2011) using the Contingent valuation (CV) as well as the Inferred valuation (IV) method (Lusk and Norwood 2009b). We find that when moving in the context of a familiar market for consumers (i.e., the food market) we only observe weak effects of inconsistencies. In addition, we find that the IV method is no better (and no worse) than the CV method in generating more consistent preference orderings. Surprisingly, we also find that the IV method generates higher valuations than CV, rendering one of its advantages of mitigating social desirability bias questionable.