[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/bjafio/v13y2015i1p113-119n7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Consumers as Constrained as Hens are Confined? Brain Activations and Behavioral Choices after Informational Influence

Author

Listed:
  • Francisco Alex J.

    (University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA)

  • Bruce Amanda S.

    (University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA Children’s Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, MO, USA)

  • Crespi John M.

    (Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA)

  • Lusk Jayson L.

    (Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA)

  • McFadden Brandon

    (University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA)

  • Bruce Jared M.

    (University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA)

  • Aupperle Robin L.

    (Laureate Institute for Brain Research, Tulsa, OK, USA University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, USA)

  • Lim Seung-Lark

    (University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA)

Abstract
In 2008, California passed Proposition 2, specifying confinement space for certain farm animals. Proposition 2 went into full effect January 2015 and has significant implications for egg production in California and possibly even interstate commerce. We examined the influence of promotional videos aired during the campaign on consumers’ willingness-to-pay for eggs produced in a more open production system (i.e., cage-free, free range) and corresponding neurofunctional activations during decisions. Forty-six participants (24 females), aged 18–55 years (M=29.65), were enrolled and performed a food decision-making task during fMRI scanning. In each decision, two options of identical one dozen cartons of eggs were presented simultaneously. Below each option were two attributes, describing price and production method. Cage free and free-range eggs were more expensive, at varying degrees. Participants were randomized to one of three 30-second video groups: pro-Proposition 2, anti-Proposition 2, and a Neutral flowing stream. Based on a whole brain analysis, participants in the pro-Proposition 2 video group (N=16) demonstrated significantly greater activations post-video compared to pre-video in left insular cortex and right occipital cortex. This change in insula activity may be indicative of increased social risk involved with the purchase of closed production method eggs, driving participants to increase their percentage of decisions to purchase the higher priced, open-method eggs. It is possible that the insula activation indicates that consumers are constrained to choosing the eggs produced under open-cage production methods, after viewing advertisements advocating for Proposition 2.

Suggested Citation

  • Francisco Alex J. & Bruce Amanda S. & Crespi John M. & Lusk Jayson L. & McFadden Brandon & Bruce Jared M. & Aupperle Robin L. & Lim Seung-Lark, 2015. "Are Consumers as Constrained as Hens are Confined? Brain Activations and Behavioral Choices after Informational Influence," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 113-119, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:bjafio:v:13:y:2015:i:1:p:113-119:n:7
    DOI: 10.1515/jafio-2015-0022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/jafio-2015-0022
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/jafio-2015-0022?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood, 2011. "Animal Welfare Economics," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 33(4), pages 463-483.
    2. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Wolf, Christopher & Olynk, Nicole, 2009. "Consumer voting and demand behavior regarding swine gestation crates," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 492-498, December.
    3. Norwood, F. Bailey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2011. "A calibrated auction-conjoint valuation method: Valuing pork and eggs produced under differing animal welfare conditions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 80-94, July.
    4. Lusk Jayson L, 2010. "The Effect of Proposition 2 on the Demand for Eggs in California," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-20, April.
    5. Chang, Jae Bong & Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey, 2010. "The Price of Happy Hens: A Hedonic Analysis of Retail Egg Prices," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 35(3), pages 1-18, December.
    6. Allender, William J. & Richards, Timothy J., 2010. "Consumer Impact of Animal Welfare Regulation in the California Poultry Industry," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 35(3), pages 1-19, December.
    7. Brooks, Kathleen R. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2012. "Public and Private Preferences for Animal Cloning Policies," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(3), pages 1-17.
    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. Wensing, Joana & Caputo, Vincenzina & Carraresi, Laura & Bröring, Stefanie, 2020. "The effects of green nudges on consumer valuation of bio-based plastic packaging," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    2. Cao, Ying & Chen, Chen & Cranfield, John & Widowski, Tina, 2017. "Market Responses to Information Conveying Mixed Messages – Prediction of Informational Impacts on Consumer Willingness to Pay for Eggs from Welfare Enhanced Cage Systems using Discrete Choice Experime," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258545, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Houman Hashemzadeh & Alireza Karbasi & Hosein Mohammadi & Ali Firoozzare & Flavio Boccia, 2022. "Investigating the Effect of Nudges on Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Corn Oil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-18, October.
    4. Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Cranfield, John & Chen, Chen & Widowski, Tina, 2021. "Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    5. Schukat, S. & Heise, H., 2018. "Neuroeconomics In Der Agrarökonomischen Forschung: Eine Status Quo Analyse," 58th Annual Conference, Kiel, Germany, September 12-14, 2018 275843, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).

    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. Paul, Andrew S. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey & Tonsor, Glynn T., 2019. "An experiment on the vote-buy gap with application to cage-free eggs," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 102-109.
    2. Heng, Yan & Peterson, Hikaru Hanawa & Li, Xianghong, 2012. "Consumers’ Preferences for Shell Eggs Regarding Laying Hen Welfare," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124592, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Heng, Yan & Hanawa Peterson, Hikaru & Li, Xianghong, 2013. "Consumer Attitudes toward Farm-Animal Welfare: The Case of Laying Hens," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-17.
    4. Ortega, David L. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2018. "Demand for farm animal welfare and producer implications: Results from a field experiment in Michigan," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 74-81.
    5. McFadden, Brandon R. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Crespi, John M. & Cherry, J. Bradley C. & Martin, Laura E. & Bruce, Amanda S., 2013. "Consumer Response to Egg Production Systems and the Effect of Proposition 2 Advertising: A Preliminary Neuroeconomic Analysis," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150437, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Hopkins, Kelsey A. & McKendree, Melissa G. S. & Rice, Emma D., 2020. "Understanding the U.S. Publics’ Voting on Animal Welfare and Genetically Modified Organism Labeling Ballot Initiatives," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304519, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Conner Mullally & Jayson L Lusk, 2018. "The Impact of Farm Animal Housing Restrictions on Egg Prices, Consumer Welfare, and Production in California," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 649-669.
    8. Tomislav Vukina & Danijel Nestic, 2020. "Paying for animal welfare? A hedonic analysis of egg prices," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 613-630, October.
    9. Colin A. Carter & K. Aleks Schaefer & Daniel Scheitrum, 2021. "Piecemeal Farm Regulation and the U.S. Commerce Clause," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(3), pages 1141-1163, May.
    10. Malone, Trey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2016. "Putting the Chicken Before the Egg Price: An Ex Post Analysis of California's Battery Cage Ban," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 1-15, September.
    11. Oh, Sohae & Vukina, Tomislav, 2020. "Quantifying the Welfare Effects of Laying-hen Cage Ban," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304408, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    13. Jayson Lusk, 2011. "The market for animal welfare," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(4), pages 561-575, December.
    14. Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Cranfield, John & Chen, Chen & Widowski, Tina, 2021. "Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    15. Sohae Eve Oh & Tomislav Vukina, 2022. "The price of cage‐free eggs: Social cost of Proposition 12 in California," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(4), pages 1293-1326, August.
    16. Ochs, Dan & Wolf, Christopher A. & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Bir, Courtney & Lai, John, 2019. "Hen housing system information effects on U.S. egg demand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-1.
    17. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    18. Heng, Yan & Peterson, Hikaru, 2014. "Estimating Demand for Differentiated Eggs Using Scanner Data," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170457, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Disdier, Anne-Célia & Marette, Stéphan & Millet, Guy, 2013. "Are consumers concerned about palm oil? Evidence from a lab experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 180-189.
    20. McKendree, Melissa G.S. & Olynk Widmar, Nicole & Ortega, David L. & Foster, Kenneth A., 2013. "Consumer Preferences for Verified Pork-Rearing Practices in the Production of Ham Products," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-21.

    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:bpj:bjafio:v:13:y:2015:i:1:p:113-119:n:7. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    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.