Preference reversals in contingent and inferred valuation methods

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.