Consumer Valuation of Poultry Stunning Methods: An Experimental Analysis of Willingness to Pay

Abstract

Animal welfare concerns have become increasingly important within food markets, yet relatively little research has examined consumer preferences for poultry stunning methods. This study investigates consumer willingness to pay (WTP) for chicken products produced using electrical stunning (ES) and controlled-atmosphere gas stunning (GS), while examining the effects of information provision, presentation order, consumer attitudes, and biometric responses on valuation behavior. The data was collected from 152 participants through an in-person experimental survey conducted at Auburn University. Respondents first reported a baseline willingness to pay for a typical two-pound package of chicken breast and were subsequently asked to evaluate products produced using alternative stunning methods. Participants were randomly assigned to either a brief or detailed information treatment and to one of two presentation orders. Throughout the experiment, eye-tracking, blink-rate, and facial-expression data were collected to measure visual attention, cognitive engagement, and emotional responses during decision-making. Consumer attitudes toward animal welfare and health concerns were measured using Likert-scale survey items and analyzed using exploratory factor analysis and Gaussian mixture clustering. Results identified three distinct consumer segments: Skeptics, Moderate Supporters, and Strong Advocates. Regression analysis revealed that attitudinal differences were among the strongest predictors of willingness-to-pay outcomes. Strong Advocates consistently reported higher premiums for electrically stunned products relative to Skeptics, while willingness-to-pay for gas-stunned products was more sensitive to interactions between consumer attitudes and experimental conditions. Information treatments alone produced limited effects on valuation behavior. Presentation order emerged as one of the most consistent findings, with respondents tending to place greater value on the stunning method presented first. In contrast, biometric measures of attention, cognitive load, and emotional response provided limited explanatory power for willingness-to-pay outcomes. Overall, the results suggest that consumer preferences for poultry stunning methods are driven primarily by underlying attitudes toward animal welfare and health-related production attributes rather than by additional information or biometric indicators of engagement. These findings contribute to the growing literature on animal welfare valuation and provide insights for producers, processors, and policymakers considering investments in alternative poultry stunning technologies.