<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><xml><records><record><source-app name="HighWire" version="7.x">Drupal-HighWire</source-app><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lloyd-Smith, Patrick</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Adamowicz, Wiktor</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dupont, Diane</style></author></authors><secondary-authors></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Incorporating Stated Consequentiality Questions in Stated Preference Research</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Land Economics</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2019</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2019-08-01 00:00:00</style></date></pub-dates></dates><pages><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">293-306</style></pages><doi><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10.3368/le.95.3.293</style></doi><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">95</style></volume><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></issue><abstract><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Although consequentiality has transformed the focus of stated preference research, there are concerns with including elicited consequentiality perceptions in econometric models. We test the effect of varying the order of the valuation and consequentiality questions using data from a drinking water reliability survey. We find that this ordering has a substantial impact on consequentiality perceptions. We address the potential endogeneity of consequentiality perceptions and find that they do not have a significant impact on voting. These results provide caution on the use of consequentiality questions and suggest these questions may not be a panacea for stated preference validity issues. (JEL Q25, Q51)</style></abstract></record></records></xml>