[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v77y2018icp186-194.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How will mandatory labeling of genetically modified food nudge consumer decision-making?

Author

Listed:
  • McFadden, Brandon R.
  • Malone, Trey
Abstract
•We identify heterogeneity in the characteristics of consumers who were nudged by the new choice architecture established by the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard.•Heterogeneity in characteristics was examined in a manner that allowed the comparison of consumers who sought to avoid a genetically modified presence label compared to consumers who sought to gain a genetically modified absence label.•Results indicate that concern about genetically modified food safety is likely a better determinant of willingness to pay to avoid presence labels and gain absence labels than demographic characteristics.•While there was some overlap between the avoid and gain models, insight can be gathered by relaxing the assumption that consumers only seek to avoid or gain a label.

Suggested Citation

  • McFadden, Brandon R. & Malone, Trey, 2018. "How will mandatory labeling of genetically modified food nudge consumer decision-making?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 186-194.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:77:y:2018:i:c:p:186-194
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2018.09.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804318301848
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2018.09.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ansolabehere, Stephen & Schaffner, Brian F., 2014. "Does Survey Mode Still Matter? Findings from a 2010 Multi-Mode Comparison," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(3), pages 285-303, July.
    2. He, Na & Bernard, John C., 2011. "Differences in WTP and Consumer Demand for Organic and Non-GM Fresh and Processed Foods," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(2), pages 218-232, September.
    3. Batte, Marvin T. & Hooker, Neal H. & Haab, Timothy C. & Beaverson, Jeremy, 2007. "Putting their money where their mouths are: Consumer willingness to pay for multi-ingredient, processed organic food products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 145-159, April.
    4. John Crespi & Stéphan Marette, 2003. "“Does Contain” vs. “Does Not Contain”: Does it Matter which GMO Label is Used?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 327-344, November.
    5. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John & Greaves, Stephen, 2014. "Hypothetical bias in Stated Choice Experiments: Is it a problem? And if so, how do we deal with it?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 164-177.
    6. Timothy C. Haab & Matthew G. Interis & Daniel R. Petrolia & John C. Whitehead, 2013. "From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman's "Dubious to Hopeless" Critique of Contingent Valuation," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(4), pages 593-612.
    7. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
    8. Jayson L. Lusk, 2017. "Consumer Research with Big Data: Applications from the Food Demand Survey (FooDS)," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(2), pages 303-320.
    9. Loureiro, Maria L. & Hine, Susan, 2002. "Discovering Niche Markets: A Comparison of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Local (Colorado Grown), Organic, and GMO-Free Products," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(3), pages 477-487, December.
    10. John A. List, 2001. "Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1498-1507, December.
    11. Jakina Debnam, 2017. "Selection Effects and Heterogeneous Demand Responses to the Berkeley Soda Tax Vote," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(5), pages 1172-1187.
    12. He, Na & Bernard, John C., 2011. "Differences in WTP and Consumer Demand for Organic and Non-GM Fresh and Processed Foods," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 40(2), pages 1-15, August.
    13. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    14. Bernard, John C. & Zhang, Chao & Gifford, Katie, 2006. "An Experimental Investigation of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Non-GM Foods When an Organic Option Is Present," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(2), pages 374-385, October.
    15. Brandon R McFadden & Jayson L Lusk, 2018. "Effects of the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard: Willingness To Pay for Labels that Communicate the Presence or Absence of Genetic Modification," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 40(2), pages 259-275.
    16. Loomis, John B., 2014. "2013 WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(1), pages 1-13, April.
    17. Costanigro, Marco & Lusk, Jayson L., 2014. "The signaling effect of mandatory labels on genetically engineered food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 259-267.
    18. Malone, Trey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2019. "Mitigating Choice Overload: An Experiment in the U.S. Beer Market," Journal of Wine Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 48-70, February.
    19. John A. List, 2003. "Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(1), pages 41-71.
    20. Bernard, John C. & Zhang, Chao & Gifford, Katie, 2006. "An Experimental Investigation of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Non-GM Foods When an Organic Option Is Present," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 35(2), pages 1-12, October.
    21. Jerry Hausman, 2012. "Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 43-56, Fall.
    22. Just, David R., 2017. "The Behavioral Welfare Paradox: Practical, Ethical and Welfare Implications of Nudging," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 1-20, April.
    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. Benjamin DeMuth & Trey Malone & Brandon R. McFadden & Christopher A. Wolf, 2023. "Choice effects associated with banning the word “meat” on alternative protein labels," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(1), pages 128-144, March.
    2. Fenzl, Thomas & Brudermann, Thomas, 2021. "Eye cues increase cooperation in the dictator game under physical attendance of a recipient, but not for all," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    3. Zheng, Qiujie & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr. & Yang, Wei & Tokunaga, Kanae, 2022. "Do U.S. consumers value genetically modified farmed salmon?," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322154, 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. Maurizio Canavari & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2018. "How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances," Working Papers 2018-5, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    2. Lai, Yufeng & Yue, Chengyan, 2020. "Consumer Willingness to pay for Organic and Animal Welfare Product Attributes: Do Experimental Results Align with Market Data?," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304328, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John M., 2016. "Can you ever be certain? Reducing hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments via respondent reported choice certaintyAuthor-Name: Beck, Matthew J," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 149-167.
    4. Diriba Abdeta, 2022. "Households' willingness to pay for forest conservation in Ethiopia: A review," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 68(11), pages 437-451.
    5. McFadden, Jonathan R. & Huffman, Wallace E., 2017. "Willingness-to-pay for natural, organic, and conventional foods: The effects of information and meaningful labels," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 214-232.
    6. Tatiana Drugova & Kynda R. Curtis & Sherzod B. Akhundjanov, 2020. "Are multiple labels on food products beneficial or simply ignored?," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(4), pages 411-427, December.
    7. Xie, Lusi & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Kecinski, Maik & Fooks, Jacob R., 2022. "Using economic experiments to assess the validity of stated preference contingent behavior responses," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    8. Adalja, Aaron & Hanson, James & Towe, Charles & Tselepidakis, Elina, 2015. "An Examination of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Local Products," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 44(3), pages 1-22, December.
    9. Eva Tebbe & Korbinian von Blanckenburg, 2018. "Does willingness to pay increase with the number and strictness of sustainability labels?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(1), pages 41-53, January.
    10. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    11. Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2016. "Making the Most of Cheap Talk in an Online Survey," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236171, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Carroll, James & Aravena, Claudia & Denny, Eleanor, 2016. "Low energy efficiency in rental properties: Asymmetric information or low willingness-to-pay?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 617-629.
    13. Loomis, John B., 2014. "2013 WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(1), pages 1-13, April.
    14. Neill, Clinton L. & Holcomb, Rodney B., 2019. "Does a food safety label matter? Consumer heterogeneity and fresh produce risk perceptions under the Food Safety Modernization Act," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 7-14.
    15. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    16. Helga Fehr-Duda & Robin Schimmelpfennig, 2018. "Wider die Zahlengläubigkeit: Sind Befragungsergebnisse eine gute Grundlage für wirtschaftspolitische Entscheidungen?," ECON - Working Papers 297, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Dec 2018.
    17. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    18. Ladenburg, Jacob & Skotte, Maria, 2022. "Heterogeneity in willingness to pay for the location of offshore wind power development: An application of the willingness to pay space model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    19. Perez-Verdin, Gustavo & Sanjurjo-Rivera, Enrique & Galicia, Leopoldo & Hernandez-Diaz, Jose Ciro & Hernandez-Trejo, Victor & Marquez-Linares, Marco Antonio, 2016. "Economic valuation of ecosystem services in Mexico: Current status and trends," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 6-19.
    20. Martha A. Starr, 2015. "The Economics of Ethical Consumption," Working Papers 2015-01, American University, Department of Economics.

    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:eee:soceco:v:77:y:2018:i:c:p:186-194. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175 .

    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.