Search

Experimental protocols testing the effectiveness of cheap talk are numerous but have generated conflicting results. The theoretical interpretation of hypothetical bias as a strategic response according to the perceived consequence could be the missing key to understand these opposite results from the literature. Increasing evidence suggests that this bias rises from subjects' perception of how stated preferences surveys will be used; some subjects believing that stated valuations can impact the price of the good, while others that it will influence its provision. Subjects strategically respond by adjusting their declared values accordingly. This paper reports experimental findings supporting the presence of strategic response, showing that cheap talk operates by mitigating these behaviors and potentially explaining cheap talk's heterogeneous results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding market demand and premiums paid for food products with social and environmental attributes is increasingly important to ensure adequate information for the agri-food system. Stated preference (SP) surveys are a flexible and affordable approach to elicit values, however the presence of hypothetical bias compromises their reliability. In this study, we seek to identify strategic behaviors and how they relate to hypothetical bias in SP survey for private goods. An online survey was conducted to measure willingness-to-pay (WTP) for regular and free-run eggs using two treatments, a nonhypothetical experimental auction and an open-ended elicitation question. We find that the bias associated with the presence of strategic behavior in the open-ended elicitation survey can be isolated by calculating premiums, which are defined as the difference between declared values for free-run eggs and regular eggs. The insight gained from this study can be used to improve experimental design of hypothetical SPs surveys and significantly reduce hypothetical bias. Comprendre la demande et la volonté de payer pour des biens alimentaires avec des caractéristiques sociales et environnementales est important afin d'assurer une information adéquate pour le secteur agroalimentaire. Les sondages déclaratifs sont une approche flexible et peu coûteuse pour capturer les valeurs, par contre la présence d'un biais hypothétique réduit la fiabilité des valeurs ainsi estimées. Dans cette étude nous tentons d'identifier le comportement stratégique en lien avec le biais hypothétique intrinsèque aux sondages déclaratifs. À cet effet, nous réalisons un sondage en ligne qui mesure le consentement à payer pour des œufs réguliers et de poules en liberté en utilisant deux traitements, une enchère non hypothétique et une question ouverte. Nous trouvons que le comportement stratégique présent en situation déclarative peut être isoler en calculant la prime, laquelle est définie comme étant la différence entre la valeur déclarée pour les œufs de poules en liberté et des œufs réguliers. Les résultats de cette étude peuvent être utilisés pour améliorer le design expérimental des enquêtes de préférences révélées et limiter le biais hypothétique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Haitian supermarket consumers declare a 21.1 % premium for aflatoxin-safe peanut butter. • This premium is enough to compensate peanut farmers. • Scenarios for potential hypothetical bias and intermediary margin are considered. • Market mechanisms can help control aflatoxins in Haitian peanut butter. • Various factors influence farmer compensation, aflatoxin levels, and consumer premium. Aflatoxin contamination in peanuts represents a significant public health concern in many developing countries, including Haiti, a low-income country. Although simple post-harvest mitigation measures exist, their adoption by Haitian farmers remains limited. This study assesses the willingness to accept (WTA) of peanut producers in Haiti to implement post-harvest measures, using a reversed Becker-DeGroot-Marschak (BDM) auction. It also tests the effect on WTA of a conditional market access. For one group the research project commits to purchase peanuts at a predetermined price if aflatoxin levels meet a maximum of 10 parts per billion, while another group receives unconditional market access at the same predetermined price. Moreover, Haitian supermarket consumers' willingness to pay (WTP) a premium for a local peanut butter (mamba) certified to meet aflatoxin standards is explored. Results indicate that conditional market access generates higher WTA. Haitian supermarket consumers show strong interest in certified peanut butter, with a declared premium of 21.1 % over the market price of a 16-ounce jar of non-certified peanut butter. If we consider intermediary margins as high as 86 % of the final consumer price—well above the current 68 % reported in previous studies—as well as for a potential hypothetical bias as high as two thirds of the stated WTP, this premium is sufficient to incentivize Haitian peanut producers, measured by their observed WTA. Thus, a market solution to the aflatoxin problem in Haiti seems plausible for supermarket consumers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]