Disentangling the effects of policy and payment consequentiality and risk attitudes on stated preferences

Incentivizing respondents to truthfully reveal their preferences in stated preference surveys requires that they believe their survey responses can influence decisions related to the outcome in question (policy consequentiality) and that they will have to bear their share of the coercive cost if the outcome is implemented (payment consequentiality). We investigate the effects of these two aspects of perceived consequentiality on stated preferences in a field survey concerning renewable energy development in Poland. We find that beliefs in policy and payment consequentiality strengthen the respondents’ interest in having the project implemented. However, policy consequentiality decreases and payment consequentiality increases their sensitivity to the project cost, which, respectively, increases and decreases their willingness-to-pay for the project. We conclude that the two aspects of consequentiality should be addressed separately. Additionally, we inquire the theoretically speculated links between the respondents’ perceptions of policy and payment consequentiality and their risk attitudes, and we find no significant relationship.