Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 54, Issue 4, pp 593–611 | Cite as

A Split-Sample Revealed and Stated Preference Demand Model to Examine Homogenous Subgroup Consumer Behavior Responses to Information and Food Safety Technology Treatments

  • O. Ashton Morgan
  • John C. Whitehead
  • William L. Huth
  • Greg S. Martin
  • Richard Sjolander


The combination and joint estimation of revealed and stated preference (RP/SP) data approach to examining consumer preferences to relevant policy-based measures typically fail to account for heterogeneity in the data by considering behavior of the average individual. However, in policy-based analyses, where the research is often driven by understanding how different individuals react to different or similar scenarios, a preferred approach would be to analyze preferences of homogenous population subgroups. We accomplish this by developing a split-sample RP/SP analysis that examines whether homogenous subgroups of the population, based on individual health and behavioral characteristics, respond differently to health-risk information and new food safety technology. The ongoing efforts by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to reduce illness and death associated with consuming raw Gulf of Mexico oysters provide an ideal platform for the analysis as the health risks only relate to a very specific consumer subgroup. Results from split-sample demand models indicate that educational information treatments cause vulnerable at-risk consumers to reduce their oyster demand, implying that a more structured approach to disseminating the brochures to the at-risk population could have the desired result of reducing annual illness levels. Also, findings across all subgroups provide strong empirical evidence that the new FDA policy requiring processing technology to be used in oyster production will have a detrimental effect on the oyster industry.


Food safety technology Health-risk information Homogenous subgroups Revealed preference Stated preference 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abraham SCS, Sheeran P, Abrams D, Spears R (1994) Exploring teenagers’ adaptive and maladaptive thinking in relation to the threat of HIV infection. Psychol Health 9: 253–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adamowicz W, Louviere J, Williams M (1994) Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. J Environ Econ Manag 26: 271–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bockstael NE, Strand IE (1987) The effect of common sources of regression error on benefit estimates. Land Econ 13: 11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown DJ, Schrader LF (1990) Cholesterol information and shell egg consumption. Am J Agric Econ 72: 548–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruner D, Huth W, McEvoy DM, Morgan OA (2011) Accounting for tastes: a valuation of risk reduction in raw seafood consumption. Appalachian State University working paperGoogle Scholar
  6. Butry DT, Pattanayak SK (2011) Local impacts of tropical forest logging: joint estimation of revealed and stated preference data from Ruteng, Indonesia. In: Whitehead JC, Haab T, Huang J-C (eds) Preference data for environmental valuation, 1st edn. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Dumas C, Herstine J, Whitehead JC (2011) Joint estimation of revealed and stated preference trip and willingness-to-pay data to estimate the benefits and impacts of an Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway dredging and maintenance program. In: Whitehead J, Haab T, Huang J-C (eds) Preference data for environmental valuation, 1st edn. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Egan K, Herriges J (2006) Multivariate count data regression models with individual panel data from an on-site sample. J Environ Econ Manag 52(2): 567–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eiser JR, Miles S, Frewer LJ (2003) Trust, perceived risk and attitudes toward food technologies. J Appl Psychol 32(11): 2423–2433Google Scholar
  10. Fox JA, Hayes DJ, Shogren JF (2002) Consumer preferences for food irradiation: how favorable and unfavorable descriptions affect preferences for irradiated pork in experimental auctions. J Risk Uncertain 24(1): 75–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frewer LJ, Howard C, Shepherd R (1997) Public concerns about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: risk, benefit, and ethics. Sci Technol Hum Values 22: 98–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamstra AM, Smink C (1996) Consumers and biotechnology in the Netherlands. Br Food J 98: 34–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hausman J, Hall BH, Griliches Z (1984) Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents-R&D relationship. Econometrica 52(4): 909–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hovland CI, Weiss W (1951) The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opin Q 15: 635–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huffman WE, Tegene A (2002) Public acceptance of and benefits from agricultural biotechnology: a key role for verifiable information. In: Santaniello V, Evenson RE, Zilberman D (eds) market development for genetically modified food. CAB International, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Huffman WE, Rousu M, Shogren JF, Tegene A (2004) Who do consumers trust for information: the case of genetically modified foods?. Am J Agric Econ 86: 1222–1229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huffman WE, Rousu M, Shogren JF, Tegene A (2002) The effects of prior beliefs and learning on consumers’ acceptance of genetically modified foods. J Econ Behav Organ 63: 193–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson H, Steiner I (1968) The effects of source on response to negative information about one’s self. J Soc Psychol 74: 215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnston RJ, Wessells CR, Donath H, Asche F (2001) Measuring consumer preferences or ecolabeled seafood: an international comparison. J Agric Resour Econ 26: 20–39Google Scholar
  20. Krinsky I, Robb A (1986) Estimating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Stat 68: 715–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Landry CE, Liu H (2011) Econometric models for joint estimation of revealed and stated preference site-frequency recreation demand models. In: Whitehead J, Haab T, Huang J-C (eds) Preference data for environmental valuation: combining revealed and stated approaches. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Mansfield C, Phaneuf D, Reed Johnson F, Yang J-C, Beach R (2008) Preferences for public lands management under competing uses: the case of Yellowstone National Park. Land Econ 84: 282–305Google Scholar
  23. Maddux JE, Rogers RW (1983) Protection motivation theory and self-efficacy: a revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Exp Soc Psychol 19: 242–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Milgrom P, Roberts J (1986) Relying on the information of interested parties. RAND J Econ 17: 18–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Morgan OA, Huth WL (2010) Using revealed and stated preference data to estimate the scope and access benefits associated with cave diving. Resour Energy Econ 33: 107–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Morgan OA, Martin GS, Huth WL (2009) Oyster demand adjustments to alternative consumer education and post-harvest treatments in response to Vibrio vulnificus. J Agric Appl Econ 41(3): 683–696Google Scholar
  27. Muth MK, Arsenault JE, Cajka JC, Cates SC, Coglaiti Mc, Karns SA, O’Neil M, Viator C (2011) Analysis of how post-harvest processing technologies for controlling Vibrio vulnificus can be implemented. Prepared for Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, College Park, MDGoogle Scholar
  28. Neuwirth K, Dunwoody S, Griffin RJ (2000) Protection motivation and risk communication. Risk Anal 20(5): 721–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Parsons GR, Morgan OA, Whitehead JC, Haab TC (2006) The welfare effects of Pfiesteria-related fish kills in seafood markets: a contingent behavior analysis. Agric Resour Econ Rev 35: 1–9Google Scholar
  30. Parsons GR, Stefanova S (2011) Gauging the value of short-term site closures in a travel-cost rum model of recreation demand with a little help from stated preference data. In: Whitehead JC, Haab T, Huang J-C (eds) Preference data for environmental valuation, 1st edn. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Rogers RW (1975) A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Psychol 91: 93–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rousu M, Huffman WE, Shogren JF, Tegene A (2004) Estimating the public value of conflicting information: the case of genetically modified foods. Land Econ 80: 125–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scallan E, Hoekstra RM, Angulo FJ, Tauxe RV, Widdowson M, Roy SL, Jones JL, Griffin PM (2011) Foodborne illness acquired in the United States—major pathogens. Emerg Infect Dis 17(1): 7–15Google Scholar
  34. Shogren JF, Fox JA, Hayes DJ, Roosen J (1999) Observed choices for food safety in retail, survey, and auction markets. Am J Agric Econ 81(5):1192–1199Google Scholar
  35. Smith E, van Ravenswaay EO, Thompson SR (1988) Sales loss determination in food contamination incidents: an application to milk bans in Hawaii. Am J Agric Econ 70: 513–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sternthal BP, Lynn W, Dholakia R (1978) The persuasive effect of source credibility: a situational analysis. Public Opin Q 41: 285–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Swartz DG, Strand IE (1981) Avoidance costs associated with imperfect information: the case of kepone. Land Econ 57: 139–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. von Haefen RH, Phaneuf DJ (2008) Identifying demand parameters in the presence of unobservables: a combined revealed and stated preference approach. J Environ Econ Manag 56(1): 19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wessells CR, Anderson JG (1995) Consumer willingness to pay for seafood safety assurances. J Consum Aff 29: 85–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Whitehead JC, Haab TC, Huang J-C (2000) Measuring recreation benefits of quality improvements with revealed and stated behavior data. Resour Energy Econ 22: 339–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Whitehead JC, Dumas CF, Herstine J, Hill J, Buerger B (2008) Valuing beach access and width with revealed and stated preference data. Marine Resour Econ 23(2): 119–135Google Scholar
  42. Whitehead JC, Pattanayak SK, Van Houtven GL, Gelso BR (2008) Combining revealed and stated preference data to estimate the nonmarket alue of ecological services: an assessment of the state of the science. J Econ Surv 22(5): 872–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Whitehead JC, Haab TC, Parsons G, Price J (2010) Effects of information about invasive species on risk perception and seafood demand by gender and race. Resour Energy Econ 32(4): 586–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. Ashton Morgan
    • 1
  • John C. Whitehead
    • 1
  • William L. Huth
    • 2
  • Greg S. Martin
    • 3
  • Richard Sjolander
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsAppalachian State UniversityBooneUSA
  2. 2.Department of Marketing and EconomicsPensacolaUSA
  3. 3.Department of MarketingNorthern Kentucky UniversityHighland HeightsUSA

Personalised recommendations