IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/beh/jbepv1/v9y2025i2p29-38.html

What Makes Buyers Willing to Pay More? On the Role of Touch in the Endowment Effect

Author

Listed:
  • Daniela Raeva-Beri

    (Anglia Ruskin University, East Road, Cambridge; University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham)

  • Cathrine V. Jansson-Boyd

    (Anglia Ruskin University, East Road, Cambridge)

Abstract

Touch has been shown to increase product valuation. Yet, the role of touch in the endowment effect – the tendency for sellers to value a good they own more than buyers do – has received little empirical attention and has been confounded with ownership, as sellers are typically handed a good and told they own it, whereas neither applies to buyers. We report an experiment in which we isolated the effect of touch in the absence of ownership. Buyers' valuations were compared across conditions with and without touch, including a novel 'Touch only' modality, and touch valence (pleasant vs. unpleasant to touch), considering also buyers' need for touch characteristics. We found that touch increased buyers' valuations for a pleasant-to-touch good, with stronger effects for individuals high in instrumental need for touch. In addition, we provide a conceptual contribution to understanding the endowment effect and outline policy implications of varying touch availability and valence.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniela Raeva-Beri & Cathrine V. Jansson-Boyd, 2025. "What Makes Buyers Willing to Pay More? On the Role of Touch in the Endowment Effect," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 9(2), pages 29-38, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:beh:jbepv1:v:9:y:2025:i:2:p:29-38
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://sabeconomics.org/journal/RePEc/beh/JBEPv1/articles/JBEP-9-2-3.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Loomis, John B., 1990. "Comparative reliability of the dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent valuation techniques," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 78-85, January.
    2. Loewenstein, George & Adler, Daniel, 1995. "A Bias in the Prediction of Tastes," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 105(431), pages 929-937, July.
    3. Loomes, Graham & Moffatt, Peter G & Sugden, Robert, 2002. "A Microeconometric Test of Alternative Stochastic Theories of Risky Choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 103-130, March.
    4. Belk, Russell W, 1988. "Possessions and the Extended Self," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(2), pages 139-168, September.
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Sugden, Robert & Wang, Mengjie & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2019. "Take it or leave it: Experimental evidence on the effect of time-limited offers on consumer behaviour," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 1-23.
    7. Ozgun Atasoy & Carey K Morewedge & Vicki MorwitzEditor & Kristin DiehlAssociate Editor, 2018. "Digital Goods Are Valued Less Than Physical Goods," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 44(6), pages 1343-1357.
    8. 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 1325-1348, December.
    9. Pino, Giovanni & Amatulli, Cesare & Nataraajan, Rajan & De Angelis, Matteo & Peluso, Alessandro M. & Guido, Gianluigi, 2020. "Product touch in the real and digital world: How do consumers react?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 492-501.
    10. Knetsch, Jack L, 1989. "The Endowment Effect and Evidence of Nonreversible Indifference Curves," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(5), pages 1277-1284, December.
    11. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    12. Hans J. Czap & Natalia V. Czap, 2022. "Behaviorally-informed framework for encouraging COVID-19 vaccinations," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 6(1), pages 21-26, December.
    13. repec:beh:jbepv1:v:7:y:2023:i:2:p:39-46 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Peck, Joann & Childers, Terry L, 2003. "Individual Differences in Haptic Information Processing: The "Need for Touch" Scale," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 30(3), pages 430-442, December.
    15. van Dijk, Eric & van Knippenberg, Daan, 1996. "Buying and selling exchange goods: Loss aversion and the endowment effect," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 517-524, August.
    16. Langford, Ian H. & Bateman, Ian J., 1996. "Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 265-267, December.
    17. Joann Peck & Suzanne B. Shu, 2009. "The Effect of Mere Touch on Perceived Ownership," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 36(3), pages 434-447.
    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. Mandel, David R., 2002. "Beyond mere ownership: transaction demand as a moderator of the endowment effect," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 737-747, July.
    2. Kogler, Christoph & Kühberger, Anton & Gilhofer, Rainer, 2013. "Real and hypothetical endowment effects when exchanging lottery tickets: Is regret a better explanation than loss aversion?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 42-53.
    3. Qin, Dan, 2024. "Differentiating roles of the reference alternative," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 196-221.
    4. Eldar Shafir, 2003. "Context, conflict, weights, and identities: some psychological aspects of decision making," Conference Series ; [Proceedings], Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, vol. 48(Jun).
    5. Domenico Colucci & Chiara Franco & Vincenzo Valori, 2021. "Endowment effects at different time scenarios: the role of ownership and possession," Discussion Papers 2021/279, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    6. Bernardes, Luis G., 2003. "Reference-dependent preferences and the speed of economic liberalization," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 521-548, November.
    7. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    8. repec:jdm:journl:v:17:y:2022:i:5:p:988-1014 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Roth, Gerrit, 2006. "Predicting the Gap between Willingness to Accept and Willingness to Pay," Munich Dissertations in Economics 4901, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    10. Simon Gächter & Eric J. Johnson & Andreas Herrmann, 2022. "Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 599-624, April.
    11. Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus & Köhler, Katrin, 2016. "Exchange asymmetries for bads? Experimental evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 231-241.
    12. Daniel Villanova, 2019. "The extended self, product valuation, and the endowment effect," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 9(3), pages 357-371, December.
    13. Yuanji Wen & Stijn Masschelein & Anmol Ratan, 2022. "Loss aversion in asymmetric anti‐coordination games," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 88(4), pages 1549-1573, April.
    14. Bélyácz, Iván & Kovács, Kármen, 2018. "A birtoklási hatás megnyilvánulásának háttere és következményei. A kilátáselmélet alkalmazása fogyasztási döntésekre [Background and consequences of the endowment effect. Applying prospect theory to consumer decision-making]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(4), pages 382-401.
    15. Xingrong Hou & Jianmin Zeng & Hong Chen & Li Su, 2019. "The endowment effect in the genes: An exploratory study," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(3), pages 293-298, May.
    16. Eduard Marinov, 2017. "The 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 117-159.
    17. Nobel Prize Committee, 2017. "Richard H. Thaler: Integrating Economics with Psychology," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2017-1, Nobel Prize Committee.
    18. Erica Mina Okada, 2010. "Uncertainty, Risk Aversion, and WTA vs. WTP," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 75-84, 01-02.
    19. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ballester, 2009. "A theory of reference-dependent behavior," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 427-455, September.
    20. Langer, Thomas & Waller, Peter, 1997. "Implementing behavioral concepts into banking theory : the impact of loss acersion on collateralization," Papers 97-33, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    21. Andrea Isoni & Graham Loomes & Robert Sugden, 2011. "The Willingness to Pay—Willingness to Accept Gap, the "Endowment Effect," Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 991-1011, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:beh:jbepv1:v:9:y:2025:i:2:p:29-38. 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: SABE Journal JBEP (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sabeeea.html .

    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.