Existing Food Habits and Recent Choices Lead to Disregard of Food Safety Announcements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On whom do food safety announcements have the least impact? Building on research on cognitive dissonance and confirmatory bias, this study shows that consumers tend to inadequately process (food safety) information, pay limited attention to signals, and make purchase decisions that are biased toward their initial choices. Using an incentive compatible auction mechanism, this study elicited consumers' willingness to pay (WTP) under different informational settings. Results showed that consumers were willing to pay much higher prices when they chose to commit to food items (treatment) than when they were randomly assigned (control), suggesting cognitive dissonance. The gaps in WTP were further enlarged as food safety information was revealed to consumers. Confirmatory bias was supported by findings that those who made an earlier commitment were more reluctant to change their WTPs despite increased risk perceptions. In terms of market responses, demand curves were less likely to shift down in the presence of food safety risks because consumers were less responsive to public information due to their existing habits and psychological biases. Specialized targeted strategies will be necessary to target those who are heavy or recent users of the target food when there is a food safety scare.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".