Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products

Recent papers have suggested that use of a so-called Repeated Opt-Out Reminder (ROOR) might mitigate hypothetical bias in stated Discrete Choice Experiments (DCE), but evidence so far has only been circumstantial. We provide the first comprehensive test of whether a ROOR can actually mitigate hypothetical bias in stated DCE. The data originates from a field experiment concerning consumer preferences for a novel food product made from cricket flour. Utilizing a between-subject design with three treatments, we find significantly higher marginal willingness to pay values in hypothetical than in nonhypothetical settings, confirming the usual presence of hypothetical bias. Comparing this to a hypothetical setting where the ROOR is introduced, we find that the ROOR effectively eliminates hypothetical bias for one attribute and significantly reduces it for the rest of the attributes. Our results further suggest that these reductions of hypothetical bias are brought about by a decrease in the tendency to ignore the price attribute.

[1]  F Reed Johnson,et al.  Hypothetical bias, cheap talk, and stated willingness to pay for health care. , 2009, Journal of health economics.

[2]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions , 2005 .

[3]  M. Ayieko,et al.  Climate change and the abundance of edible insects in the Lake Victoria Region , 2010 .

[4]  W. Adamowicz,et al.  Does Choice Context Affect the Results from Incentive‐Compatible Experiments? The Case of Non‐GM and Country‐of‐Origin Premia in Canola Oil , 2009 .

[5]  F. Norwood,et al.  An Inferred Valuation Method , 2009, Land Economics.

[6]  D. Rigby,et al.  Discrete Choice Experiments in Developing Countries: Willingness to Pay Versus Willingness to Work , 2016 .

[7]  Experimental Methods in Consumer Preference Studies , 1996 .

[8]  Jutta Roosen,et al.  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 , 2003 .

[9]  Kenneth Train,et al.  Discrete Choice Models in Preference Space and Willingness-to Pay Space , 2005 .

[10]  G. Harrison.  Experimental Evidence on Alternative Environmental Valuation Methods , 2005 .

[11]  O. Johansson-Stenman,et al.  Self-image and valuation of moral goods: Stated versus actual willingness to pay , 2012 .

[12]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Valuation of travel time savings in WTP and preference space in the presence of taste and scale heterogeneity , 2011 .

[13]  J. Bennett,et al.  Choice Experiments in Developing Countries: Implementation, Challenges and Policy Implications , 2011 .

[14]  Sandra Notaro,et al.  Testing hypothetical bias with a real choice experiment using respondents' own money , 2014 .

[15]  B. Sen.  The State of Food and Agriculture , 1962 .

[16]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Non-attendance to attributes in environmental choice analysis: a latent class specification , 2011 .

[17]  A. El-Ansary,et al.  On the Nutritional Value of Edible Insects , 2018 .

[18]  John A. List,et al.  What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values? , 2001 .

[19]  Rom Y. Schrift,et al.  Rejectable Choice Sets: How Seemingly Irrelevant No-Choice Options Affect Consumer Decision Processes , 2011 .

[20]  Kenneth Train,et al.  Mixed Logit with Bounded Distributions of Correlated Partworths , 2005 .

[21]  Gm Kenji,et al.  Process development, nutrition and sensory qualities of wheat buns enriched with edible termites (Macrotermes subhylanus) from Lake Victoria region, Kenya. , 2009 .

[22]  Jacob Ladenburg,et al.  Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys , 2014 .

[23]  J. Gil,et al.  Analysis of consumers’ preferences for a special-occasion red wine: A dual response choice experiment approach , 2013 .

[24]  Wfp,et al.  The State of Food Insecurity in the World , 2011 .

[25]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT: PAST RESEARCH, PRESENT FINDINGS, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS , 1995 .

[26]  Gary E. Bolton,et al.  INCENTIVE-ALIGNED CONJOINT ANALYSIS , 2004 .

[27]  C. Michaud,et al.  Willingness to pay for environmental attributes of non-food agricultural products: a real choice experiment , 2013 .

[28]  A. Gracia,et al.  On the Use of Honesty Priming Tasks to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments , 2013 .

[29]  J. McCluskey,et al.  Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Oak Attributes in Washington Chardonnays , 2012 .

[30]  Riccardo Scarpa,et al.  Performance of Error Component Models for Status-Quo Effects in Choice Experiments , 2005 .

[31]  Carsten Lynge Jensen,et al.  Attending to the Reasons for Attribute Non-attendance in Choice Experiments , 2011 .

[32]  J. V. van Loon,et al.  An Exploration on Greenhouse Gas and Ammonia Production by Insect Species Suitable for Animal or Human Consumption , 2010, PloS one.

[33]  A. Hole,et al.  Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment , 2012 .

[34]  A. Fischer,et al.  The future supply of animal-derived protein for human consumption , 2012 .

[35]  F. Carlsson,et al.  Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare: mobile abattoirs versus transportation to slaughter , 2007 .

[36]  J. Shogren,et al.  Preference Elicitation Under Oath , 2010 .

[37]  Frode Alfnes,et al.  Consumers' Willingness to Pay for the Color of Salmon: A Choice Experiment with Real Economic Incentives , 2006 .

[38]  Elisabetta Strazzera,et al.  Modeling Elicitation effects in contingent valuation studies: a Monte Carlo Analysis of the bivariate approach , 2005 .

[39]  M. Loureiro,et al.  Are Valuations from Nonhypothetical Choice Experiments Different from Those of Experimental Auctions? , 2011 .

[40]  R. Thaler,et al.  Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: the effects of prior outcomes on risky choice , 1990 .

[41]  Danny Campbell,et al.  Behavioral implications of providing real incentives in stated choice experiments , 2014 .

[42]  Chengyan Yue,et al.  Cognitive dissonance as a means of reducing hypothetical bias , 2010 .

[43]  S. Bruun,et al.  Life cycle assessment of cricket farming in north-eastern Thailand , 2017 .

[44]  D. Rigby,et al.  Hurdle and Latent Class Approaches to Serial Non-Participation in Choice Models , 2009 .

[45]  Maurizio Canavari,et al.  Investigating Preferences for Environment Friendly Production Practices , 2007 .

[46]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  A Comparison of Approaches to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias , 2009, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review.

[47]  F. Norwood,et al.  How Closely Do Hypothetical Surveys and Laboratory Experiments Predict Field Behavior? , 2009 .

[48]  Iain Fraser,et al.  Model selection for the mixed logit with Bayesian estimation , 2009 .

[49]  J. Lusk,et al.  Is Hypothetical Bias a Universal Phenomenon? A Multinational Investigation , 2008, Land Economics.

[50]  Christian A. Vossler,et al.  Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies , 2017, Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.

[51]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation , 2009 .

[52]  Shibani A. Ghosh,et al.  Lysine Fortification: Past, Present, and Future , 2004, Food and nutrition bulletin.

[53]  J. Louviere,et al.  The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Comparison of Multinomial Logit Models , 1993 .

[54]  Dale Whittington,et al.  Improving the Performance of Contingent Valuation Studies in Developing Countries , 2002 .

[55]  J. Bennett,et al.  Choice Experiments in Developing Countries , 2010 .

[56]  Christian A. Vossler,et al.  Incentive compatibility tests of choice experiment value elicitation questions , 2009 .

[57]  A. B. Jensen,et al.  ‘Entomophagy’: an evolving terminology in need of review , 2015 .

[58]  John A. List,et al.  Calibration of the difference between actual and hypothetical valuations in a field experiment , 1998 .

[59]  M. Finke.  Complete nutrient content of four species of feeder insects. , 2013, Zoo biology.

[60]  Can insects increase food security in developing countries? An analysis of Kenyan consumer preferences and demand for cricket flour buns , 2017, Food Security.

[61]  T. Larsen,et al.  Entomophagy among the Luo of Kenya: a potential mineral source? , 2006, International journal of food sciences and nutrition.

[62]  R. Scarpa,et al.  Deriving and Testing Efficient Estimates of WTP Distributions in Destination Choice Models , 2009 .

[63]  Florence V. Dunkel,et al.  How then shall we eat? Insect-eating attitudes and sustainable foodways , 2014 .

[64]  Jayson L. Lusk,et al.  Explaining differences in real and hypothetical experimental auctions and choice experiments with personality , 2013 .

[65]  John A. List,et al.  Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auctions for sportscards , 2001 .

[66]  Carl Johan Lagerkvist,et al.  Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments , 2005 .

[67]  J. Loomis.  2013WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys , 2014 .

[68]  D. Hensher,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications , 2000 .

[69]  O. Johansson-Stenman,et al.  Measuring Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments: The Importance of Cognitive Consistency , 2008 .

[70]  Chengyan Yue,et al.  Organic or Local? Investigating Consumer Preference for Fresh Produce Using a Choice Experiment with Real Economic Incentives , 2009 .

[71]  Steven Stern,et al.  Simulation-based estimation , 1997 .

[72]  Laura O. Taylor,et al.  Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments: Is Cheap Talk Effective at Eliminating Bias on the Intensive and Extensive Margins of Choice? , 2012 .

[73]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Using Conditioning on Observed Choices to Retrieve Individual-Specific Attribute Processing Strategies , 2010 .

[74]  J. Herriges,et al.  Combining Revealed and Stated Preferences: Consistency Tests and Their Interpretations , 2003 .

[75]  E. Wailes,et al.  Challenges of Conducting Contingent Valuation Studies in Developing Countries , 2016 .

[76]  Thomas C. Brown,et al.  Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation , 2003 .

[77]  M. Soliño,et al.  Testing the single opt-out reminder in choice experiments: An application to fuel break management in Spain , 2014 .

[78]  F. Alcon,et al.  Supply uncertainty and the economic value of irrigation water , 2010 .

[79]  Peter Martinsson,et al.  Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?: Application to the Valuation of the Environment , 2001 .

[80]  Patricia A. Champ,et al.  Using Respondent Uncertainty to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in a Stated Choice Experiment , 2010, Land Economics.

[81]  Deacue Fields,et al.  An Incentive Compatible Conjoint Ranking Mechanism , 2008 .

[82]  Robert P. Berrens,et al.  Explaining Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Further Investigation Using Meta-Analysis , 2004 .

[83]  Kathleen R. Brooks,et al.  Stated and Revealed Preferences for Organic and Cloned Milk: Combining Choice Experiment and Scanner Data , 2010 .

[84]  R. Dhar,et al.  The Effect of Forced Choice on Choice , 2003 .

[85]  J. Cárdenas,et al.  Is it my money or not? An experiment on risk aversion and the house-money effect , 2014 .

[86]  D. McFadden.  The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research , 1986 .

[87]  I. Krinsky,et al.  On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities , 1986 .

[88]  Cheryl L. Asmus,et al.  A Comparison of Actual and Hypothetical Willingness to Pay of Parents and Non-Parents for Protecting Infant Health: The Case of Nitrates in Drinking Water , 2009, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

[89]  A. Winter-Nelson,et al.  Consumer acceptance of provitamin A-biofortified maize in Maputo, Mozambique , 2008 .

[90]  P. Rozin,et al.  Determinants of willingness to eat insects in the USA and India , 2015 .

[91]  Kenneth E. Train,et al.  Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation , 2016 .

[92]  D. Oonincx,et al.  Environmental Impact of the Production of Mealworms as a Protein Source for Humans – A Life Cycle Assessment , 2012, PloS one.

[93]  F. Carlsson,et al.  Consumer Benefits of Labels and Bans on GM Foods—Choice Experiments with Swedish Consumers , 2007 .

[94]  K. Train.  Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation , 2003 .

[95]  K. Train,et al.  Mixed Logit with Repeated Choices: Households' Choices of Appliance Efficiency Level , 1998, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[96]  Marshall W. Van Alstyne,et al.  An Economic Response to Unsolicited Communication , 2005 .

[97]  A. Gracia.  Consumers’ preferences for a local food product: a real choice experiment , 2014 .

[98]  A. van Huis,et al.  Edible insects: future prospects for food and feed security , 2013 .

[99]  John M. Rose,et al.  Design Efficiency for Non-Market Valuation with Choice Modelling: How to Measure it, What to Report and Why , 2008 .

[100]  Steven D. Levitt,et al.  What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World , 2007 .

[101]  Todd L. Cherry,et al.  Willingness to pay for a Green Energy program: A comparison of ex-ante and ex-post hypothetical bias mitigation approaches , 2007 .

[102]  W. Adamowicz,et al.  Serial Nonparticipation in Repeated Discrete Choice Models , 2005 .

[103]  Edouard C. Nice,et al.  Nonsense Mediated Decay Resistant Mutations Are a Source of Expressed Mutant Proteins in Colon Cancer Cell Lines with Microsatellite Instability , 2010, PloS one.

[104]  J. Louviere,et al.  Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities , 1994 .

[105]  Stephane Hess,et al.  On the use of a Modified Latin Hypercube Sampling (MLHS) method in the estimation of a Mixed Logit Model for vehicle choice , 2006 .

[106]  S. Chowdhury,et al.  Are Consumers in Developing Countries Willing to Pay More for Micronutrient‐Dense Biofortified Foods? Evidence from a Field Experiment in Uganda , 2011 .

[107]  J. Braun.  Sustainable Solutions for Ending Hunger and Poverty Eliminating Hunger and Reducing Poverty , 2022 .

[108]  J. Loomis,et al.  What's to Know About Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation Studies? , 2011 .

[109]  H. Steinfeld,et al.  Livestock's Long Shadow , 2006 .

[110]  Daniel L. Rubinfeld,et al.  Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies : Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods , 1997 .

[111]  K. Lancaster.  A New Approach to Consumer Theory , 1966, Journal of Political Economy.

[112]  H. V. Trijp,et al.  Consumer research in the early stages of new product development: a critical review of methods and techniques , 2005 .

[113]  R. Nayga,et al.  Willingness to Pay for Reduced Risk of Foodborne Illness: A Nonhypothetical Field Experiment , 2006 .

[114]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  Incentive and informational properties of preference questions , 2007 .

[115]  James J. Murphy,et al.  A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation , 2003 .

[116]  R. G. Cummings,et al.  Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method , 1999 .

[117]  Arthur J. Caplan,et al.  Cheap Talk Reconsidered: New Evidence From CVM , 2006 .

[118]  S. B. Olsen,et al.  Combining product attributes with recommendation and shopping location attributes to assess consumer preferences for insect-based food products , 2017 .

[119]  Åsa Löfgren,et al.  Conformity and the Demand for Environmental Goods , 2010 .

[120]  Magnus Johannesson,et al.  Eliciting Willingness to Pay Without Bias: Evidence from a Field Experiment , 2008 .

[121]  A. van Huis.  Potential of insects as food and feed in assuring food security. , 2013, Annual review of entomology.

[122]  K. Willis,et al.  Valuing externalities from water supply: Status quo, choice complexity and individual random effects in panel kernel logit analysis of choice experiments , 2007 .

[123]  John A. List,et al.  Using Choice Experiments to Value Non-Market Goods and Services: Evidence from Field Experiments , 2006 .

[124]  Thomas Otter,et al.  Heterogeneity distributions of willingness-to-pay in choice models , 2007 .

[125]  S. Watson,et al.  Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: Testing the validity of stated preferences in the field , 2012 .

[126]  Kenneth Train,et al.  Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps , 2008 .

[127]  Christian A. Vossler,et al.  Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments , 2010 .

[128]  E. van Kleef,et al.  Consumer research in the early stages of new product development : issues and applications in the food domain , 2006 .

[129]  Ximing Wu,et al.  On the Use of Cheap Talk in New Product Valuation , 2007 .

[130]  David F. Layton,et al.  Heterogeneous Preferences Regarding Global Climate Change , 2000, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[131]  R. Nayga,et al.  Testing Commitment Cost Theory in Choice Experiments , 2017 .

[132]  Frode Alfnes,et al.  Eliciting Consumer WTP for Food Characteristics in a Developing Context: Application of Four Valuation Methods in an African Market , 2017 .

[133]  Michel Bierlaire,et al.  BIOGEME: a free package for the estimation of discrete choice models , 2003 .

[134]  Ekin Birol,et al.  Developing country consumers’ acceptance of biofortified foods: a synthesis , 2015, Food Security.

[135]  J. Lusk,et al.  Effects of Cheap Talk on Consumer Willingness‐To‐Pay for Golden Rice , 2003 .

[136]  Riccardo Scarpa,et al.  Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study , 2007 .

[137]  T. Schroeder,et al.  Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks , 2004 .

[138]  Dale Whittington,et al.  Administering contingent valuation surveys in developing countries , 1996 .

[139]  G. Tonsor,et al.  Cheap Talk Scripts and Online Choice Experiments: “Looking Beyond the Mean” , 2011 .

[140]  Gary Charness,et al.  Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization , 2022 .

[141]  O. Johansson-Stenman,et al.  Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: Evidence from voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica , 2008 .

[142]  Erik Meijer,et al.  Measuring Welfare Effects in Models with Random Coefficients , 2000 .

[143]  Raffaele Zanoli,et al.  Inferred and Stated Attribute Non‐Attendance in Food Choice Experiments , 2013 .

[144]  James J. Murphy,et al.  Is Cheap Talk Effective at Eliminating Hypothetical Bias in a Provision Point Mechanism? , 2003 .

[145]  B. Cova,et al.  Brand community of convenience products: new forms of customer empowerment – the case “my Nutella The Community” , 2006 .

[146]  Gregory L. Poe,et al.  Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same? , 2002 .

[147]  Jian L. Zhou,et al.  User's Guide for CFSQP Version 2.0: A C Code for Solving (Large Scale) Constrained Nonlinear (Minimax) Optimization Problems, Generating Iterates Satisfying All Inequality Constraints , 1994 .

[148]  David Aadland,et al.  Willingness to Pay for Curbside Recycling with Detection and Mitigation of Hypothetical Bias , 2003 .

[149]  O. Chanel,et al.  A Test of Cheap Talk in Different Hypothetical Contexts: The Case of Air Pollution , 2011 .

[150]  Min Sok Lee,et al.  A penny for your thoughts: Inducing truth-telling in stated preference elicitation , 2010 .

[151]  Riccardo Scarpa,et al.  Incorporating Discontinuous Preferences into the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments , 2008 .

[152]  K. Train.  Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences Over People , 1998 .

[153]  P. Boxall,et al.  Complexity in Choice Experiments: Choice of the Status Quo Alternative and Implications for Welfare Measurement , 2009 .