markets. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 95:2209–19
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Sexton SE, Sexton AL 2014. Conspicuous conservation: the Prius halo and willingness to pay for environmental bona fides. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 67:3303–17
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Sheeran P 2002. Intention–behavior relations: a conceptual and empirical review. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 12:11–36
     [Google Scholar]
  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. 46:1107–24
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Stachtiaris S, Drichoutis AC, Klonaris S 2012. Preference reversals in contingent and inferred valuation methods. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 40:2379–404
     [Google Scholar]
  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
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Sun B, Morwitz VG 2010. Stated intentions and purchase behavior: a unified model. Int. J. Res. Mark. 27:4356–66
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Teisl MF 2011. Environmental concerns and food demand. Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Food Consumption and Policy JL Lusk, J Roosen, JF Shogren 843–68 Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Thunström L, Nordström J, Shogren JF, Ehmke M, van't Veld K 2016. Strategic self-ignorance. J. Risk Uncertain. 52:2117–36
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Tonsor GT, Shupp RS 2011. Cheap talk scripts and online choice experiments: “looking beyond the mean. .” Am. J. Agric. Econ. 93:41015–31
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Tonsor GT, Wolf CA 2010. Drivers of resident support for animal care oriented ballot initiatives. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 42:3419–28
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Tonsor GT, Wolf C, Olynk N 2009. Consumer voting and demand behavior regarding swine gestation crates. Food Policy 34:6492–98
     [Google Scholar]
  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 19:2169–94
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Verneau F, La Barbera F, Del Giudice T 2017. The role of implicit associations in the hypothetical bias. J. Consum. Aff. 51:2312–28
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Videras J 2006. Religion and animal welfare: evidence from voting data. J. Socio-Econ. 35:4652–59
     [Google Scholar]
  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. 58:3338–45
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100517-023153
Loading
Separating Myth from Reality: An Analysis of Socially Acceptable Credence Attributes
Annual Review of Resource Economics 10, 65 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100517-023153
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100517-023153
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100517-023153
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error