Implicit and explicit preferences for conventional and organic food

Last registered on April 04, 2025

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Implicit and explicit preferences for conventional and organic food
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0015729
Initial registration date
April 03, 2025

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
April 04, 2025, 1:16 PM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
University of Bern

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
University of Bern
PI Affiliation
Agroscope

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2025-01-01
End date
2026-09-30
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Cunningham and de Quidt (2024) introduced a theoretical framework for identifying implicit preferences. We apply this framework to empirically examine explicit and implicit preferences in food consumption. While many individuals express explicit preferences for organic food products likely due to self and social image concerns, their purchasing behavior often reflects preferences for cheaper conventional alternatives. To explore this discrepancy, we will conduct an incentivized laboratory experiment where participants state their willingness to pay (WTP) for cooked, colored eggs presented side-by-side in three joint evaluations. By systematically varying product attributes (organic versus conventional and an additional attribute, the painting types), we test whether individuals adhere to explicit preferences for organic eggs when the eggs differ only with respect to one attribute (organic versus conventional) but revert to implicit preferences for the cheaper, conventional eggs when an additional attribute (different painting types) dilutes their reasoning. This dilution weakens the signaling motive, allowing participants to justify their evaluation differently and enabling them to act on their implicit preferences. The theoretical framework assumes that we observe a participant’s revealed preferences, i.e., within-subject data. To address order effects, we will also use between-subject data by systematically varying the first joint evaluation. Furthermore, as people may publicly prefer organic eggs (explicit preference) but privately favor conventional eggs (implicit preference), the experiment will consist of two contextual treatments (between-subject design). A public treatment where individual evaluations will be revealed at the end of the experiment to the other participants and a private treatment where the individual evaluations remain concealed.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Dadic, Hana, Andrea Essl and Samuel Zumthurm. 2025. "Implicit and explicit preferences for conventional and organic food." AEA RCT Registry. April 04. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.15729-1.0
Sponsors & Partners

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
In an incentivized laboratory experiment, we will (1) systematically vary two product attributes to identify potential implicit and explicit preferences and we will (2) manipulate the decision context, where participants indicate their willingness-to-pay (WTP) for eggs with different attributes either in a private or in a public treatment.

1) The first varying factor are two binary product attributes (production method: organic versus conventional and painting technique: opaque versus marbled). The product attributes will systematically vary. Three joint evaluations of products are needed to reveal implicit preferences (within-subject-design). In one joint evaluation the products only vary in the production method (simple comparison). A higher evaluation of one product compared to the other product can be clearly attributed to a preference for a production method. In two joint evaluations the products vary in the production method and the coloring technique (complex comparisons). Here, a higher evaluation of one product compared to the other product cannot be clearly attributed to a preference for a production method or a coloring technique. This is called dilution and allows participants to act according to their implicit preferences. To mitigate potential order and consistency effects, we will also use between-subject data by systematically varying the first joint evaluation, such that each of the three joint evaluation is made with the equally likely as the first evaluation across sessions. This allows us to test whether the whole sample has implicit and explicit preferences.
2) The second varying factor is the contextual setting (between-subject). In the private treatment, participants' decisions remain anonymous. In the public treatment, participants know that one of their WTP decisions (randomly selected for payout) will be publicly revealed to all study participants.

We will elicit participants’ WTP using the Becker–DeGroot–Marschak (BDM) method. Participants receive an endowment and know that one of the products will randomly be drawn for their payout. If their stated WTP exceeds a randomly drawn price, they purchase the product at that randomly drawn price and receive the product and the payment (endowment minus randomly drawn price) at the end of the study; otherwise, they do not receive the product but keep the entire endowment.

Intervention Start Date
2025-04-07
Intervention End Date
2025-12-24

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Willingness-to-pay (WTP)
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
We will elicit participants’ WTP using the Becker–DeGroot–Marschak (BDM) method.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Social norms, self-signaling, social-signaling
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
In the laboratory experiment, participants will repeatedly indicate their WTP for product pairs in three joint evaluations, where two products are presented next to each other. Participants indicate their WTP for both products separately, resulting in six WTP entries per participant. Across three joint evaluations, the food products will systematically vary in the production method (conventional versus organic) and in the coloring technique (opaque versus marbled). In one joint evaluation, the two products only vary in the production method (simple comparison). Participants state their WTP for conventional marbled colored eggs and organic marbled colored eggs, allowing clear attribution of preferences to the production method. In two joint evaluations, both production method and painting type vary (complex comparison). In one complex joint evaluation, participants have to indicate their WTP for conventional marbled colored eggs and organic opaque colored eggs. In the other complex joint evaluation, participants have to indicate their WTP for organic marbled colored eggs and conventional opaque colored eggs. Since both attributes differ, any preference cannot be clearly attributed to a preference for a production method or a painting type. To minimize order and consistency effects, participant complete a filler task (identifying the most frequently occurring letter in a sequence) between each joint evaluation. In addition, the order of the three joint evaluations is randomized, ensuring that each appears equally likely as the first comparison. This design allows for between-subject analysis as a robustness check.

In addition, we aim to examine whether the presence of implicit and explicit preferences are influenced by the contextual setting, specifically, how participants behave when their WTPs are made private versus public. To explore this, we will use a between-subject design with two treatments: 1) In the public treatment, at the end of the experiment, one joint evaluation is randomly selected, and participants’ stated WTP for both products is disclosed to the other participants in the same session. Participants are informed at the beginning that any of their three joint evaluations could be selected and made visible. In the private treatment, the procedure is identical, except that participants' responses remain anonymous. Participants are informed that we use a double-blind design for the payout - a person in another room will prepare participants’ payout (product and/or cash) in an envelope and leave the room after everything is prepared. Participants will collect their payout autonomously without anyone else knowing what they received.

Furthermore, we elicit beliefs on descriptive and injunctive social norms. Belief elicitation will be incentivized and takes place after participants stated their WTP for all products. Participants will also complete a survey on self-report scales (e.g., social image concerns, self-image concerns, liking of products, attitude towards organic, frequency of buying organic, reasons to buy organic, barriers to buy organic, estimating food market prices, whether they know people participating in the same session) and answer demographic questions. We will examine whether intransitive choices are influenced by factors like social signaling, self-signaling and beliefs on social norms. Further, we will also measure reaction time in the joint evaluations, that is, the time participants need to indicate their WTP for both products within a joint evaluation.

Hypotheses

Dilution:

H1: Participants have explicit preferences for organic eggs and implicit preferences for conventional eggs.

H1a: Participants have a higher WTP for organic marbled colored eggs when they are compared to conventional marbled colored eggs (simple comparison) than when they are compared to conventional opaque colored eggs (complex comparison).

H1b: Participants have a higher WTP for conventional marbled colored eggs when they are compared to organic opaque colored eggs (complex comparison) than when they are compared to organic marbled colored eggs (simple comparison).

Signaling:

H2: Participants’ differences between implicit and explicit preferences are stronger in the public treatment than in the private treatment.

H2a: There is an interaction between dilution and decision context such that participants decrease their WTP for organic marbled colored eggs from the simple comparison to the complex comparison stronger when they are in the public treatment than when they are in the private treatment.

H2b: There is an interaction between dilution and decision context such that participants increase their WTP for conventional marbled colored eggs from the simple comparison to the complex decision stronger when they are in the public treatment than when they are in the private treatment.

Cunningham, T., & de Quidt, J. (2024). Implicit Preferences. https://jondequidt.com/pdfs/paper_implicit.pdf


Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Computer (lab experiment)
Randomization Unit
Experimental Session
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
The number of participants planned for the experiment is about 312 people. Participants who report a WTP of zero in all six WTP entries are excluded from the analyse
Sample size: planned number of observations
The number of participants planned for the experiment is about 312 people. Participants who report a WTP of zero in all six WTP entries are excluded from the analyses.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
About 156 participants per treatment
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
We aim for a sample of about 312 participants to detect a medium effect size of 0.40 (Cohen’s d) with an alpha error probability of 0.05 and a power of 0.80 using a two-sided Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test.
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
The Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences of the University of Bern
IRB Approval Date
2025-03-18
IRB Approval Number
132025
Analysis Plan

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information