Recent research examining voting behavior in contingent valuation referenda informs on how consequential survey respondents behave and its impact on willingness-to-pay (WTP) values. This research attempts to examine whether this behavior holds across population subgroups. We consider resident and nonresident users of artificial reefs and find improved construct validity for our resident models over nonresident models. Specifically, resident behavior is in line with a priori expectations with consequential residents more likely to vote in favor of a policy for additional reef funding – a result that is consistent with the “protest no” literature. Consequently, consequential resident voters exhibit a greater WTP than inconsequential voters. Nonresident behavior differs, however. For this subgroup, consequentiality does not influence voting behavior and WTP values do not differ by consequentiality. Overall, more work is required to appropriately identify WTP values for nonresident populations, particularly from a benefit-cost perspective, where appropriately identifying subgroup WTP values are a critical component of measuring the net present value of a given policy.

This study measures willingness to pay (WTP) for extrinsic attributes (Angus, local, DNA traceable, raised carbon friendly, and humanely treated cattle) in steak and ground beef using choice-based experiments from a national consumer survey. Belief that survey responses could have consequences on beef products offered by the steak and ground beef industry is investigated, as well as its effect on attribute WTP. For most attributes, belief in consequentiality increases WTP. Results suggest that although consequentiality believers tend to place greater importance on certain food industry issues, they are less certain about the attribute's provision actually effecting change in the industry.

The objective of this study was to test for the effect of consequentiality on the probability of a respondent opting out of voting in a stated preference survey. We find that respondents who believe that the survey is inconsequential are more likely to opt out than to vote yes in both binomial-choice and multinomial-choice formats and are more likely to vote no than to opt out in the multinomial-choice format. We also find that respondents who are uncertain about consequentiality are more likely to opt out than to choose yes or no under both choice formats.