Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T22:30:44.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of Hypothetical Survey Rankings with Consumer Shopping Behavior

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

Carola Grebitus ,
Gregory Colson  and
Luisa Menapace
Carola Grebitus
Affiliation:
Institute for Food and Resource Economics, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
Gregory Colson
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia
Luisa Menapace
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Trento, Trento, Italy
Get access

Abstract

Hypothetical surveys are commonly used to elicit consumer behavior to guide product development, marketing, and labeling strategies. However, despite the prevalence of surveys in consumer food studies, previous work has not assessed the relationship between hypothetical responses and actual consumer behavior in real-world purchase situations. We explore whether attributes cited by consumers in surveys as being important to them when making decisions indeed factor into their product decision process in real-world markets. Evidence from a point of sale study of 702 pork purchasers indicates that there is a strong correspondence between hypothetical survey ratings and actual shopping behavior.

Keywords

attribute rankingconsumer shopping behaviorhypothetical surveysorigin labelingporkC8C9Q1
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , February 2012 , pp. 35 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abidoye, B.O., Bulut, H., Lawrence, J.D., Mennecke, B., and Townsend, A.M.. “U.S. Consumers' Valuation of Quality Attributes in Beef Products.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 43(2011): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alfnes, F., and Rickertsen, K.. “European Consumers' Willingness to Pay for U.S. Beef in Experimental Auction Markets.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(2003):396–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernués, A., Olaizola, A., and Corcoran, K.. “Labeling Information Demanded by European Consumers and Relationships with Purchasing Motives, Quality and Safety of Meat.” Meat Science 65(2003): 1095–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blarney, R.K., Bennett, J.W., and Morrison, M.D.. “Yea-Saying in Contingent Valuation Surveys.” Land Economics 75(1999): 126–41.Google Scholar
Brookshire, D.S., Coursey, D.L., and Schulz, W.D.. “The External Validity of Experimental Economics Techniques: Analysis of Demand Behavior.” Economic Inquiry 25(1987):239–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Champ, P.A., Bishop, R.C., Brown, T.C., and McCollum, D.W.. “Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33(1997):151–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, J.B., Lusk, J.L., and Norwood, F.B.. “How Closely do Hypothetical Surveys and Laboratory Experiments Predict Field Behavior.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91(2009):518–34.Google Scholar
Chen, K., Ali, M., Veeman, M., Unterschultz, J., and Le, T.. “Relative Importance Rankings for Pork Attributes by Asian-Origin Consumers in California: Applying an Ordered Probit Model to a Choice-Based Sample.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 34(2002):67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, C., Boyer, T., and Han, S.. “Valuing Quality Attributes and Country of Origin in the Korean Beef Market.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 60(2009):682–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummings, R.G., Brookshire, D.S., and Schulze, W.D.. Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld, 1986.Google Scholar
Cummings, R.G., and Taylor, L.O.. “Unbiased Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method.” The American Economic Review 89(1999): 649–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, A., Schröder, M.J.A., and Bower, J.A.. “The Importance of Origin as a Quality Attribute for Beef: Results from a Scottish Consumer Survey.” International Journal of Consumer Studies 27(2003):91–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, PR., and Sawyer, A.G.. “The Price Knowledge and Search of Supermarket Shoppers.” Journal of Marketing 54(1990):42–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dransfield, E., Ngapo, T.M., Nielsen, N.A., Bredahl, L., Sjôrdén, P.O., Magnusson, M., Campo, M.M., and Nute, G.R.. “Consumer Choice and Suggested Price for Pork as Influenced by Its Appearance, Taste, and Information Concerning Country of Origin and Organic Pig Production.” Meat Science 69(2005):61–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engelage, A. “Qualitätswahrnehmung bei Lebensmitte.” In: Das Verbraucherbild in Rechtssprechung und Wissenchaft. Dissertation, Berlin, Germany, 2002.Google Scholar
Feuz, D.M., Umberger, W.J., Calkins, C.R., and Sitz, G.. “U.S. Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Flavor and Tenderness in Steaks as Determined with Experimental Auction.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 29(2004):501—16.Google Scholar
Gilmore, F. “A Country-Can It Be Repositioned? Spain-The Success Story of Country Branding.” Journal of Brand Management 9(2002) :281–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glitsch, K. “Consumer Perceptions of Fresh Meat Quality: Cross-National Comparison.” British Food Journal 102(2000): 177–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grebitus, C. “Food Quality from the Consumer's Perspective—An Empirical Analysis of Perceived Pork Quality.” Dissertation. Göttingen: Cuvillier Verlag, 2008.Google Scholar
Harrison, G.W., and Rutsröm, E.. “Experimental Evidence of Hypothetical Bias in Value Elicitation Methods.” Handbook of Experimental Economics Results. Plott, C.R. and Smith, V.L., eds. New York, NY: North-Holland, 2008.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, R. “Country of Origin—A Consumer Perception Perspective of Fresh Meat.” British Food Journal 102(2000):211–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroeber-Riel, W., and Weinberg, P.. Konsumentenverhalten. Munich, Germany: Verlag Franz Vahlen, 2003.Google Scholar
Li, C.-Z., and Mattsson, L.. “Discrete Choice under Preference Uncertainty: An Improved Structural Model for Contingent Valuation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28(1995):256–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomis, J., Brown, T., Lucero, B., and Peterson, G.. “Improving Validity Experiments of Contingent Valuation Methods: Results of Efforts to Reduce the Disparity of Hypothetical and Actual Willingness to Pay.” Land Economics 72(1996): 450–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loureiro, M.L., and Umberger, W.J.. “Assessing Consumer Preferences for Country-of-Origin Labeling.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 37(2005):49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loureiro, M.L., and Umberger, W.J.. “A Choice Experiment Model for Beef: What U.S. Consumer Responses Tell Us About Relative Preferences for Food Safety, Country-of-Origin Labeling and Traceability.” Food Policy 32(2007):496–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, J.L., and Norwood, F.B.. “Bridging the Gap Between Laboratory Experiments and Naturally Occurring Markets: An inferred Valuation Method.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 58(2009):236–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, J.L., and Parker, N.. “Consumer Preferences for Amount and Type of Fat in Ground Beef.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 41(2009):75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, J.L., Praitt, J.R., and Norwood, F.B.. “External Validity of a Framed Field Experiment.” Economics Letters 93(2006):285–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manski, C.F., and Lerman, S.R.. “The Estimation of Choice Probabilities from Choice Based Samples.” Econometrica 45(1977): 1977–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manski, C.F., and McFadden, D.. “Alternative Estimators and Sample Designs for Discrete Choice Analysis.” Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications. Manski, C.F. and McFadden, D., eds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Murphy, J.J., Allen, P.G., Stevens, T.H., and Weatherhead, D.. “A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation.” Environmental and Resource Economics 30(2005):313–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, J.C. “Cue Utilization in the Quality Perception Process: A Cognitive Model and an Empirical Test.” Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 1972.Google Scholar
Parcell, J.L., and Schroeder, T.C. “Hedonic Retail Beef and Pork Product Prices.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 39(2007): 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roosen, J., Lusk, J.L., and Fox, J.A.. “Consumer Demand for and Attitudes Toward Alternative Beef Labeling Strategies in France, Germany, and the UK.” Agribusiness 19(2003):77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shogren, J.F., Fox, J.A., Hayes, D.J., and Roosen, J.. “Observed Choices for Food Safety in Retail, Survey, and Auction Markets.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81(1999): 1192-99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steenkamp, J.B.Product Quality: An Investigation Into the Concept and How It Is Perceived by Consumers. Assen/Maastricht, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1989.Google Scholar
Steenkamp, J.B. “Conceptual Model of the Quality Formation Process.” Journal of Business Research 21(1990):309–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonsor, G.T., Olynk, N., and Wolf, C.. “Consumer Preferences for Animal Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 41(2009):713–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonsor, G.T., Schroeder, T.C., Fox, J.A., and Biere, A.. “European Preferences for Beef Steak Attributes.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 30(2005):367–80.Google Scholar
Umberger, W.J., Feuz, D.M., Calkins, C.R., and Sitz, B.M.. “Country-of-Origin Labeling of Beef Products: U.S. Consumers' Perceptions.” Journal of Food Distribution Research 34(2003): 103–16.Google Scholar
Unterschultz, J., Quagrainie, K.K., Veeman, M., and Kim, R.B.. “South Korean Hotel Meat Buyers' Perceptions of Australian, Canadian and U.S. Beef Canadian.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 46(1998):53–68.Google Scholar
Verhoef, P.C. “Explaining Purchases of Organic Meat by Dutch Consumers.” European Review of Agriculture Economics 32(2005):245—67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar