An experimental test of response consistency in contingent valuation

We compare hypothetical and observed (experimental) willingness to pay (WTP) for a gradual improvement in the environmental performance of a marketed good (an office table). First, following usual practices in marketing research, subjects’ stated WTP for the improvement is obtained. Second, the same subjects participate in a real reward experiment designed to replicate the scenario valued in the hypothetical question. Our results show that, independently of the degree of the improvement, there are no significant median differences between stated and experimental data. However, subjects reporting extreme values of WTP (low or high) exhibit a more moderate behavior in the experiment.