Abstract
Abstract Food discrete choice experiments typically define product alternatives with a researcher-predetermined and sometimes arbitrary quantity. Results reveal that the use of a researcher-prespecified experimental quantity leads to biased welfare estimates. Differences in marginal utility of money are found with a resulting upward bias in willingness to pay estimates when small pre-defined product quantities are used. Higher-income consumers show more evident bias. This evidence cautions the use of a researcher-predetermined quantity to design alternatives in choice tasks and also proposes an alternative experimental design that accounts for these effects by matching the quantity in experiments to consumer’s actual purchase quantity.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
