Abstract
We examine inconsistencies in preference orderings (Alevy et al. 2011) using the Contingent valuation (CV) as well as the Inferred valuation (IV) method (Lusk and Norwood 2009a,b). We find that when moving in the context of a food market we only observe weak effects of inconsistencies. In addition, we find that the IV method is more susceptible to inconsistent preference orderings than the CV method. We also find that the IV method generates higher valuations than CV in case of consumers with high commitment costs but successfully mitigates social desirability bias in case of low commitment costs and high normative motivations.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
