4.7 Article

Do Past Experience and Group Heterogeneity Matter to Consumer Preferences? Evidence From a Choice Experiment in Urban China

Journal

FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 13, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.843433

Keywords

past experience; group heterogeneity; choice experiments; consumer preferences; China

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [72173037]
  2. Ministry of Education of Humanities and Social Science Research Project of China [21YJA790039]
  3. Henan Province Philosophy and Social Science Planning Project [2021BJJ046]
  4. Key Scientific Research Project of Henan Provincial Institutions of Higher Learning [21A790011]
  5. Henan Federation of Social Sciences Research Project [SKL-2021-2489]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study used a discrete choice experiment to investigate consumers' preferences for Fuji apple product attributes and willingness to pay in six cities in China, finding preference heterogeneity among consumers and identifying three distinct classes of consumers with varying preferences for Fuji apples.
This study uses a discrete choice experiment to examine consumers' preferences for Fuji apple product attributes and willingness to pay (WTP) estimates for consumers in six cities in China. We estimated the preference heterogeneity by linking the stated preference choice data with consumers' past experience and socioeconomic characteristics in the latent class model. The empirical results show that, first, the past experience variables are crucial in explaining consumer preferences and WTP. Second, three classes, namely, certification-oriented, price- and origin-oriented, and not interested, are identified. Furthermore, the same type of Fuji apple attribute does not appeal to every respondent. Third, our results indicate the heterogeneity of preferences across different classes of respondents, as well as differences in WTP for Fuji apples.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available