What are the consequences of consequentiality?

Abstract

We offer an empirical test of a theoretical result in the contingent valuation literature. Specifically, it has been argued from a theoretical point of view that survey participants who perceive a survey to be "consequential" will respond to questions truthfully regardless of the degree of perceived consequentiality. Using survey data from the Iowa Lakes Project, we test this supposition. Specifically, we employ a Bayesian treatment effect model in which the degree of perceived consequentiality, measured as an ordinal response, is permitted to have a structural impact on willingness to pay (WTP) for a hypothetical environmental improvement. We test our theory by determining if the WTP distributions are the same for each value of the ordinal response.In our survey data, a subsample of individuals were randomly assigned supporting information suggesting that their responses to the questionnaires were important and will have an impact on policy decisions. In conjunction with a Bayesian posterior simulator, we use this source of exogenous variation to identify the structural impacts of consequentiality perceptions on willingness to pay, while controlling for the potential of confounding on unobservables. We find evidence consistent with the "knife-edge" theoretical results, namely that the willingness to pay distributions are equal among those believing the survey to be at least minimally consequential, and different for those believing that the survey is irrelevant for policy purposes.

Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments

“…This finding contrasts the sharper empirical results in the existing literature (e.g. Herriges et al, 2010), but nevertheless highlights the importance of 30 consequentiality and the potential value in including pertinent survey questions. The evidence lends support to the view that the notion of consequentiality is more important than the "real vs.…”

From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better than No Number?

“…These results jibe well with nonexperianswering the value elicitation question. These results jibe well with nonexperimental evidence suggesting that surveys including explicit discussions on how the mental evidence suggesting that surveys including explicit discussions on how the results might infl uence policy produce different estimates than those that do not results might infl uence policy produce different estimates than those that do not (as in Herriges, Kling, Liu, and Tobias 2010). (as in Herriges, Kling, Liu, and Tobias 2010).…”

“…Herriges, tion we can make about how the respondent will answer the survey question. Herriges, Kling, Liu, and Tobias (2010) show that estimates of economic value from people who Kling, Liu, and Tobias (2010) show that estimates of economic value from people who received a consequentiality reminder are systematically different from those who did received a consequentiality reminder are systematically different from those who did not. However, empirical work on the effect of consequentiality scripts in stated prefernot.…”

Fat tails and truncated bids in contingent valuation: an application to an endangered shorebird species

“…In order for respondents to provide meaningful data, they need to believe that the survey is consequential and that their responses matter for policy purposes. At least two recent studies are designed to address consequentiality (Herriges et al 2010;Petrolia et al, 2014). Both appear to have fat tails, suggesting that a lack of Again, we see fat tails as a manifestation of hypothetical bias (the tendency of people to report a value other than their true value due to the hypothetical nature of a survey) and not an isolated contingent valuation issue.…”