Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 6 Results from double-bounded contingent valuation

From: Labeling food safety attributes: to inform or not to inform?

  Model I standard model Model II with bid set dummies Model III anchoring and shift
Variable Estimate Estimate Estimate
Intercept − 0.405 (0.701) 0.081 (0.594) − 0.363 (0.461)
Food safety label
 Safer Choice/Enhance 0.324 (0.209) 0.346** (0.175) 0.328** (0.137)
 Safer Choice/Vaccinated 0.155 (0.210) 0.183 (0.176) 0.174 (0.138)
Attitudes, knowledge, and opinion
 Personal health issues 0.329*** (0.109) 0.255*** (0.091) 0.296*** (0.071)
 Read labels 0.100 (0.120) 0.098 (0.101) 0.097 (0.079)
 Accept vaccines − 0.163** (0.082) − 0.132* (0.069) − 0.151*** (0.054)
Opinions about the government’s role
 Label vaccines 0.230** (0.099) 0.233*** (0.084) 0.229*** (0.065)
 Mandate vaccines 0.062 (0.081) 0.028 (0.068) 0.049 (0.053)
 Ensure safety − 0.069 (0.090) − 0.024 (0.076) − 0.052 (0.059)
Demographics
 College − 0.431* (0.228) − 0.267 (0.192) − 0.364** (0.150)
 Income 0.003* (0.002) 0.002 (0.001) 0.002** (0.001)
 Children at home 0.093 (0.174) 0.091 (0.146) 0.098 (0.114)
Location
 Shopping district 0.454* (0.242) 0.370* (0.207) 0.389** (0.159)
 Natural Foods store 0.895*** (0.272) 0.732*** (0.231) 0.802*** (0.178)
 Urban center 0.725*** (0.275) 0.719*** (0.233) 0.702*** (0.180)
Bid set dummies
 Bid set 1   − 0.841*** (0.176)  
 Bid set 2 − 0.792*** (0.164)
Anchoring and shift effects
 Anchoring (γ)   0.711*** (0.151)
 Shift (δ) − 0.986*** (0.234)
 Log likelihood − 343.81 − 330.85 − 677.59
  1. Standard errors are given in parentheses
  2. Estimated coefficient is significant at the 10% level. At the 5% significance level. At the 1% significance level