A survey on transport-related issues was mailed to 2500 randomly selected individuals aged between 18 and 65 years in Sweden (response rate = 62%). The respondents were first asked how they would value certain attributes if they were about to buy a car for themselves (very important = 3, fairly important = 2, fairly unimportant = 1, and completely unimportant = 0) Then, respondens were asked to judge how the average Svensson would value these characteristics. Furthermore, a sample of 100 car-dealers (83 responses) in Sweden was randomly selected. They were asked questions about how the average Swede would value the same attributes. Results:Go and read this paper for an interpretation of the results. The conclusion: "The present paper provides survey evidence that people do care about both status value and environmental performance when they are about to buy a car, and that we tend to be more concerned with status, and less concerned with the environment, than we would admit even to ourselves. Even though these findings are all inconsistent with conventional textbook theory, they are consistent with a simple modification of the standard theory, where self-image is an element of the utility function, e.g. as in the model by Akerlof and Kranton (2000, 2002). Hence, people derive utility from having a good self-image, and this self-image is determined in part by the perception of one’s own preferences. On average, people consider it bad to be concerned about status and good to be concerned about the environment. The suggested self-image model also includes an honesty effect that moderates the perception bias. We have also found evidence that people’s perceptions of others’ preferences are biased for two reasons (in opposite directions): i. People want to see themselves as better than others, implying biased perceptions of others in what is perceived to be a negative direction, and ii. People are influenced by preference falsification prior to the survey situation. For example, people will in daily conversation give the impression that they are much more concerned about the environment than they actually are. Consequently, people may believe that others are more concerned than they are, or, more generally, have preferences more in accordance with social norms than they do. The systematic biases that occurred in the survey situation have been assumed to exist due to self-image effects rather than self-presentation effects (through preference falsification), since the survey was perfectly anonymous. However, it cannot be ruled out that some respondents did not perceive the survey to be perfectly anonymous, and that they have perceived that they communicated with someone who could, at least partly, observe them. If so, parts of what has been interpreted as selfimage effects may in fact be self-presentation effects."