IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/pubfin/v35y2007i2p199-214.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When the Shoe Is on the Other Foot

Author

Listed:
  • Lucy F. Ackert

    (Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, Georgia; Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Georgia)

  • Bryan K. Church

    (Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia)

  • Gerald P. Dwyer Jr.

    (Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Georgia)

Abstract

The method of elicitation has an important effect on valuations. We investigate the effect of perspective on decision makers' elicited values. We conduct experimental sessions in which participants act as sellers or buyers, and replicate the disparity between willingness to accept and willingness to pay: sellers want to collect more, and buyers want to pay less. We conduct additional sessions in which endowed decision makers provide values that are used to determine a price at which anonymous others transact. In these sessions, decision makers' experimental earnings are not affected by valuations but, rather, are determined by their endowment. Decision makers appear to consider their standing relative to anonymous others in providing valuations (i.e., decision makers' endowments affect their valuations). The results indicate that the disparity between willingness to accept and willingness to pay disappears when decision makers' endowments ensure that they are at least as well off as anonymous others.

Suggested Citation

  • Lucy F. Ackert & Bryan K. Church & Gerald P. Dwyer Jr., 2007. "When the Shoe Is on the Other Foot," Public Finance Review, , vol. 35(2), pages 199-214, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:pubfin:v:35:y:2007:i:2:p:199-214
    DOI: 10.1177/1091142106292776
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1091142106292776
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1091142106292776?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Davis, Douglas D. & Holt, Charles a., 1993. "Experimental economics: Methods, problems and promise," Estudios Económicos, El Colegio de México, Centro de Estudios Económicos, vol. 8(2), pages 179-212.
    2. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1986. "Fairness and the Assumptions of Economics," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 285-300, October.
    3. Todd L. Cherry & Peter Frykblom & Jason F. Shogren, 2002. "Hardnose the Dictator," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1218-1221, September.
    4. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    5. Axel Ockenfels & Gary E. Bolton, 2000. "ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 166-193, March.
    6. Van Boven, Leaf & Loewenstein, George & Dunning, David, 2003. "Mispredicting the endowment effect:: Underestimation of owners' selling prices by buyer's agents," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 351-365, July.
    7. Glenn W. Harrison & Ronald M. Harstad & E. Elisabet Rutstr–m, 2004. "Experimental Methods and Elicitation of Values," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(2), pages 123-140, June.
    8. Horowitz, John K. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 2002. "A Review of WTA/WTP Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 426-447, November.
    9. 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.
    10. Marshall, James D. & Knetsch, Jack L. & Sinden, J. A., 1986. "Agents' evaluations and the disparity in measures of economic loss," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 115-127, June.
    11. Thompson, Leigh & Hastie, Reid, 1990. "Social perception in negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 98-123, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lucy F. Ackert & Bryan K. Church & Gerald P. Dwyer, 2005. "When the shoe is on the other foot: experimental evidence on evaluation disparities," FRB Atlanta Working Paper 2005-17, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
    2. Emin Karagözoğlu & Elif Tosun, 2022. "Endogenous Game Choice and Giving Behavior in Distribution Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-32, November.
    3. Bernard Ruffieux & Anne Rozan & Stéphane Robin, 2008. "Mesurer les préférences du consommateur pour orienter les décisions des pouvoirs publics : l'apport de la méthode expérimentale," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 182(1), pages 113-127.
    4. Bodo Sturm & Joachim Weimann, 2006. "Experiments in Environmental Economics and Some Close Relatives," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 419-457, July.
    5. Bart J. Wilson, 2012. "Contra Private Fairness," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(2), pages 407-435, April.
    6. Kurtis Swope & John Cadigan & Pamela Schmitt & Robert Shupp, 2008. "Social Position and Distributive Justice: Experimental Evidence," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 74(3), pages 811-818, January.
    7. Gebhard Kirchgässner, 2014. "On Self-Interest and Greed," CREMA Working Paper Series 2014-12, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    8. Bartuli, Jenny & Djawadi, Behnud Mir & Fahr, René, 2016. "Business Ethics in Organizations: An Experimental Examination of Whistleblowing and Personality," IZA Discussion Papers 10190, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Eduard Marinov, 2017. "The 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 117-159.
    10. David L. Dickinson & Jill Tiefenthaler, 2002. "What Is Fair? Experimental Evidence," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 69(2), pages 414-428, October.
    11. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    12. Luigi Mittone & Matteo Ploner, 2006. "Is It Just Legitimacy of Endowments? An Experimental Analysis of Unilateral Giving," CEEL Working Papers 0602, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    13. Franzen, Axel & Pointner, Sonja, 2012. "Anonymity in the dictator game revisited," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 74-81.
    14. Heinz, Matthias & Juranek, Steffen & Rau, Holger A., 2012. "Do women behave more reciprocally than men? Gender differences in real effort dictator games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 105-110.
    15. Croson, Rachel & Konow, James, 2009. "Social preferences and moral biases," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 201-212, March.
    16. Nicholas, Aaron, 2012. "Fairness as a constraint on reciprocity: Playing simultaneously as dictator and trustee," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 211-221.
    17. José-Luis Godos-Díez & Roberto Fernández-Gago & Laura Cabeza-García, 2019. "How Does Reciprocity Affect Undergraduate Student Orientation towards Stakeholders?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-15, October.
    18. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2017. "Richard H. Thaler: Integrating Economics with Psychology," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2017-1, Nobel Prize Committee.
    19. Weimann Joachim, 2015. "Die Rolle von Verhaltensökonomik und experimenteller Forschung in Wirtschaftswissenschaft und Politikberatung," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 16(3), pages 231-252, October.
    20. Thunström, Linda, 2019. "Preferences for fairness over losses," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 83(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:pubfin:v:35:y:2007:i:2:p:199-214. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.