This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

The Endowment Effect and Repeated Market Trials: Is the Vickrey Auction Demand Revealing?

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Jack Knetsch ()
Fang-Fang Tang ()
Richard Thaler ()

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

The difference between people's valuations of gains and losses has been widely observed in both single trial and repeated trial experiments, as well as in survey responses and in commonplace behavior. However, the results of some Vickrey auction experiments indicate that the disparity may decrease, or even disappear, over repeated trials. This paper reports the results of two further repeated Vickrey auction experiments that test the impact of both a second price and a ninth price auction rule on valuations. Although valuations should be independent of this variation in the exchange price rule, the manipulation had a dramatic impact on subjects' stated values of a common market good. The results suggest that the endowment effect remains robust over repeated trials, and that contrary to common understanding, the Vickrey auction may elicit differing demands dependent on the context of the valuation. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1013221421382
File Format: text/html
File Function:
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Publisher Info
Article provided by Springer in its journal Experimental Economics.

Volume (Year): 4 (2001)
Issue (Month): 3 (December)
Pages: 257-269
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:kap:expeco:v:4:y:2001:i:3:p:257-269

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=102888

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).

Related research
Keywords: endowment effect; learning; Vickrey auctions;

References listed on IDEAS
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. Shogren, Jason F. & Seung Y. Shin & Dermot J. Hayes & James B. Kliebenstein, 1994. "Resolving Differences in Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(1), pages 255-70, March.
  2. Harless, David W., 1989. "More laboratory evidence on the disparity between willingness to pay and compensation demanded," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 359-379, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  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. Vernon L. Smith, 1980. "Relevance of Laboratory Experiments to Testing Resource Allocation Theory," NBER Chapters, in: Evaluation of Econometric Models, pages 345-377 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. [Downloadable!]
  5. Knetsch, Jack L & Sinden, J A, 1984. "Willingness to Pay and Compensation Demanded: Experimental Evidence of an Unexpected Disparity in Measures of Value," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 99(3), pages 507-21, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. Shogren, Jason F & Hayes, Dermot J, 1997. "Resolving Differences in Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(1), pages 241-44, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  7. Tversky, Amos & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Anomalies: Preference Reversals," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 201-11, Spring. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  8. Kachelmeier, Steven J & Shehata, Mohamed, 1992. "Examining Risk Preferences under High Monetary Incentives: Experimental Evidence from the People's Republic of China," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(5), pages 1120-41, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

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. Stéphane Robin & Anne Rozan & Bernard Ruffieux, 2007. "Mesurer les préférences du consommateur pour orienter les décisions des pouvoirs publics : l’apport de la méthode expérimentale," Working Papers 0723, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique (GATE), Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), Université Lyon 2, Ecole Normale Supérieure. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  2. 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!]
  3. Fabio Tufano, 2008. "Are ‘True’ Preferences Revealed in Repeated Markets? An Experimental Demonstration of Context-dependent Valuations," Discussion Papers 2008-12, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham. [Downloadable!]
  4. Jay R. Corrigan & Matthew C. Rousu, 2006. "Posted Prices and Bid Affiliation: Evidence from Experimental Auctions," Working Papers 0602, Kenyon College, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  5. Graham Loomes & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2003. "Do Anomalies Disappear in Repeated Markets?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 113(486), pages C153-C166, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  6. Charles R. Plott & Kathryn Zeiler, 2005. "The Willingness to Pay–Willingness to Accept Gap, the "Endowment Effect," Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 530-545, June. [Downloadable!]
  7. Huffman, Wallace & Rousu, Matthew & Shogren, Jason F. & Tegene, Abebayehu, 2002. "Should the United States Regulate Mandatory Labeling for Genetically Modified Foods?," Staff General Research Papers 10047, Iowa State University, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
  8. Lucy Ackert & Narat Charupat & Bryan Church & Richard Deaves, 2006. "An experimental examination of the house money effect in a multi-period setting," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 5-16, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  9. John C. Bernard, 2005. "Evidence of affiliation of values in a repeated trial auction experiment," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 12(11), pages 687-691, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  10. Robin P. Cubitt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2001. "Discovered preferences and the experimental evidence of violations of expected utility theory," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 8(3), pages 385-414, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  11. John A. List, 2004. "Substitutability, Experience, and the Value Disparity: Evidence from the Marketplace," Framed Field Experiments 0048, The Field Experiments Website. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  12. Rousu, Matthew & Huffman, Wallace & Shogren, Jason F. & Tegene, Abebayehu, 2002. "Are U.S. Consumers Tolerant of GM Foods?," Staff General Research Papers 10050, Iowa State University, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  13. Jayson Lusk & Ted Schroeder, 2006. "Auction Bids and Shopping Choices," Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy, Berkeley Electronic Press, vol. 6(1), pages 1539-1539. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  14. Bernard, John C. & Zhang, Chao & Gifford, Katie, 2006. "An Experimental Investigation of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Non-GM Foods When an Organic Option Is Present," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 35(2), October. [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? All the bibliographic data shown here has been contributed by volunteers, thereby helping to keep this service free.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-7.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.