Researchers, using contingent valuation (CV) to value changes in nonmarket
goods, typically believe respondents always answer questions truthfully or
they answer truthfully only when it is in their interest to do so. The second position,
while consistent with economic theory, implies that interpreting survey responses
depends critically on the incentive structure provided. We derive simple
tests capable of distinguishing the two views. Our theoretical model for examining
the incentive structure of a single binary choice relaxes the usual expected utility
assumption. We test our theory using a field experiment involving voting to provide
a public good. Experimental results are consistent theoretical predictions and
cast doubt on the relevance of a large experimental literature using inconsequential
questions and non-incentive-compatible mechanisms to make inferences about CV.
The framework put forth should help in understanding the role played by theoretical
conditions for preference elicitation and lend insight into the hypothetical bias
literature.