Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

CONSEQUENTIALITY BELIEFS AND CONSUMER VALUATION OF EXTRINSIC ATTRIBUTES IN BEEF

  • XIAOGU LI (a1), KIMBERLY L. JENSEN (a2), DAYTON M. LAMBERT (a2) and CHRISTOPHER D. CLARK (a2)

Abstract

This study measures willingness to pay (WTP) for extrinsic attributes (Angus, local, DNA traceable, raised carbon friendly, and humanely treated cattle) in steak and ground beef using choice-based experiments from a national consumer survey. Belief that survey responses could have consequences on beef products offered by the steak and ground beef industry is investigated, as well as its effect on attribute WTP. For most attributes, belief in consequentiality increases WTP. Results suggest that although consequentiality believers tend to place greater importance on certain food industry issues, they are less certain about the attribute's provision actually effecting change in the industry.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      CONSEQUENTIALITY BELIEFS AND CONSUMER VALUATION OF EXTRINSIC ATTRIBUTES IN BEEF
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      CONSEQUENTIALITY BELIEFS AND CONSUMER VALUATION OF EXTRINSIC ATTRIBUTES IN BEEF
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      CONSEQUENTIALITY BELIEFS AND CONSUMER VALUATION OF EXTRINSIC ATTRIBUTES IN BEEF
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Corresponding author

*Corresponding author's e-mail: kjensen@utk.edu

Footnotes

Hide All

This work was supported in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (Grant No. GRANT10642663). The views expressed in this article are solely those of the authors.

Footnotes

References

Hide All
Abidoye, B., Bulut, H., Lawrence, J., Mennecke, B., and Townsend, A.. “U.S. Consumers’ Valuation of Quality Attributes in Beef Products.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 43,1(2011):112.
Adalja, A., Hanson, J., Towe, C., and Tselepidakis, E.. “An Examination of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Local Products.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 44,3(December 2015):253–74.
Adamowicz, W., Boxall, P., Williams, M., and Louviere, J.. “Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80,1(1998):6475.
American Humane Association. “About Our Program.” Internet site: http://www.humaneheartland.org/about-us (Accessed March 28, 2017).
Animal Welfare Approved. “About.” Internet site: https://animalwelfareapproved.us/about/ (Accessed March 28, 2017).
Aylward, L. “Graze Craze: The Market for Grass-Fed Beef.” Food Business News. April 15, 2015. Internet site: http://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/news_home/Consumer_Trends/2015/04/Graze_craze_The_market_for_gra.aspx?ID=%7BF0218882-5B02-4ABE-8286-9C960D64164C%7D (Accessed May 22, 2017).
Bussard, J. 2016. “Grass-Fed Growth Brings Challenges, Opportunity and a Few Fringe Benefits.” Beef. February 4, 2016. Internet site: http://www.beefmagazine.com/pasture-range/grass-fed-growth-brings-challenges-opportunity-and-few-fringe-benefits (Accessed May 22, 2017).
Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., and Lagerkvist, C.. “Consumer Willingness to Pay for Farm Animal Welfare: Mobile Abattoirs versus Transportation to Slaughter.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 34,3(2007):321–44.
Carson, R.T., and Groves, T.. “Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions.” Environmental and Resource Economics 37,1(2007):181210.
Carson, R.T., Groves, T., and List, J.A.. “Consequentiality: A Theoretical and Experimental Exploration of a Single Binary Choice Source.” Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 1,1/2(2014):171207.
Chang, K.-L., Xu, P., Underwood, K., Maen, C., and Langelett, G.. “Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Locally Produced Ground Beef: A Case Study of the Rural Northern Great Plains.” Journal of International Food and Agribusiness Marketing 25,1(2013):4267.
Cicia, G., and Colantuoni, F.. “Willingness to Pay for Traceable Meat Attributes: A Meta-analysis.” International Journal on Food System Dynamics 1,3(2010):252–63.
Clark, C., and Russell, C.. “Public Information Provision as a Tool of Environmental Policy.” Environment, Information and Consumer Behavior. Krarup, S. and Russell, C., eds. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2005, pp. 111–40.
Cummings, R., and Taylor, L.. “Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method.” American Economic Review 89,3(1999):649–65.
Czajkowski, M., Giergiczny, M., and Greene, W.. “Learning and Fatigue Effects Revisited: Investigating the Effects of Accounting for Unobservable Preference and Scale Heterogeneity.” Land Economics 90,2(2014):324–51.
Darby, M.R., and Karni, E.. “Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud.” Journal of Law and Economics 16,1(1973):6788.
Dennis, M. Consumer Preferences for Beef Products Produced Using Low-Carbon Practices. Project Report. New York: GfK Custom Research LLC, 2013.
Dickinson, D.L., Hobbs, J.E., and Bailey, D.. “A Comparison of U.S. and Canadian Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Red-Meat Traceability.” Economic Research Institute Study Papers, 264. Logan: Utah State University, 2003.
Doherty, E., and Campbell, D.. “Demand for Safety and Regional Certification of Food: Results from Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland.” British Food Journal 116,4(2014):676–89.
Feldkamp, T.J., Schroeder, T.C., and Lusk, J.L.. “Determining Consumer Valuation of Differentiated Beef Steak Quality Attributes.” Journal of Muscle Foods 16,1(2005):115.
Fiebig, D., Keane, M., Louviere, J., and Wasi, N.. “The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity.” Marketing Science 29,3(2010):393421.
Froehlich, E.J., Carlberg, J.G., and Ward, C.E.. “Willingness-to-Pay for Fresh Brand Name Beef.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 57,1(2009):119–37.
Galimberti, A., De Mattia, F., Losa, A., Bruni, I., Federici, S., Casiraghi, M., Martellows, S., and Labra, M.. “DNA Barcoding as a New Tool for Food Traceability.” Food Research International 50,1(2013):5563.
Golan, E., Kissoff, B., and Kuchler, F.. “Food Traceability: One Ingredient in a Safe and Efficient Food Supply.” Amber Waves 2,2(2004):1421.
Golan, E., Roberts, T., and Ollinger, M.. “Savvy Buyers Spur Food Safety Innovations, in Meat Processing.” Amber Waves 2,2(2004):2229.
Greene, W.H., and Hensher, D.A.. “Does Scale Heterogeneity across Individuals Matter? An Empirical Assessment of Alternative Logit Models.” Transportation 37,3(2010): 413–28.
Greene, W.H., and Hensher, D.A.. “Revealing Additional Dimensions of Preference Heterogeneity in a Latent Class Mixed Multinomial Logit Model.” Empirical Economics 45,14(2013):1897–902.
Groothuis, P., Mohr, T., Whitehead, J., and Cockerill, K.. “Endogenous Consequentiality in Stated Preference Referendum Data: The Influence of the Randomly Assigned Tax Amount.” Land Economics 93,2(2017):258–68.
Halbrook, S.A., Armbruster, W.J., and Thompson, M.M.. “The Future of Animal Agriculture in North America.” Choices 21,3(2006):155–57.
Henchion, M., McCarthy, M., Resconi, V.C., and Troy, D.. “Meat Consumption: Trends and Quality Matters.” Meat Science 98,3(2014):561–68.
Hensher, D., and Greene, W.. Applied Choice Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Hensher, D., and Greene, W.. “Valuation of Travel Time Savings in WTP and Preference Space in the Presence of Taste and Scale Heterogeneity.” Journal of Transportation Economics and Policy 45,3(2011):505–25.
Herriges, J., Kling, C., Liu, C.-C., and Tobias, J.. “What Are the Consequences of Consequentiality?Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 59,1(2010):6781.
Hobbs, J., Bailey, D., and Haghiri, M.. “Traceability in the Canadian Red Meat Sector: Do Consumers Care?Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 53,1(2005):4765.
Humane Farm Animal Care. “Our Standards.” Internet site: http://certifiedhumane.org/how-we-work/our-standards/ (Accessed January 29, 2017).
Hurley, S., Miller, D., and Kliebenstein, J.. “Estimating Willingness to Pay Using a Polychotomous Choice Function: An Application to Pork Products with Environmental Attributes.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 31,2(2006):301–17.
Hwang, J., Petrolia, D., and Interis, M.. “Consequentiality and Opt-Out Responses in Stated Preference Surveys.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 43,3(2014):471–88.
Interis, M., and Petrolia, D.. “The Effects of Consequentiality in Binary- and Multinomial-Choice Surveys.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 39,2(2014):201–16.
Kennedy, P., Laplante, B., and Maxwell, J.. “Pollution Policy: The Role for Publicly Provided Information.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26,1(1994):3143.
Krinsky, I., and Robb, A.L.. “On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities.” Review of Economic and Statistics 68,4(1986): 715–19.
Lagervist, C., and Hess, S.. “A Meta-Analysis of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Farm Animal Welfare.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 38,1(2011):5578.
Lancaster, K. Consumer Demand: A New Approach. New York: Columbia University Press, 1972.
Lee, J.Y., Han, D., Nayga, R., and Lim, S.. “Valuing Traceability of /Imported Beef in Korea: An Experimental Auction Approach.” Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 55,3(2011):360–73.
Liljenstolpe, C.Evaluating Animal Welfare with Choice Experiments: An Application to Swedish Pig Production.” Agribusiness 24,1(2008):6784.
List, J.A.Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sports Cards.” American Economic Review 91,5(2001):1498–507.
Loomis, J.Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 39,1(2014):3446.
Loureiro, M.L., and Umberger, W.J.. “A Choice Experiment Model for Beef: What Us Consumer Responses Tell Us about Relative Preferences for Food Safety, Country-of-Origin Labeling and Traceability.” Food Policy 32,4(2007):496514.
Louviere, J.J.Conjoint Analysis Modelling of Stated Preferences: A Review of Theory, Methods, Recent Developments and External Validity.” Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 22,1(1988):93119.
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 85,1(2003):1629.
Lusk, J.L., and Schroeder, T.C.. “Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks?American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86,2(2004):467–82.
Martinez, S., Da Pra, M., Pollack, S., Ralston, K., Smith, T., Vogel, S., Clark, S., Lohr, L., Low, S., and Newman, C.. Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Research Report No. 97, 2010.
McFadden, D.Contingent Valuation and Social Choice.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76,4(1994):689708.
McGarry Wolf, M., and McLennan, S.. “Local Meat Brands Attract Consumer Demand.” Journal of Food Distribution Research 48,1(2017):111–12.
Mennecke, B.E., Townsend, A.M., Hayes, D.J., and Lonergan, S.M.. “A Study of the Factors that Influence Consumer Attitudes Toward Beef Products Using the Conjoint Market Analysis Tool.” Journal of Animal Science 85,10(2007):2639–59.
Moe, T.Perspectives on Traceability in Food Manufacture.” Trends in Food Science and Technology 9,5(1998):211–14.
Mitchell, R., and Carson, R.. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 1989.
Nepal, M., Berrens, R.P., and Bohara, A.K.. “Assessing Perceived Consequentiality: Evidence from a Contingent Valuation Survey on Global Climate Change.” International Journal of Ecological Economics and Statistics 14,P09(2009):1429.
Ollinger, M., Guthrie, J., and Bovay, J.. The Food Safety Performance of Ground Beef Suppliers to the National School Lunch Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Research Report No. 180, 2014.
Petrolia, D., Walton, W., and Yehouenou, L.. “Is There a Market for Branded Gulf of Mexico Oysters?Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 49,1(2017):4565.
Steiner, B., Gao, F., and Unterschultz, J.. “Alberta Consumers’ Valuation of Extrinsic and Intrinsic Red Meat Attributes: A Choice Experimental Approach.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 58,2(2010):171–89.
Tonsor, G.T., and Shupp, R.. “Valuations of ‘Sustainably Produced’ Labels on Beef, Tomato, and Apple Products.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 38,3(2009): 371–83.
Train, K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Train, K., and Weeks, M.. “Discrete Choice Models in Preference Space and Willingness-to-Pay Space.” Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics. Scarpa, R. and Alberini, A., eds. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer, 2005, pp. 116.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service (USDA-AMS). Live Animal Specification: American Angus Association's Specification for Characteristics of Cattle Eligible for Approved Beef Programs Claiming Angus Influence. Washington, DC: USDA-AMS, 2017a. Internet site: https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/AAALiveAnimalSpecification.pdf (Accessed March 5, 2017).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service (USDA-AMS). National Retail Report – Beef. Washington, DC: USDA-AMS, 2017b. Internet site: https://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/lswbfrtl.pdf (Accessed January 29, 2017).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). Conservation Practice Standard Prescribed Grazing, Code 528. Washington, DC: USDA-NRCS, 2010. Internet site: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1045100.pdf (Accessed January 28, 2017).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2013. Washington, DC: EPA, 2015.
Verbeke, W., and Ward, R.. “Consumer Interest in Information Cues Denoting Quality, Traceability and Origin: An Application of Ordered Probit Models to Beef Labels.” Food Quality and Preference 17,6(2006):465–67.
Vermeulen, B., Goos, P., and Vanderbroek, M.. “Models and Optimal Designs for Conjoint Choice Experiments Including a No-Choice Option.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 25,2(2008):94103.
Vestal, M.K., Lusk, J.L., DeVuyst, E.A., and Kropp, J.R.. “The Value of Genetic Information to Livestock Buyers: A Combined Revealed, Stated Preference Approach.” Agricultural Economics 44,3(2013):337–47.
Vossler, C.A., Doyon, M., and Rondeau, D.. “Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments.” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 4,4(2012):145–71.
Vossler, C.A., and Watson, S.B.. “Understanding the Consequences of Consequentiality: Testing the Validity of Stated Preferences in the Field.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 86(February 2013):137–47.
Weaber, R.L., and Lusk, J.L.The Economic Value of Improvements in Beef Tenderness by Genetic Marker Selection.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 92,5(2010):1456–71.
White, R.R., and Brady, M.. “Can Consumers’ Willingness to Pay Incentivize Adoption of Environmental Impact Reducing Technologies in Meat Animal Production?Food Policy 49(December 2014):4149.

Keywords

CONSEQUENTIALITY BELIEFS AND CONSUMER VALUATION OF EXTRINSIC ATTRIBUTES IN BEEF

  • XIAOGU LI (a1), KIMBERLY L. JENSEN (a2), DAYTON M. LAMBERT (a2) and CHRISTOPHER D. CLARK (a2)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed