1. List, John A & Shogren, Jason F, 1998. "The Deadweight Loss of Christmas: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1350-55, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
2. David M. Grether & James C. Cox, 1996. "The preference reversal phenomenon: Response mode, markets and incentives (*)," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 381-405.
3. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1325-48, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
4. Irwin, Julie R, et al, 1993. " Preference Reversals and the Measurement of Environmental Values," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 5-18, January.
5. Knetsch, Jack L, 1989. "The Endowment Effect and Evidence of Nonreversible Indifference Curves," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(5), pages 1277-84, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
6. Hsee, Christopher K., 1996. "The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 247-257, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
7. John A. List & David Lucking-Reiley, 2000. "Demand Reduction in Multiunit Auctions: Evidence from a Sportscard Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 961-972, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
8. Grether, David M & Plott, Charles R, 1979. "Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 623-38, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
9. Bazerman, Max H. & Moore, Don A. & Tenbrunsel, Ann E. & Wade-Benzoni, Kimberly A. & Blount, Sally, 1999. "Explaining how preferences change across joint versus separate evaluation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 41-58, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
10. John A. List, 2001. "Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1498-1507, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)

Cited by:
(explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)

1. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Lagerkvist, Carl-Johan, 2004. "Preferences With and Without Prices - does the price attribute affect behavior in stated preference surveys?," Working Papers in Economics 150, Göteborg University, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
   Other versions:
   • Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Frykblom & Carl Lagerkvist, 2007. "Preferences with and without prices - does the price attribute affect behavior in stated preference surveys?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(2), pages 155-164, October. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
2. Lusk, Jayson & Alexander, Corinne & Rousu, Matt, 2004. "Designing Experimental Auctions For Marketing Research: Effect Of Values, Distributions, And Mechanisms On Incentives For Truthful Bidding," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20202, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association). [Downloadable!]
3. Graham Loomes & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2007. "Preference reversals and disparities between willingness to pay and willingness to accept in repeated markets," Discussion Papers 2007-10, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham. [Downloadable!]
4. J.L. Lusk & T. Feldkamp & T.C. Schroeder, 2004. "Experimental Auction Procedure: Impact on Valuation of Quality Differentiated Goods," Artefactual Field Experiments 0069, The Field Experiments Website. [Downloadable!]
   Other versions:
   • Jayson L. Lusk & Ty Feldkamp & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Experimental Auction Procedure: Impact on Valuation of Quality Differentiated Goods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, American Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 389-405, 05. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
5. Ginger Zhe Jin & Andrew Kato & John A. List, 2006. "That's News to Me! Information Revelation in Professional Certification Markets," NBER Working Papers 12390, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
6. Jay R. Corrigan & Matthew C. Rousu, 2008. "Testing Whether Field Auction Experiments are Demand Revealing in Practice," Working Papers 0804, Kenyon College, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
   Other versions:
   • Corrigan, Jay R. & Rousu, Matthew C., 2008. "Testing Whether Field Auction Experiments Are Demand Revealing in Practice," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(2), August. [Downloadable!]
7. Munro, Alistair, 2007. "When is some number really better than no number? On the optimal choice between non-market valuation methods," MPRA Paper 8978, University Library of Munich, Germany. [Downloadable!]
8. Michael Haigh & John A. List, 2005. "Do Professional Traders Exhibit Myopic Loss Aversion? An Experimental Analysis," Artefactual Field Experiments 0045, The Field Experiments Website. [Downloadable!]
   Other versions:
   • Haigh, Michael & List, John, 2002. "Do Professional Traders Exhibit Myopic Loss Aversion? An Experimental Analysis," Working Papers 28554, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. [Downloadable!]
   • Michael S. Haigh & John A. List, 2005. "Do Professional Traders Exhibit Myopic Loss Aversion? An Experimental Analysis," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 60(1), pages 523-534, 02. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
9. Glenn Harrison & E. Rutström, 2009. "Expected utility theory and prospect theory: one wedding and a decent funeral," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 133-158, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
10. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2008. "Field Experiments in Economics: The Past, The Present, and The Future," NBER Working Papers 14356, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
    • Levitt, Steven D. & List, John A., 2009. "Field experiments in economics: The past, the present, and the future," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 1-18, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
11. Helen Levy & David Weir, 2009. "Take-Up of Medicare Part D: Results from the Health and Retirement Study," NBER Working Papers 14692, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. [Downloadable!] (restricted)