Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T20:57:42.329Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of Choice Experiments and Actual Grocery Store Behavior: An Empirical Application to Seafood Products

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

Darren Hudson ,
R. Karina Gallardo  and
Terrill R. Hanson
Darren Hudson
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX
R. Karina Gallardo
Affiliation:
School of Economic Sciences – Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center, Washington State University, Wenatchee, WA
Terrill R. Hanson
Affiliation:
Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquaculture, Auburn University, Auburn, AL
Get access

Abstract

In this paper we compare results from an in-store field experiment and a mail survey choice experiment (CE) to investigate CE's capacity in predicting grocery store market share. For the comparison, we used three seafood products: freshwater prawns, marine shrimp, and lobster. CE estimates were obtained via four econometric models: the conditional logit, the random parameter logit, the heteroskedastic extreme value, and the multinomial probit. We found that the level of control in the grocery store experiment and the choice of econometric model influenced the capacity of CE to predict grocery store market shares.

Keywords

choice experimentgrocery storehypothetical biasC35Q13
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , February 2012 , pp. 49 - 62
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

Adamowicz, W., Boxall, P., Williams, M., and Louviere, J.J.. “Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Unit Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(1998): 64–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alfnes, F., Guttormsen, A.G., Steine, G., and Kolstad, K.. “Consumers' Willingness to Pay for the Color of Salmon: A Choice Experiment with Real Economic Incentives.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88(2006): 1050–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhat, C.R. “A Heteroscedastic Extreme Value Model of Intercity Travel Model Choice.” Transportation Research B 29(1995):471–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, M., and Daly, A.. “Use of the Logit Scaling Approach to Test for Rank-Order and Fatigue Effects in Stated Preference Data.” Transportation 21(1994): 167–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brookshire, D.S., Coursey, D.L., and Schulze, W.D.. “The External Validity of Experimental Economics Techniques: Analysis of Demand Behavior.” Economic Inquiry 25(1987):239–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsson, F., and Martinsson, P.. “Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 41(2001): 179–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsson, F., and Martinsson, P.. “Design Techniques for Stated Preference Methods in Health Economics.” Health Economics 12(2003):281–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillman, D.A.Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978.Google Scholar
Ding, M., Grewal, R., and Liechty, J.. “Incentive-Aligned Conjoint Analysis.” Journal of Marketing Research 42(2005):67–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drichoutis, A.C., Lazaridis, P., Nayga, R.M.. “The Role of Reference Prices in Experimental Auctions.” Economic Letters 99(2008):446–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, J.A., Shogren, J.F., Hayes, D.J., and Kliebenstein, J.B.. “CVM-X: Calibrating Contingent Values with Experimental Auction Markets.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(1998):455–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G., and List, J.A.. “Field Experiments.” Journal of Economic Literatures 42(2004): 1009–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, J., and Zwerina, K.. “The Importance of Utility Balance in Efficient Choice Designs.” Journal of Marketing Research 33(1996):307–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, D. “Problem Solving and Hypothesis Testing Using Economic Experiments.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 35(2003): 337–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, D., Hite, D., Seah, L., and Haab, T.. “Telephone Presurveys, Sample Selection, and Non-Response Bias to Mail and Internet Surveys in Economic Research.” Applied Economics Letters 11(2004):237–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhfeld, W.F., Tobias, R.D., and Garratt, M.. “Efficient Experimental Design with Marketing Research Applications.” Journal of Marketing Research 31(1994):545–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lancaster, K.J. “A New Approach to Consumer Theory.” Journal of Political Economy 74(1966): 132–57.Google Scholar
Levitt, S.D., and List, J.A.. “What do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 21(2007): 153–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, J.A. “The Behavioralist Meets the Market: Measuring Social Preferences and Reputation Effect in Actual Transactions.” Journal of Political Economy 114(2006): 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, J., and Gallet, C.A.. “What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values.” Environmental and Resource Economics 20(2001):241–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, J., and Shogren, J.F.. “Calibrating the Differences between Actual and Hypothetical Valuations in a Field Experiment.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 37(1998): 193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, J., and Berrens, R.. “Explaining Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical States Values: Further Investigation Using Meta-Analysis.” Economics Bulletin, 3(2004): 1–13.Google Scholar
Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., and Swait, J.D.. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, J.L., Pruitt, J.R., and Norwood, B.. “External Validity of a Framed Field Experiment.” Economic Letters 93(2006):285–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, J.L., Roosen, J., and Fox, J.A.. “Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(2003): 16–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, J.L., and Schroeder, T.C.. “Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible: A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86(2004): 467–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, K.M., Hofstetter, R., Krohmer, H., and Zhang, Z.J.. “How Should Consumers' Willingness to Pay Be Measured? An Empirical Comparison of State-of-the-Art Approaches.” Journal of Marketing Research 48(2011): 172–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, J.J., Allen, R.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
Page, A.L., and Rosenbaum, H.F.. “Redesigning Product Lines with Conjoint Analysis: How Sunbeam Does It.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 4(1987): 120–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennings, J., Irwin, S.H., and Good, D.L.. “Surveying Farmers: A Case Study.” Review of Agricultural Economics 24(2002):266–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poe, G.L., Giraud, K., and Loomis, J.B.. “Computations Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87(2005): 353–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Revelt, D., and Train, K.E.. “Mixed Logit with Repeated Choices: Households' Choices of Appliance Efficiency Level.” Review of Economics and Statistics 80(1998):647–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, J., and Scarpa, R.. “Experimental Designs for Environmental Valuation with Choice Experiments: A Monte Carlo Investigation.” Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 52(2008):253–82.Google Scholar
Sattler, H., and Volckner, F.. “Methods of Measuring Consumers' Willingness to Pay.” Research Papers in Marketing and Retailing, Institute of Marketing, Retailing and Management Science, University of Hamburg, Germany, 2002.Google Scholar
Shogren, J.F., Fox, J.A., Hayes, D.J., Roosen, J.. “Observed Choices for Food Safety in Retail, Survey, and Auction Markets.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81(1999): 1192–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srinivisan, V. “A Conjunctive-Compensatory Approach to the Self-Explication of Multi-attributed Preferences.” Decision Sciences 19(1988):295–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srinivisan, V, Flaschsbart, P.G., Dajani, J.S., and Hartley, R.G.. “Forecasting the Effectiveness of Work-Trip Gasoline Conservation Policies through Conjoint Analysis.” Journal of Marketing 45(1981): 157–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srinivisan, V, and Park, C.. “Surprising Robustness of Self-Explicated Approach to Customer Preference Structure Measurement.” Journal of Marketing Research 34(1997): 286–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Street, D.J., and Burgess, L.. The Construction of Optimal Stated Choice Experiments: Theory and Methods. New York: Wiley, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar