• No results found

purchase likelihood for eggs with enhanced animal welfare

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2023

Share "purchase likelihood for eggs with enhanced animal welfare "

Copied!
67
0
0

Hele tekst

(1)

MSc Business Administration Consumer Marketing Track

Master Thesis

Eggcellent choice

An experimental study on the effects of consumer confusion and information provision on Dutch consumers’ willingness to pay and

purchase likelihood for eggs with enhanced animal welfare

By

Eva Koffeman 12799998

June 25, 2021

Supervisor:

Yvette Woltman MS

Amsterdam Business School University of Amsterdam

EBEC approval number: 20210308100358

(2)

Statement of originality

This document is written by student Eva Koffeman who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

Table of Contents

List of Tables ... 5

List of Figures ... 5

Abstract ... 6

Introduction ... 7

Theoretical framework ... 10

Egg Types ... 10

Consumer Willingness to Pay for Animal Welfare ... 10

The Case of Eggs ... 11

Likelihood to Purchase ... 13

Consumer confusion ... 14

Information on Animal Welfare ... 16

Methods ... 19

Participants ... 19

Procedure ... 20

Experimental manipulation ... 20

Measures ... 24

Willingness to Pay ... 24

Likelihood to Purchase ... 24

Consumer Confusion ... 24

Control Variables ... 25

General demographic variables ... 27

Results ... 29

Descriptives ... 29

Egg Characteristics ... 30

Randomization Checks ... 31

Main Effects WTP and LTP ... 32

Consumer Confusion ... 33

Information about Animal Welfare ... 35

Additional Analyses ... 36

Gender ... 36

Age ... 36

Grocery Budget ... 37

Price Sensitivity ... 37

Animal Welfare Concern ... 38

(4)

Organic Purchase Frequency ... 38

Discussion ... 40

Main Effects ... 40

Consumer Confusion ... 41

Information about Animal Welfare ... 42

Additional Analyses ... 43

Theoretical Contributions ... 44

Practical Implications ... 44

Limitations ... 45

Conclusion ... 47

References ... 48

Appendix A ... 57

Full questionnaire used in the online experiment ... 57

Appendix B ... 62

Full questionnaire used in the online experiment [Dutch version] ... 62

Appendix C ... 67

Figures of additional analyses ... 67

(5)

List of Tables

Table 1 Condition-specific questions for willingness to pay (WTP) ... 22

Table 2 Condition-specific questions for likelihood to purchase (LTP) ... 23

Table 3 Manipulation condition 3: descriptive information about animal welfare ... 24

Table 4 Means, standard deviations and Pearson correlation matrix ... 30

Table 5 The most important factors taken into consideration when purchasing eggs ... 31

List of Figures Figure 1 Conceptual model ... 18

Figure 2 Willingness to pay for free range and organic eggs ... 32

Figure 3 Likelihood to purchase for different egg types ... 33

Figure 4 Standard Deviation Plot: Effect of consumer confusion on willingness to pay ... 34 Figure 5 Standard Deviation Plot: Effect of consumer confusion on likelihood to purchase . 35

(6)

Abstract

The majority of farm animals in the Netherlands suffer under poor living conditions.

The resulting consumer demand for products with enhanced animal welfare has led to broad assortments of animal products varying with respect to the living standards in the production process. Particularly in the egg industry, grocery stores offer an extremely wide range of egg categories. This choice overload can lead to consumer confusion about the differences between the available egg types.

The current study investigates consumer confusion in the context of eggs, by comparing confusion levels to consumers’ willingness to pay and likelihood to purchase for barn eggs, free range eggs and organic eggs. Moreover, it tests whether providing information about animal welfare is an adequate solution to reduce consumer confusion and encourage more animal friendly purchases.

The results of the online experiment with over 18,144 participants showed that when taking barn eggs as a reference, Dutch consumers were willing to pay most for organic eggs (€1.75), followed by free range eggs (€1.53). Regardless, their purchase likelihood was highest for barn eggs, which was the most affordable option. Consumer confusion was found to significantly affect these outcomes, as it was associated with lower willingness to pay and likelihood to purchase for free range and organic eggs. However, contrary to expectations, providing descriptive information about animal welfare did not prove to be an effective strategy to do so.

Key words: animal welfare; willingness to pay; likelihood to purchase; consumer confusion; eggs

(7)

Introduction

Despite its limited land area, the Netherlands is one of the world’s largest agricultural producers. The yearly export of products such as vegetables, fruits, flowers and animal products has a worth of over 90 billion euros (Government of the Netherlands, 2019). However, this leading role comes at a cost. According to CBS (2020), over 2 million cows, 16 million pigs and 620 million chickens were slaughtered in 2019. Housing all these animals requires a lot of space, which is being arranged tightly in order to improve economic efficiency. Thereby, animals pay the price as this productivity is at the expense of animal welfare. Most of the Dutch egg-laying hens have a living space that is smaller than two A4 sheets of paper (Wakker Dier, n.d.). Male chicks are considered useless and are therefore gassed or shredded alive right after birth.

In recent years, consumers have become increasingly conscious towards animal welfare (RTL Nieuws, 2016). As a result, a variety of product categories have come into existence. This is particularly visible in the egg sector. Supermarkets offer a broad range of egg types with different standards with respect to animal welfare. However, due to the reduced efficiency of the production process, better animal welfare usually comes at a higher price. After all, the farmer has to either make investments in more space or keep fewer animals in the same space.

To what extent are consumers prepared to accept this trade-off for improved laying hen living conditions?

Numerous studies have investigated willingness to pay (WTP) for eggs from more animal friendly production systems. In many countries, consumers appear to be willing to pay extra for better living standards (e.g. Dunne & Siettou, 2020; Morales et al., 2020; Yang, 2018).

However, no such scientific studies have been conducted on WTP for eggs with enhanced animal welfare in the Netherlands. Moreover, even though many studies have focused on WTP, little is known about how it relates to purchase likelihoods. Therefore, the current experiment

(8)

tests how much monetary value Dutch consumers assign to animal welfare in the egg industry, and how this relates to their likelihood to purchase (LTP) for the different egg types.

Because the available egg categories in supermarkets are not always self-explanatory and the broad supply can sometimes lead to confusion (Meeusen & Deneux, 2002), the Dutch Society for the Protection of Animals [Dierenbescherming] initiated the Better Life label, using a three-star system to indicate the extent to which animal welfare was taken into account in the production process (Dierenbescherming, n.d.-a). The more stars, the more adaptations have been made to improve the living conditions of the animals. For eggs, the number of stars that will be displayed on a product package is determined on the basis of available space, enrichment materials and outdoor access (Dierenbescherming, n.d.-b). However, in order for these labels to be effective, they need to be trusted and understood by consumers. Previous literature has indicated that animal welfare labels can lead to consumer confusion (Evans & Miele, 2008), which is associated with unthoughtful purchase decisions (Hall-Phillips & Shah, 2017).

Notwithstanding, in research on consumer preferences pertaining to animal welfare, the role of consumer confusion has been neglected.

Moreover, different types of information may have differing effects on consumer confusion levels. For example, providing additional information about the meaning of on- package labels can lead to increased purchase intentions for products with enhanced animal welfare (Cornish et al., 2020). Therefore, the current study aims to find an answer to the following central research question: “What is the effect of consumer confusion on Dutch consumers’ WTP and LTP for different egg types, and is this effect moderated by information about animal welfare?”. Thereby, it contributes to the existing literature by providing empirical evidence on Dutch consumers’ acceptance of price premiums and subsequent purchase intentions for eggs with enhanced animal welfare. Moreover, it bridges the literature gap on the effect of consumer confusion on these egg preferences, and tests the potential of different types

(9)

of information about animal welfare to alleviate this effect.

In addition to this scientific relevance, this specific research area also has a considerable societal value as a better understanding of these concepts would create novel insight in how to stimulate more ethical consumption in the context of eggs. Knowledge about the extent to which Dutch consumers are willing to accept a price increase for eggs with enhanced animal welfare and whether their behavioral intentions are influenced by confusion, can be used to improve egg choices. For example, if consumer confusion leads to less considerate purchase intentions, informing consumers about the living standards associated with the available egg categories might increase transparency and encourage animal friendly consumption patterns. The findings will clarify whether consumers will display different attitudes and behaviours once they know more about the animal welfare differences between egg types, thereby providing marketeers and policymakers with managerial suggestions on how to formulate effective marketing communication strategies.

This research paper is structured as follows. The following section begins by providing background information about eggs in the Netherlands, and reviewing previous literature in the areas of eggs with enhanced animal welfare, consumer confusion and information provision. In addition to providing a synopsis of past studies, the chapter provides arguments for the expected outcomes of the current experiment. The next section explains the formation of the sample and the research design, as well as the questionnaire and its measures. Subsequently, the primary data findings are discussed, after which the main analyses and results are presented. Finally, the findings are interpreted in relation to the hypotheses based on previous work. Moreover, the scope for future studies is highlighted, as well as the limitations and contributions of the current study. Some concluding deductions are drawn in the final section.

(10)

Theoretical framework Egg Types

In the Netherlands, the three most prominent egg types are barn eggs, free range eggs and organic eggs (Eieiei, 2020). Therefore, the current study will focus on these three categories. Previously, supermarkets also offered battery-cage eggs, but these cage systems were banned by the European Union in 2012 (European Commission, n.d.). Since then, barn eggs meet the minimum requirements with respect to animal welfare standards. Free range laying hens have the opportunity to go outside, and organic laying hens are given extra moving space in addition (Dierenbescherming, n.d.-b). In this sense, organic eggs are the most animal friendly option out of the three.

At the most prominent supermarket chain in the Netherlands, the average prices for sixpacks of barn eggs, free range eggs and organic eggs are €1.19, €2.29 and €2.89 respectively (Albert Heijn, 2021a). Noticeably, animal welfare enhancement is accompanied by a higher price, which can be explained by higher feed costs and lower productivity. Inclusion of the three egg types in this study therefore enables a comparison based on a continuum of both animal welfare attributes and price.

Consumer Willingness to Pay for Animal Welfare

Numerous studies have looked into consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for animal welfare. A meta-analysis of 54 studies found that overall, consumers are willing to pay a small price premium for products with enhanced farm animal welfare attributes (Clark et al., 2017).

This WTP varied for different types of animals and appeared to be relatively high for laying hens and dairy cows. The proposed explanation for this dissimilarity in comparison to other animals, was the fact that in contrast to other animal products such as meat, there were limited substitutes for dairy or eggs at the time the majority of the analyzed studies were conducted

(11)

(Clark et al., 2017). Even though plant-based dairy alternatives such as oat milk and almond milk are currently quickly gaining availability and popularity, egg substitutes are still scarce.

Even though some Dutch supermarkets offer commercial egg replacement products for baking (e.g. Albert Heijn, 2021b; Jumbo, 2021a), alternatives for boiled or fried eggs remain hard to find in stores. This suggests that the relatively high consumer WTP for layer hen welfare might still be existent, since it is more difficult for consumers to replace the animal product in question.

The Case of Eggs

Several WTP studies have focused on the egg industry specifically. Heng, Peterson &

Li (2013) examined US consumer attitudes towards laying hen welfare and found that it was a concern that consumers were generally willing to pay a premium for. This WTP for eggs with enhanced animal welfare appears to be transnational: it was also found, amongst others, in the United Kingdom (Dunne & Siettou, 2020), Chile (Morales, Ugaz & Cañon-Jones, 2020), Taiwan (Yang, 2018), Turkey (Güney & Giraldo, 2020), Serbia (Tolimir et al., 2019) and Korea (Hong et al., 2018).

Prior research in which organic eggs were compared to conventional eggs consistently found evidence for a higher WTP for organic eggs due to animal welfare concerns (Gangnat et al., 2018; Goddard et al., 2007; Wägeli et al., 2016). However, existing literature comparing WTP for free range eggs and organic eggs has led to mixed results. For example, in Denmark, eggs from organic farms evoked the highest consumer WTP, followed by eggs from barn, free range and cage systems (Baltzer, 2004). Similarly, US consumers were willing to pay substantial premiums for free range eggs (52%), and even more for organic eggs (85%) (Chang, Lusk & Norwood, 2010). It should be noted that in both of these studies, WTP was calculated based on retail data, meaning that the consumers had not been explicitly informed about the

(12)

animal welfare differences between the different egg categories (Baltzer, 2004; Chang et al., 2010).

Güney & Giraldo (2020) conducted a choice experiment in which participants were informed about these laying living standards, and found that consumers were willing to pay approximately the same price for free range and organic eggs when conventional eggs were taken as a reference. Similar choice experiments in Spain and Poland pointed out that WTP for organic eggs was higher than for conventional eggs, but not much higher than for free range eggs (Mesías et al., 2011; Zakowska-Biemans & Tekień, 2017). These findings show that these Spanish and Polish consumers were willing to pay extra for enhanced animal welfare, but did not seem to differentiate much between free range and organic eggs in particular. However, results of a 2005 survey indicated that compared to other European countries, Spaniards scored lowest on purchasing eggs from free range systems (European Commission, 2005). In addition, more than a quarter of Polish consumers admitted to never pay attention to the production system when purchasing eggs (European Commission, 2005). These findings might undermine the generalizability of these consumers’ WTP to the Dutch market. In fact, the EU report showed that next to Scandinavian citizens, Dutch consumers were most likely to accept a price increase for eggs sourced from an animal friendly production system (European Commission, 2005). This suggests that consumers in the Netherlands display a relatively high concern for laying hen welfare and therefore assign more value to eggs with a more animal friendly production process. However, in the literature, empirical evidence about the Dutch WTP for eggs with enhanced animal welfare is lacking. Therefore, the current study aims to bridge this gap by using a choice experiment to test WTP for different egg types in the Netherlands.

All in all, the majority of previous studies indicated that compared to eggs from conventional farming systems, WTP was highest for organic eggs (Gangnat et al., 2018;

Goddard et al., 2007; Wägeli et al., 2016), followed by free range eggs (Baltzer, 2004; Chang

(13)

et al., 2010). This ratio is likely to persist among Dutch consumers, as they were found to be relatively tolerant towards price premiums for eggs with enhanced animal welfare (European Commission, 2005). Therefore, the following is expected in the current experiment:

H1a: When taking barn eggs (most affordable egg type available in the Netherlands) as a reference, Dutch consumers have a higher WTP for organic eggs compared to free range eggs.

Likelihood to Purchase

However, WTP should not be confused with purchase intentions. When Lai & Yue (2020) compared experimental results about WTP for animal welfare products to market data, they found that the WTP premiums for cage-free and pasture-raised eggs were significantly lower than expected based on the experimental data. A meta-regression by Gao & Schroeder (2009) also pointed out inconsistencies between empirical results and real purchasing data, with experiments overestimating consumers’ WTP for food attributes. This suggests that WTP might not always be predictive of actual purchase behaviour. Therefore, the current study will examine the consumers’ likelihood to purchase (LTP) the different egg types as an additional outcome measure in order to test whether WTP for eggs with enhanced animal welfare is translated in animal friendly purchase intentions.

Even though Dutch consumers’ purchase intention for various egg types has not yet been studied scientifically, a choice experiment by de Jonge, van der Lans & van Trijp (2015) yielded insightful findings about consumer decision-making in an animal product context.

According to the compromise effect, consumers have a tendency to prefer options in product choice sets of which the attributes are not the extremes (Simonson, 1989a). For example, rather than the highest or lowest-priced option, most consumers would likely opt for a compromise

(14)

alternative in between. Therefore, de Jonge et al. (2015) tested the potential of a more differentiated meat product assortment including such compromise alternatives in order to stimulate consumption of meat produced with enhanced animal welfare standards. In accordance with the compromise effect, it was found that intermediate options led to a strong decline in the market share of mainstream meat, particularly in favor of 1-star Better Life meat products (de Jonge et al., 2015). However, even though the compromise products gained a large choice compared to mainstream and organic meat, mainstream meat remained the most popular option (de Jonge et al., 2015).

These findings show that despite the relative compromise effect, the absolute consumer preference seems to remain given to the affordable, conventional animal products (de Jonge et al., 2015). In the current experiment, free range eggs could be considered the compromise alternative, as it constitutes the intermediate option with respect to both price and animal welfare. Therefore, this data led to the following hypothesis about LTP for the egg categories under investigation:

H1b: Dutch consumers are most likely to purchase barn eggs, followed by free range eggs and organic eggs.

Consumer confusion

In the Dutch shopping environment, consumers can choose from an extensive range of egg categories. Supermarket chain Albert Heijn alone already offers barn eggs, free range eggs, organic eggs, maize eggs, Omega-3 eggs and Rondeel eggs (Albert Heijn, 2021a). The aforementioned Better Life label serves as an informant about the origins of these animal products. However, a qualitative report investigating organic consumers’ perception of this label showed that it frequently led to confusion (Van Wijk-Jansen, Hoogendam & Bakker,

(15)

2009). In fact, when the participants were presented with the table showing the meaning of the star ratings, they were shocked because they expected that the chickens would have much more space under organic norms, and that the differences between the star rankings would be much larger (Van Wijk-Jansen et al., 2009). Particularly the meaning of a one star and a two star- rating remained difficult to distinguish (Van Wijk-Jansen et al., 2009). This suggests that regardless of the fact that the Better Life label is supposed to reduce the information asymmetry about animal welfare standards, it can paradoxically also lead to confusion among consumers in the shopping context.

In the current study, consumer confusion refers to “an uncertain and anxious state of mind in specific consumption environment, which mainly stems from some fuzzy factors, such as similarity production, overload information and ambiguous information, and can lead to judgment mistakes and suboptimal selection by consumers in information processing”

(Hongwei, Junjun & Gongxing, 2016, p. 58). In research on WTP for animal welfare, the role of consumer confusion has been largely overlooked. According to the previously mentioned report by the European Commission (2005), confusing labelling schemes have been a major barrier to market-driven improvement of the animals’ living conditions. A comparative study by Evans & Miele (2008) also found support for the existence of consumer confusion resulting from the large number of animal welfare claims in the food sector. In the Netherlands, the results of a questionnaire conducted by Liebregt (2017) indicated that consumer confusion was associated with a lower WTP for products with animal welfare labels. With respect to LTP, Hall-Phillips & Shah (2017) studied the consequences of consumer confusion in the context of expiration date labels and found that it can lead to a variety of unfavorable effects such as unthoughtful purchases or no purchase at all. Moreover, according to Mitchell & Papavassiliou (1999), consumer confusion can result in simplified purchase decision strategies such as relying on habits or prices. Based on these findings, the following effects are expected in the current

(16)

study:

H2a: Consumer confusion leads to a lower willingness to pay for free range and organic eggs.

H2b: Consumer confusion leads to a higher likelihood to purchase barn eggs and a lower likelihood to purchase free range- or organic eggs.

Information on Animal Welfare

When Mulder & Zomer (2017) conducted an experimental study to analyze consumers’

WTP for the welfare of broiler chickens, the Dutch participants showed an average marginal WTP of approximately €6 per 500 grams of one-star Better Life chicken meat. In reality, the additional price for this chicken meat without enhanced animal welfare was only around €2 per 500 grams. In other words, the marginal WTP substantially exceeded the actual additional price.

However, even though this was the case for a large majority of the participants, this estimate was not reflected in the actual purchase behaviour (Mulder & Zomer, 2017). The authors proposed several explanations for this attitude-behaviour gap, including the fact that the experimenters had carefully informed participants about the living conditions of the broiler chickens (Mulder & Zomer, 2017). This might have reduced the information asymmetry that consumers would otherwise have possibly experienced during the purchase decision. Therefore, their suggestion for further research was to use a choice experiment approach including different conditions differing in the degree to which the respondents are provided with information about the animal welfare standards in the production process (Mulder & Zomer, 2017).

The fact that information provision about farm animal living conditions can significantly alter WTP estimates was also found in a meta-analysis on WTP for general farm

(17)

animal welfare by Lagerkvist & Hess (2011). To give an example, Napolitano, Pacelli, Girolami

& Braghieri (2008) showed that WTP for yogurt was significantly amplified by labels indicating high standards of animal welfare. This shows that informing consumers about animal welfare can be a substantial determinant of consumer WTP. In a US study, Ochs et al. (2019) found that exposing consumers to video information treatments describing hen housing systems led to indifference between cage-free aviary labelled eggs and an alternative enriched colony hen housing system, whereas uninformed respondents showed a clear preference for the cage- free system. The authors concluded that consumers likely require more extensive information about laying hen housing systems in order to make an informed decision (Ochs et al., 2019).

This suggests that different types of information provision, i.e. labels compared to more detailed information, can have a different influence on WTP for animal welfare. One potential explanation for this difference might have to do with the consumers’ trust in and familiarity with the animal welfare label in question (Gangnat et al., 2018). Cornish et al. (2020) found that providing consumers with additional information about what on-package labels mean for animal welfare, significantly increased intentions to purchase products with enhanced animal welfare. Therefore, in the current study, it is expected that provision of details about the animal welfare standards associated with the different egg types will increase transparency and thereby reduce confusion:

H3a: The effect of consumer confusion on willingness to pay is weaker when descriptive information (compared to a label or no information) about animal welfare is provided.

H3b: The effect of consumer confusion on likelihood to purchase is weaker when descriptive information (compared to a label or no information) about animal welfare is provided.

(18)

Figure 1 presents the conceptual model that reflects the links between the different variables in the current research.

Figure 1 Conceptual model

(19)

Methods

Participants

The participants were recruited from the online test panel of Radar, a Dutch television program for consumers. The purpose of this online panel is for Radar to gather data about consumer opinions on current affairs. It has over 65,000 subscriptions of Dutch consumers who voluntarily share their views and experiences by completing online polls and questionnaires.

All members received an email invitation to participate in the current study. A total of 20,571 people participated in the experiment that was completed online (51.4% female). Age was provided by Radar as a categorical variable ranging from ‘younger than 18’ to ‘older than 66’, with intervals of 10 years. More than three quarters of the participants were 56 or older (78.9%).

The mode age category was ‘older than 66’. With respect to egg consumption, almost half of the participants indicated to eat 2-3 eggs a week (48.1%). 29% consumed 4 or more eggs a week. The proportion of participants that reported to never eat eggs amounted 1.6% (n = 328), and was excluded from further questions. In addition to that, 586 respondents were removed from further analyses due to missing data.

For both free range and organic eggs, WTP ranged from 0 to 100. Considering the fact that it was measured in euros, this suggests that some of the participants might have misunderstood the question or scale. Therefore, an outlier analysis was performed by computing z-scores for the raw WTP responses. When selecting cases with a z-score between - 3 and 3, WTP for free range eggs varied from €0.17 to €2.80, whereas the organic WTP range started from €0.05 to €3.34. Particularly for the organic eggs, this maximum is arguably low, as prices in Dutch supermarkets for cartons containing 6 eggs range from approximately €1.15 to €3.39 (Albert Heijn, 2021a; Jumbo, 2021b). Therefore, a more conservative interval was used in order to generate a broader WTP array; outliers were selected based on z-scores less than -4 and greater than 4. Observations outside of this range were excluded from analyses (n

(20)

= 1513), whereafter WTP for free range eggs ranged from €0.05 to €3.25, and WTP for organic eggs fell within €0.05 and €3.95. Thereby, in total, 2,427 participants were excluded from analyses, whereafter the final sample consisted of 18,144 participants.

Procedure

After providing informed consent, the questionnaire started with questions about the participants’ current egg purchase behaviour and determinants of their egg choice.

Subsequently, their level of confusion resulting from the wide variety of available egg types in supermarkets was measured. Afterwards, the outcome variables WTP and LTP were measured.

The LTP based on standard prices was purposefully measured at the end in order to prevent it from influencing participants’ WTP. After completion of the questionnaire, participants were debriefed textually and thanked for their participation.

Experimental manipulation

The online choice experiment made use of three conditions (no information vs. Better Life label vs. descriptive information) in a within-subjects design. An experimental approach was chosen in order to recreate the choice environment that consumers experience when purchasing eggs. Even though a between-subjects design in which the egg types served as different conditions wherein participants only indicated their WTP and LTP for one particular egg type could have been useful for a comparison between different eggs, a within-subjects approach was preferred for its greater ecological validity. After all, in grocery stores, consumers choose from a variety of egg categories rather than one specific type. In addition, this approach was consistent with previous studies on consumer behaviour and WTP in simulated supermarket settings (Ellison et al., 2016; Hoenink et al., 2020; Waterlander et al., 2015).

Therefore, all participants were asked to indicate their WTP and LTP for the multiple egg types

(21)

(see Appendix A and Appendix B for the full questionnaire in English and Dutch).

Participants were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions, which varied in the amount and type of information about animal welfare that was provided when measuring the dependent variables, WTP (see Table 1) and LTP (see Table 2). In the no information condition, which served as a control condition, participants were merely informed about the standard price of barn eggs and asked what they would be willing to pay for free range eggs and for organic eggs. Subsequently, LTP was measured by asking which of the three types of eggs they would most likely buy, based on current average market prices (Albert Heijn, 2021a). In the Better Life label condition, these questions were accompanied by an explanation of the Better Life label as well as the star-rankings for the three types of eggs. Finally, in the descriptive information condition, the questions provided a table of the chickens’ living standards for the three egg types (Dierenbescherming, n.d.-b) (see Table 3).

(22)

Table 1

Condition-specific questions for willingness to pay (WTP)

Condition Question

1. No information about

animal welfare The standard price for 6 barn eggs is €1,19.

What are you willing to pay for:

• 6 free range eggs? _____

• 6 organic eggs? _____

2. Better Life label The Better Life label uses a star system to indicate how animal-friendly animals are kept for the production of meat, eggs and dairy. Products get 1, 2 or 3 stars: the more stars, the more adjustments have been made to enhance the living conditions.

The standard price for 6 barn eggs (1 star Better Life) is €1,19.

What are you willing to pay for:

• 6 free range eggs? (2 stars Better Life)

• 6 organic eggs? (3 stars Better Life) 3. Descriptive information

about animal welfare

The following table describes the living conditions for laying hens of different egg types. The information is based on the Better Life label, which uses a star system to indicate how animal-friendly animals are kept for the production of meat, eggs and dairy. Products get 1, 2 or 3 stars: the more stars, the more adjustments have been made to enhance the living conditions.

(Table 3)

The standard price for 6 barn eggs is €1,19.

What are you willing to pay for:

• 6 free range eggs? _____

• 6 organic eggs? _____

(23)

Table 2

Condition-specific questions for likelihood to purchase (LTP)

Condition Question

1. No information about animal welfare

How likely would you purchase the following egg types, based on the following standard prices?

(1 = “Very unlikely”; 5 = “Very likely”)

1 2 3 4 5

Barn eggs (standard price €1,19) o o o o o Free range eggs (standard price €2,29) o o o o o Organic eggs (standard price €2,89) o o o o o 2. Better Life label The Better Life label uses a star system to indicate how animal-friendly

animals are kept for the production of meat, eggs and dairy. Products get 1, 2 or 3 stars: the more stars, the more adjustments have been made to enhance the living conditions.

How likely would you purchase the following egg types, based on the following standard prices?

(1 = “Very unlikely”; 5 = “Very likely”)

1 2 3 4 5

Barn eggs

(1 star Better Life, standard price €1,19)

o o o o o

Free range eggs

(2 stars Better Life, standard price €2,29) o o o o o Organic eggs

(3 stars Better Life, standard price €2,89)

o o o o o

3. Descriptive information about animal welfare

The following table describes the living conditions for laying hens of different egg types. The information is based on the Better Life label, which uses a star system to indicate how animal-friendly animals are kept for the production of meat, eggs and dairy. Products get 1, 2 or 3 stars: the more stars, the more adjustments have been made to enhance the living conditions.

(Table 3)

How likely would you purchase the following egg types, based on the following standard prices?

(1 = “Very unlikely”; 5 = “Very likely”)

1 2 3 4 5

Barn eggs (standard price €1,19) o o o o o Free range eggs (standard price €2,29) o o o o o Organic eggs (standard price €2,89) o o o o o

(24)

Table 3

Manipulation condition 3: descriptive information about animal welfare

Egg type Space Outdoor access Better Life label

Barn eggs 9 laying hens per 𝑚" Covered outdoor access 1 star Free range eggs 9 laying hens per 𝑚" Free range, with shelter;

4 𝑚" per laying hen

2 stars

Organic eggs 6,7 laying hens per 𝑚" Free range, with shelter;

4 𝑚" per laying hen

3 stars

Measures

Willingness to Pay

WTP was measured in euros by asking participants what they were willing to pay for free range eggs and organic eggs. In order to give them a reference price, the standard price for barn eggs was provided. In this way, responses served as an indication of participants’

preparedness to pay a premium for enhanced animal welfare eggs.

Likelihood to Purchase

The second outcome variable was measured by asking participants to indicate their likelihood to purchase barn eggs, free range eggs and organic eggs on a scale from 1 to 5.

Current market prices were provided in order to simulate a realistic choice set. These prices were category averages calculated based on the online egg assortment of Albert Heijn (2021a).

Consumer Confusion

The extent to which consumers were confused about the animal welfare features of different egg types was measured by having them rate their agreement with four statements on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = “Strongly disagree”; 5 = “Strongly agree”). These items were based on a consumer confusion scale developed by Walsh & Mitchell (2010) as mentioned in Chen

& Chang (2013). Whereas Chen & Chang (2013) used the scale to measure consumer confusion

(25)

about environmental features of products, for the current study the items were adapted to concern animal welfare features of eggs: (1) there are so many egg types you can purchase that it is difficult to decide how high the chickens’ living standards have been; (2) when purchasing eggs, I feel sufficiently informed about the animal welfare; (3) there are so many egg types that it is difficult to decide which ones I should choose with respect to animal welfare features; (4) when purchasing eggs, I know what the living standards of the laying hens are (see Table A2).

After recoding the counter indicative items (2 and 4), the consumer confusion scale was found to be reliable (4 items; α = .70).

Control Variables

Previous research has presented various population subgroups for which the dependent variables of focus in the current study may vary. These factors were therefore consulted to include them as control variables and look into their possible influences.

Age. Several studies have found support for a significant influence of age on WTP.

However, the results were inconsistent. For instance, whereas Yang (2018) found that younger consumers are less willing to pay for eggs with enhanced welfare, other studies demonstrated that WTP actually decreases with additional years of average age (Gerini et al., 2016;

Lagerkvist & Hess, 2011). With respect to LTP, Rimal et al. (2005) found evidence that older people are less likely to buy organic products. In contrast, Geen & Firth (2006) found that in the UK, committed organic consumers tend to be older than the average population. In the current study, the age of the participating test panel members was already collected during registration for the panel, and could therefore be provided by Radar.

Gender. Even though little research has found support for an effect of gender on WTP, females appear to hold more positive attitudes towards organic food than males (Lea &

Worsley, 2005; Lockie et al., 2004; Magnusson et al., 2001). Correspondingly, Irianto (2015)

(26)

found that females are more likely to purchase organic products. Therefore, compared to males, females are expected to display a higher LTP for organic eggs. Equally to age, the gender of the participants was provided by Radar. Before the start of the online experiment, the panel members were informed that this data would be included in the analyses.

Income. Existing empirical results about the role of income are unambiguous.

Consumers with higher incomes are found to show higher WTP for products with enhanced animal welfare such as free range and organic eggs (Lagerkvist & Hess, 2011; Yang, 2018). In addition, compared to consumers with lower incomes, people with higher incomes are more likely to purchase free range or organic eggs (Rahmani et al., 2019). Correspondingly, higher incomes are associated with higher organic purchase intentions (Cranfield & Magnusson, 2003;

Thompson & Kidwell, 1998; Underhill & Figueroa, 1996; Wier et al., 2008). The findings of the current experiment are not expected to deviate from these consistent results. However, because of Radar’s past experiences with panel members’ tendency to quit the questionnaire early when they are asked to indicate their income, the current study measured the participants’

grocery budget instead, by asking to what degree they agreed with the following statement:

“My grocery budget allows to buy eggs from a higher price category” (1 = “Strongly disagree”;

5 = “Strongly agree”).

Egg Preferences. When segmenting the UK egg market, Fearne & Lavelle (1996) found that consumers who highly valued price when purchasing eggs were more likely to purchase conventional eggs than free range eggs. In contrast, consumers who highly valued animal welfare were more likely to purchase free range eggs. Both price sensitivity and animal welfare concern were covered among the attributes in Table A1.

Organic Purchase Frequency. Finally, in a study by Gerini et al. (2016), WTP for organic- and animal welfare-labelled eggs was influenced by the frequency of organic food purchase. Compared to other segments, consumers that were most used to buying organic

(27)

products were willing to pay significantly extra for organic eggs (Gerini et al., 2016). Therefore, participants were asked how often they purchased organic food products in general (1 =

“Never”; 5 = “Always”).

General demographic variables

In addition to the control variables brought forward by existing literature, several other demographic variables related to egg preferences and certification labels were measured in order to explore participants’ habits and knowledge, and ensure successful randomization across the various conditions.

Egg Consumption Behaviour. First of all, participants were asked how many eggs they consumed per week, on average over the last month (on a scale ranging from “I never consume eggs” to “More than 7”). This measure also helped identify the respondents that had to be excluded for not being egg consumers.

Egg Preferences. In order to test which factors consumers pay attention to when purchasing eggs, respondents were asked to rate the importance they assigned to 9 attributes as determinants for their personal egg choice (Fearne & Lavelle, 1996) (see Table A1). Based on the findings by Fearne & Lavelle (1996), animal welfare and price are expected to be the most important factors.

Certification Labels. Participants were asked how often they checked certification labels when buying eggs (1 = “Never”; 5 = “Always”). Approximately half of the sample indicated to never or rarely pay attention to labels (50.8%). The proportion of participants that reported to always or very often look at labels amounted to 29.0%.

Familiarity Better Life Label. In order to measure participants’ knowledge about the Better Life label, they were asked whether they were familiar with the label. The vast majority of participants answered ‘yes’ (70.4%), 22.5% had heard of the label but were not sure what it

(28)

entailed, and 7.2% were unfamiliar with the Better Life label.

Attitude towards Better Life Label. Subsequently, participants were asked to indicate their attitude towards the Better Life label (1 = “Very negative”; 5 = “Very positive”). The attitudes were found to be generally positive (M = 4.00, SD = 1.09). Out of all participants, 64.6% was either positive or very positive about the Better Life label. Only 1.3% indicated to hold very negative attitudes towards the label.

(29)

Results Descriptives

Table 4 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients of the variables of interest. The WTP for free range eggs was found to correlate positively with LTP free range eggs, r = .42, p < .001. Likewise, the WTP for organic eggs showed a positive correlation with the LTP organic eggs, r = .61, p < .001.

Consumer confusion was found to correlate negatively with both WTP and LTP for all investigated egg types except barn eggs. No significant association was found between consumer confusion and information on animal welfare, r = .00, p = .82.

Information on animal welfare correlated negatively with the WTP free range eggs (r = -.03, p < .001) and LTP barn eggs (r = -.07, p < .001). It showed a small positive correlation with the WTP (r = .04, p < .001) and LTP (r = .03, p < .001) for organic eggs.

Furthermore, regardless of egg type, WTP and LTP showed a significant correlation with gender, grocery budget, price sensitivity, animal welfare concern and organic purchase frequency. For age, significant correlations were found with WTP and LTP too, with the exception of the LTP organic eggs.

(30)

Table 4

Means, standard deviations and Pearson correlation matrix

Variable M SD Min Max 1 2 3 4 5

1. WTP free range eggs 1.53 0.43 0.05 3.25 1

2. WTP organic eggs 1.76 0.59 0.05 3.95 .85** 1

3. LTP barn eggs 3.38 1.52 1 5 -.21** -.33** 1

4. LTP free range eggs 2.86 1.36 1 5 .42** .39** -.03** 1

5. LTP organic eggs 2.70 1.56 1 5 .49** .61** -.42** .54** 1

6. Consumer confusion 3.29 0.91 1 5 -.13** -.18** .28** -.08** -.29**

7. Information on animal welfare 1.97 0.82 1 3 -.03** .04** -.07** -.01 .03**

8. Gender 0.48 0.50 0 1 -.17** -.22** .12** -.13** -.22**

9. Age 6.19 1.03 1 7 -.06** -.10** .02* .02* -.01

10. Grocery budget 3.49 1.36 1 5 .24** .27** -.19** .23** .35**

11. Price sensitivity 3.72 1.15 1 5 -.17** -.19** .15** -.10** -.19**

12. Animal welfare concern 4.09 1.09 1 5 .27** .33** -.26** .31** .45**

13. Organic purchase frequency 2.88 0.93 1 5 .27** .38** -.33** .25** .53**

Table 4 Continued

Variable 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

6. Consumer confusion 1

7. Information on animal welfare .00 1

8. Gender .08** -.01 1

9. Age -.04** -.00 .23** 1

10. Grocery budget .14** -.01 .02** .07** 1

11. Price sensitivity .09** -.00 -.01 -.01 .17** 1

12. Animal welfare concern -.24** -.01 -.20** .02* -.17** .02* 1

13. Organic purchase frequency -.27** .02* -.16** .05** -.28** -.14** .43** 1

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Egg Characteristics

Matters that participants reported to assign particular attention to when purchasing eggs, appeared to be intactness, freshness and animal welfare (see Table 5). The size and color of the eggs turned out to be the least important factors.

(31)

Table 5

The most important factors taken into consideration when purchasing eggs

Factor M SD

None are cracked 4.70 .78

Freshness 4.38 .90

Use by date 4.13 1.07

Animal welfare 4.09 1.10

Packaging in good condition 3.97 1.15

Natural food 3.79 1.20

Price 3.72 1.15

Size of the eggs 3.36 1.13

Good color of shell 2.21 1.38

Randomization Checks

In order to make sure the results would not be influenced by demographic condition differences, randomization checks were conducted for gender, familiarity with Beter Leven, age, grocery budget, price sensitivity, egg consumption frequency, organic purchase frequency and animal welfare concern. Gender was found to be evenly distributed across the three conditions, χ2 (2) = 1.34, p = .51. No significant differences were found in familiarity with Beter Leven either, χ2 (4) = 1.93, p = .75. Because the remaining variables were ordinal, Kruskall-Wallis tests were used to check their distribution. For age, there was no statistically significant difference between conditions, H(2) = 0.06, p = .97. Grocery budgets were evenly distributed as well, H(2) = 1.56, p = .46, and no significant irregularities were found for price sensitivity (H(2) = 0.07, p = .97), egg consumption frequency (H(2) = 0.01, p = .99), or organic purchase frequency (H(2) = 4.72, p = .10) either.

However, randomization was not entirely successful on all demographic variables: a significant difference was found on animal welfare concern between the different conditions, H(2) = 7.37, p = .03. Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey LSD test indicated that this significant yet marginal difference existed between the no information condition (Mno info = 4.12, SDno info = 1.08) and the Better Life label condition (MBetter Life label= 4.07, SDBetter Life label=

(32)

1.10), p = .02.

Main Effects WTP and LTP

The conceptual model was tested using repeated measures ANCOVA. Because the variables age, grocery budget, price sensitivity, animal welfare concern and organic purchase frequency were found to correlate significantly with WTP and LTP, they were included as the covariate factors. The results pointed out that WTP was significantly higher for organic eggs (Morganic = 1.75, SDorganic = 0.59) than for free range eggs (Mfree range = 1.53, SDfree_range = 0.43), F(1, 17769) = 48.30, p < .001, ηp2 = .003. Thereby, the expectation that consumers were willing to pay more for organic eggs than for free range eggs (H1a) was supported (see Figure 2).

Figure 2

Willingness to pay for free range and organic eggs

A separate repeated measures ANCOVA was conducted for the second dependent variable, LTP. Mauchly’s test indicated that the condition of sphericity had not been met, χ2 (2) = 4306.76, p < .001, therefore the degrees of freedom were corrected using Huyn-Feldt estimates of sphericity (ε = .83). The results showed that the difference between barn eggs, free

(33)

range eggs and organic eggs was also significant for LTP, F(1.65, 29337.92) = 869.90, p <

.001, ηp2 = .047. Participants were most likely to purchase barn eggs (Mbarn = 3.38, SDbarn = 1.52), followed by free range eggs (Mfree range = 2.86, SDfree range = 1.36) and organic eggs (Morganic

= 2.70, SDorganic = 1.56). Thereby, the results also supported H1b (see Figure 3).

Figure 3

Likelihood to purchase for different egg types

Consumer Confusion

The effect of consumer confusion on WTP was found to be significant, F(16, 17769) = 8.32, p < .001, ηp2 = .007. Higher levels of consumer confusion resulted in a lower WTP for both egg types included in the analysis (see Figure 4), meaning that H2a was also supported.

(34)

Figure 4

Standard Deviation Plot: Effect of consumer confusion on willingness to pay

For LTP, the results showed that there was a significant effect of consumer confusion on LTP, F(26.42, 29337.92) = 38.19, p < .001, ηp2 = .033. Consumer confusion levels differently interacted with the three egg types (see Figure 5). High consumer confusion was associated with a substantial increase in likelihood to purchase barn eggs, whereas it decreased the likelihood to purchase organic eggs. In comparison, the LTP for free range eggs decreased but remained relatively stable regardless of confusion. The results supported H2b.

(35)

Figure 5

Standard Deviation Plot: Effect of consumer confusion on likelihood to purchase

Information about Animal Welfare

In order to compare the descriptive information condition to the Better Life label condition and the no information condition, the variable ‘information about animal welfare’

was dummy-coded (no information = 0, Better Life label = 0, descriptive info = 1). The interaction term between WTP, consumer confusion and information about animal welfare was significant, F(16, 17769) = 1.33, p = .17, ηp2 = .002. This shows that even though it was a small effect, H3a was supported: the effect of consumer confusion on WTP was weaker when descriptive information (compared to a label or no information) about animal welfare was provided.

For LTP, the interaction with information about animal welfare was not significant, F(26.27, 29206.68) = 0.57, p = .96, ηp2 = .001. This indicates that in contrast to H3b, descriptive information did not weaken the effect of consumer confusion on likelihood to purchase.

Exploratory analyses revealed that compared to no information or descriptive information about animal welfare, the Better Life label did not significantly interact with the

(36)

effect of consumer confusion either for WTP (F(16, 17786) = 0.75, p = .74, ηp2 = .001) or LTP (F(26.36, 29301.09) = 1.50, p = .05, ηp2 = .001).

Additional Analyses

Finally, in order to explore whether the results differed by gender, age, grocery budget, price sensitivity, animal welfare concern and organic purchase frequency, the effects of all of these variables were analyzed successively. See Appendix C for some of the results figures.

Gender

Gender was a significant covariate in the WTP model, F(1, 17769) = 111.60, p < .001, ηp2 = .006. For both free range and organic eggs, females (Mfree range = 1.61, SDfree range = 0.45, Morganic = 1.87, SDorganic = 0.61) were willing to pay more than males (Mfree range = 1.46, SDfree range = 0.41, Morganic = 1.63, SDorganic = 0.54). Gender was found to have a significant influence on LTP as well, F(1.65, 29337.92) = 172.99, p < .001, ηp2 = .010 Both males and females were most likely to purchase barn eggs. However, whereas males were least likely to buy organic eggs (Mbarn = 3.57, SDbarn = 1.43, Mfree range = 2.69, SDfree range = 1.34, Morganic = 2.35, SDorganic = 1.45), females’ LTP was lowest for free range eggs (Mbarn = 3.21, SDbarn = 1.57, Mfree range = 3.04, SDfree range = 1.35, Morganic = 3.06, SDorganic = 1.58).

Age

With respect to age, a negative relation was found with WTP, F(1, 17769) = 216.25, p

< .001, ηp2 = .012. Interestingly, participants younger than 18 reported higher WTP for both egg types (Mfree range = 1.88, SDfree range = 0.25, Morganic = 2.35, SDorganic = 0.24) than participants aged above 66 (Mfree range = 1.51, SDfree range = 0.43, Morganic = 1.71, SDorganic = 0.57). In fact, a consistent pattern was found between age and WTP (see Figure C1). Older age groups were

(37)

associated with lower WTP for either of the egg types. LTP displayed a similar pattern: for almost all age categories, LTP was highest for barn eggs, followed by free range eggs and organic eggs, F(1.65, 29337.92) = 15.61, p < .001, ηp2 = .001. The only exception was the category of participants younger than 18, who were equally likely to buy free range or organic eggs (Mbarn = 3.00, SDbarn = 1.83, Mfree range = 3.75, SDfree range = 0.96, Morganic = 3.75, SDorganic = 1.89).

Grocery Budget

Unsurprisingly, a clear relation was found between grocery budget and WTP for both free range and organic eggs, F(1, 17769) = 146.93, p < .001, ηp2 = .008. Participants with the lowest budgets were willing to pay substantially less (Mfree range = 1.36, SDfree range = 0.43, Morganic

= 1.49, SDorganic = 0.56) than participants with the highest grocery budgets (Mfree range = 1.67, SDfree range = 0.47, Morganic = 1.97, SDorganic = 0.65) (see Figure C2). As for LTP, participants who indicated to have a low grocery budget were most likely to purchase barn eggs (Mbarn = 3.69, SDbarn = 1.52, Mfree range = 2.13, SDfree range = 1.35, Morganic = 1.87, SDorganic = 1.39), whereas participants with higher budgets were most likely to purchase organic eggs (Mbarn = 2.97, SDbarn

= 1.64, Mfree range = 3.15, SDfree range = 1.44, Morganic = 3.41, SDorganic = 1.62), F(1.65, 29337.92)

= 488.36, p < .001, ηp2 = .027.

Price Sensitivity

Higher price sensitivity resulted in lower WTP for both egg types, F(1, 17769) = 80.46, p < .001, ηp2 = .005. Participants who indicated to regard price as an important factor when purchasing eggs were less willing to pay for free range and organic eggs (Mfree range = 1.46, SDfree range = 0.43, Morganic = 1.64, SDorganic = 0.58) than participants who did not consider price to be a determinant of their egg choice (Mfree range = 1.69, SDfree range = 0.52, Morganic = 1.97, SDorganic =

(38)

0.69). In addition, price sensitivity was associated with a higher LTP for barn eggs, and lower LTP for free range and organic eggs, F(1.65, 29337.92) = 332.76, p < .001, ηp2 = .018.

Participants with the highest price sensitivity were most likely to purchase barn eggs (Mbarn = 3.58, SDbarn = 1.54, Mfree range = 2.67, SDfree range = 1.44, Morganic = 2.44, SDorganic = 1.56), whereas participants scoring lowest on price sensitivity showed the highest LTP for organic eggs (Mbarn

= 2.86, SDbarn = 1.68, Mfree range = 3.01, SDfree range = 1.54, Morganic = 3.37, SDorganic = 1.69).

Animal Welfare Concern

Animal welfare concern led to higher WTP, F(1, 17769) = 244.04, p < .001, ηp2 = .014.

Especially for organic eggs, participants who highly valued animal welfare were found to be willing to pay a substantial premium (Mfree range = 1.65, SDfree range = 0.46, Morganic = 1.95, SDorganic

= 0.62) compared to participants caring less about animal welfare (Mfree range = 1.35, SDfree range

= 0.43, Morganic = 1.44, SDorganic = 0.54). In addition, animal welfare concern showed a negative relation with LTP for barn eggs, and a positive relation with LTP for free range and organic eggs, F(1.65, 29337.92) = 908.73, p < .001, ηp2 = .049. The concerned participants were most likely to purchase organic eggs (Mbarn = 2.91, SDbarn = 1.59, Mfree range = 3.23, SDfree range = 1.35, Morganic = 3.45, SDorganic = 1.52), whereas the unconcerned participants would most likely buy barn eggs (Mbarn = 3.72, SDbarn = 1.57, Mfree range = 1.95, SDfree range = 1.34, Morganic = 1.73, SDorganic

= 1.34).

Organic Purchase Frequency

Participants who indicated to frequently purchase organic products showed a higher WTP for both egg types (Mfree range = 1.74, SDfree range = 0.51, Morganic = 2.20, SDorganic = 0.69) than participants who never bought organic groceries (Mfree range = 1.34, SDfree range = 0.42, Morganic = 1.39, SDorganic = 0.49), F(1, 17769) = 803.19, p < .001, ηp2 = .043. In addition,

(39)

logically, the organic consumers were most likely to purchase organic eggs (Mbarn =2.10, SDbarn

= 1.41, Mfree range = 2.79, SDfree range = 1.42, Morganic = 4.38, SDorganic = 1.19) whereas the participants with the lowest organic purchase frequency would most likely buy barn eggs (Mbarn

= 3.90, SDbarn = 1.42, Mfree range = 2.05, SDfree range = 1.33, Morganic = 1.46, SDorganic = 0.98), F(1.65, 29337.92) = 1350.93, p < .001, ηp2 = .071.

(40)

Discussion

The current experiment investigated to what extent consumer confusion influenced Dutch consumers’ WTP and LTP for eggs with enhanced animal welfare, and whether this effect was moderated by different types of information. Overall, participants were willing to pay a premium for free range and organic eggs (H1a), but were most likely to purchase barn eggs (H1b). Consumer confusion was found to significantly reduce WTP and LTP for eggs with better animal welfare (H2a; H2b). Providing descriptive information about the laying hen living standards associated with the different egg types slightly alleviated this effect for WTP (H3a), but not for LTP (H3b).

Main Effects

The results showed that H1a was confirmed, as WTP was significantly higher for organic eggs (€1.82) than for free range eggs (€1.57). This is in line with the findings by Chang et al. (2010), which pointed out that US consumers were willing to pay extra for free range eggs, and an additional premium for organic eggs. Moreover, it is consistent with the survey results of the European Commission (2005), identifying Dutch egg consumers as being relatively tolerant towards higher prices for eggs with enhanced animal welfare.

However, the findings for LTP indicated that barn eggs were most popular, followed by free range eggs and organic eggs. This shows that although participants were willing to accept a higher price for eggs with improved animal welfare, most would still rather purchase barn eggs. These results contradict the compromise effect, which would have predicted participants to prefer the middle option in the choice set; in this case free range eggs (Simonson, 1989b).

However, the found purchase likelihoods did correspond to the expectations based on the empirical outcomes of de Jonge et al. (2015), which proposed that regardless of the relative popularity of the compromise alternative, the mainstream option remains the most chosen. In

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Concerning the compliance between the Code of Practice by the EFBA and the Welfare Regulation by the NFE, animal welfare in the Dutch fur farming industry seems quite well

In contrast, milk products perform relatively well in the categories life quality and life fraction, and perform best in terms of number of animals affected due to the large milk

3)o bewaring der knollen geeohiedde in oellen van het laboratoria» wor Moenbollenonderaoek te Lieoe» behalve t'se groopja*» welke bewaard moeten worden bij 28° 0*f

Once a user has an electronic ID and a smartcard that can be used for signatures, certificate issuing and application becomes quite simple. A health professional has finished

• Animal suffering should be taken into account to a degree equal to human suffer- ing in public decisions, even when no humans suffer when knowing that animals suffer.... •

De symptomen die optraden waren weinig typisch en omvatten soms een chlorose van de gehele plant of grote delen ervan, soms een necrose veelal van de bladrand, en verder het

Bovendien is het niet uitgesloten, dat door het spuiten van groeistof meer vruchtbeginsels uitgroeien, zodat in feite de bestrijding van vruchtrot nog -\iets groter

Concreet zijn de doelstellingen van deze rapportage: " inzicht geven in de ammoniakemissie en achterliggende uitgangspunten onder andere dieraantallen van een vast te stellen

To test whether the difference in response time following congruent compared to incongruent trials (Simon effect) was larger after synchronous compared to nonsynchronous

Een multipele regressie-analyse is uitgevoerd om te onderzoeken of deelnemers in de II-snack conditie die hoog scoorden op impulsiviteit een grotere afname van ongezonde

Deze instrumenten mogen in elk geval alleen worden gebruikt voor volwassen runderen die weigeren zich te verplaatsen, en uitsluitend op voorwaarde dat de dieren vóór zich

The fragile nature of peptides and proteins therefore creates stability issues when formulated into controlled release drug delivery systems using the methods that were also used

3 , 4 Hence, speciesism might reduce in the future and more people might grant animals moral concern, offering more scope for further demand-side changes in food systems and leading

Een transforaminale of interlaminaire epidurale infiltratie wordt meestal uitgevoerd als een zenuwwortel ingeklemd of geïrriteerd is, meestal ten gevolge van een

Magnolia Warbler (Dendroica magnolia).--Recorded as casual in the Lesser Antilles in the AOU Check-list (1998:541). Four unverified sight records from Guadeloupe by EBE, the

“The truly religious element of Religion has always been good; that which has proved. untenable in doctrine and vicious in practice, has been its irreligious element; and from this

These results indicated a positive effect of feed supplemented with SMS on the meat as higher amounts of the unsaturated fatty acid oleic acid was observed for the experimental

In this project, Luis made important progress by developing powerful and creative data pipelines and analysis plots to support data-driven animal breeding research and

Key Words: John Milbank, Ontology, Social theory, Secular, Narrative, Violence, Peace, Participation, Gift, Church..

Examples of educational practice that integrate inclusive pluralism in which non-human agents are recognized as potential contributors to diversity perspectives include

• Place the product on a stable and flat surface.. • Only handle the product with

Ook in de vorming van de aankomende arts, biomedisch we- tenschapper, biofarmaceut en andere professies waar dieren voor onderzoek gebruikt worden, kan niet vroeg genoeg aan-

In a commentary in Nature in 2014 entitled “NIH plans to enhance reproducibility”, Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the USA, wrote the