Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:29:17.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Oyster Demand Adjustments to Counter-Information and Source Treatments in Response to Vibrio vulnificus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

O. Ashton Morgan ,
Gregory S. Martin  and
William L. Huth
O. Ashton Morgan
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC
Gregory S. Martin
Affiliation:
Department of Marketing, Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, KY
William L. Huth
Affiliation:
Department of Marketing and Economics, University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A web-based contingent behavior analysis was developed to quantify the effect of both negative and positive information treatments and post harvest processes on demand for oysters. Results from a panel model indicate that consumers of raw and cooked oysters behave differently after news of an oyster-related human mortality. While cooked oyster consumers take precautionary measures against risk, raw oyster consumers exhibit optimistic bias and increase their consumption level. Further, by varying the source of a counter-information treatment, we find that source credibility impacts behavior. Oyster consumers, and in particular, raw oyster consumers, are most responsive to information provided by a not-for-profit, nongovernmental organization. Finally, post harvest processing of oysters has no impact on demand.

Keywords

consumer behaviorinformation treatmentsnon-market valuationoptimistic biasOyster demandsource credibilityVibrio vulnificusQ18Q13Q58
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , December 2009 , pp. 683 - 696
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2009

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

Agresti, A. Categorical Data Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1990.Google Scholar
Armor, D.A., and Taylor., S.E. “Situated Optimism: Specific Outcome Expectancies and Self-regulation.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 30(1998):309–79.Google Scholar
Brown, D.J., and Schrader, L.F. “Cholesterol Information and Shell Egg Consumption.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(1990):548–55.Google Scholar
Corcoran, L. “Raw Oysters: Deadly Delicacy.” Nutritional Action Healthletter, 1998. Internet site: http://findarticles.corn/p/articles/mi_m0813/is_n8_v25/ai_21245202/ (Accessed September 21, 2008).Google Scholar
Crano, W. “Effect of Sex, Response Order, and Expertise in Conformity: A Dispositional Approach.” Sociometry 33(1970):239–52.Google Scholar
Creel, M.D., and Loomis., J.B. “Confidence Intervals for Welfare Measures with Application to a Problem of Truncated Counts.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 73(1990):370–73.Google Scholar
Dahlgran, R.A., and Fairchild., D.G. “The Demand Impacts of Chicken Contamination Publicity - A Case Study.” Agribusiness 18(2002):459–74.Google Scholar
Egan, K., and Herriges., J. “Multivariate Count Data Regression Models with Individual Data from an On-site Sample.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 52(2006): 567–81.Google Scholar
Flattery, J., and Bashin., M. A Baseline Survey of Raw Oyster Consumers in Four States. International Shellfish Sanitation Conference 2003. Internet site: http://www.issc.org/Vibrio_vulnificus_Education/Baseline%20Survey.pdf (Accessed April 15, 2008).Google Scholar
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Division of Aquaculture. Florida Vibrio vulnificus Risk Reduction Plan for Oysters 2005. Internet site: http://www.floridaaquaculture.com/publications/VVriskreduction.pdf (Accessed December 10, 2008).Google Scholar
Haab, T.C., and McConnell., K.E. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Non-market Valuation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, T.L., House, L., Sureshwaren, S., Posadas, B., and Liu., A. Opinions of U.S. Consumers Toward Oysters: Results of a 2000–2001 Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agreement #99–38614-8202, Mississippi Alabama Sea Grant Consortium, 2003. Internet site: http://www.aquanic.org/species/shellfish/docu-mentsZbll33.pdf (Accessed September 17, 2007).Google Scholar
Hellerstein, D. “Can We Count on Count Models.” Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice. Herriges, J.A. and Kling, C.L., eds. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 1999.Google Scholar
Hovland, C.L., and Weiss., W. “The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness.” Public Opinion Quarterly 15(1951): 635–50.Google Scholar
Huffman, W.E., Rousu, M., Shogren, J.F., and Tegene., A. “Who Do Consumers Trust for Information: The Case of Genetically Modified Foods?” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86(2004): 1222–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffman, W.E., and Tegene., A. “Public Acceptance of and Benefits from Agricultural Biotechnology: A Key Role for Verifiable Information.” Market Development for Genetically Modified Food. Santaniello, V., Evenson, R.E., and Zilberman, D., eds. New York: CAB International, 2002.Google Scholar
Johnson, H., and Steiner., I. “The Effects of Source on Response to Negative Information about One's Self.” The Journal of Social Psychology 74(1968):215–24.Google Scholar
Johnston, R.J., Wessells, C.R., Donath, H., and Asche., F. “Measuring Consumer Preferences for Ecolabeled Seafood: An International Comparison.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 26(2001):20—39.Google Scholar
List, J.A., and Gallet., C.A. “What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?” Environmental and Resource Economics 20(2001): 241–54.Google Scholar
Miles, S., and Frewer., L.J. “Investigating Specific Concerns about Different Food Hazards.” Food Quality and Preference 12(2001):47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, S., and Scaife., V. “Optimistic Bias and Food.” Nutrition Research Reviews 16(2003): 3–19.Google Scholar
Milgrom, P., and Roberts., J. “Relying on the Information of Interested Parties.” The Rand Journal of Economics 17(1986): 18–32.Google Scholar
Murphy, J.J., Allen, P.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.Google Scholar
Parsons, G.R., Morgan, O.A., Whitehead, J.C., and Haab., T.C. “The Welfare Effects of Pfiesteria-Related Fish Kills in Seafood Markets: A Contingent Behavior Analysis.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 35(2006): 1–9.Google Scholar
Piggot, N.E., and Marsh., T.L. “Does Food Safety Information Impact U.S. Meat Demand?” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86(2004): 151–74.Google Scholar
Shepherd, R. “Social Determinants of Food Choice.” The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 58(1999):807–12.Google Scholar
Shulstad, R.N., and Stoevener., H.H. “The Effects of Mercury Contamination in Pheasants on the Value of Pheasant Hunting in Oregon.” Land Economics 54(1978):39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, E., van Ravenswaay, E.O., and Thompson., S.R. “Sales Loss Determination in Food Contamination Incidents: An Application to Milk Bans in Hawaii.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70(1988):513—20.Google Scholar
Sparks, P., and Shepherd., R. “Public Perceptions of the Potential Hazards Associated with Food Production and Food Consumption: An Empirical Study.” Risk Analysis 14(1994):799–806.Google Scholar
Sternthal, B.P., Lynn, W., and Dholakia., R. “The Persuasive Effect of Source Credibility: A Situational Analysis.” Public Opinion Quarterly 41(1978):285–314.Google Scholar
Swartz, D.G., and Strand., I.E. “Avoidance Costs Associated with Imperfect Information: The Case of Kepone.” Land Economics 57(1981): 139–50.Google Scholar
Taylor, S.E., and Brown., J.D. “Illusion and Well-being: A Social Psychological Perspective on Mental Health.” Psychological Bulletin 103(1988): 193–210.Google Scholar
Weinstein, N.D., and Klein., W.M. “Resistance of Personal Risk Perceptions to Debiasing Interventions.” Health Psychology 14(1995): 132–40.Google Scholar
Wessells, C.R., and Anderson., J.G. “Consumer Willingness to Pay for Seafood Safety Assurances.” The Journal of Consumer Affairs 29(1995):85–107.Google Scholar
Whitehead, J.C. “Environmental Risk and Averting Behavior: Predictive Validity of Jointly Estimated Revealed and Stated Behavior Data.” Environmental and Resource Economics 32(2005):301–16.Google Scholar