Investigating Consumer Preferences for Production Process Labeling Using Visual Attention Data

Abstract

A second-price auction with eye movement recordings was used to investigate consumer preferences for labels disclosing the presence and absence of specific types of insecticides and to explore the relationship between visual attention and consumer purchasing behaviors. Findings contribute to the literature in the following ways. First, visual attention pattern was endogenously determined by personal knowledge and pollinator conservation activities. Less knowledgeable or less engaged participants fixated more and for longer durations on the product as a whole rather than other information. Secondly, the first and last gaze cascade effect was confirmed by identifying a significant negative impact of participants’ first and last gaze visits on neonicotinoid labels on their bid values. Third, new evidence was added to the existing literature that the link between visual attention and consumer valuation and preference may be weak. Our results suggest that visual attention could provide useful information toward understanding participants’ bidding behaviors; however, evidence indicates that visual attention measures may not be directly linked with decision making.

Estimating willingness-to-pay for neonicotinoid-free plants: Incorporating pro-environmental behavior in hypothetical and non-hypothetical experiments

“…Concerning the potential impact of neonicotinoids on pollinator health, pro-environmental groups have encouraged retailers to clearly label products treated with neonicotinoids (US-EPA, 2013). However, public awareness of neonicotinoids among consumers remains low [9][10][11] and the extent to which products treated with neonicotinoids will impact consumers' preferences is unknown. Regardless of low public awareness, research has indicated that consumers value pollinator conservation efforts [76][77][78].…”

“…However, in this paper, we are particularly interested in investigating the attitude-PEB relationship through exploring consumers' attitudes and their consumption behavior toward pollinator-friendly products. Meanwhile, testing the comparability between the online DCE and experimental auction samples also serves as a check for sample representativeness and consistency of findings with Wei et al [10,27].…”

“…Given the increased consumer interest and demand for environmentally friendly production practices, the second objective is to elicit consumers' attitudes toward neonicotinoid pesticides and pollinators (in general), as well as explore the differences in consumers' WTP for products with labels disclosing the absence or presence of neonicotinoids during production. Despite increased media attention to neonicotinoids' potential adverse effects on pollinators, previous studies have shown that general public knowledge about neonicotinoid pesticides remains low [9][10][11]. We further investigate the extent to which consumers' attitudes toward pollinator health and conservation, neonicotinoid labeling, and relevant regulations influence their preferences by exploring the differences in WTP between various attitude-based dichotomous groups.…”

“…They concluded consumers valued “bee-friendly” the most, but likely discounted products labeled “neonicotinoid-free.” Khachatryan et al [ 26 ] showed that the pollinator-friendly attribute along with other eco-labels (e.g., Certified Organic, Fresh from Florida) were positively associated with consumers’ preference for ornamental plants. While Wollaeger et al [ 11 ] and Khachatryan et al [ 26 ] considered the pollinator-friendly attribute in general (along with other sustainable production practices), Wei et al [ 10 , 27 ] focused specifically on neonicotinoid labeling. Using experimental auction data, they found consumers would pay a price premium for plants with labels disclosing the absence of neonicotinoids but did not differentiate information formats when a plant was grown with neonicotinoids.…”

“…Using experimental auction data, they found consumers would pay a price premium for plants with labels disclosing the absence of neonicotinoids but did not differentiate information formats when a plant was grown with neonicotinoids. This paper and Wei et al [ 10 , 27 ] belong to the same larger research project, so the methods are complementary and part of the data related to the experimental auction are overlapping. However, in this paper, we are particularly interested in investigating the attitude-PEB relationship through exploring consumers’ attitudes and their consumption behavior toward pollinator-friendly products.…”