IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/scotjp/v47y2000i2p183-197.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Endowment Effect and Expected Utility

Author

Listed:
  • Gwendolyn, C. Morrison

Abstract

The endowment effect, which is well documented in the contingent valuation literature, alters people’s preferences according to a reference point established in an elicitation question. In particular, the utility that people place on a bundle is both a positive function of the quantities of the goods comprising the bundle, and a negative function of any loss (real or hypothetical) that the elicitation question asks them to incur. Biases such as this have lead some to reject the contingent valuation method as a means of quantifying costs and benefits in favour of other methods of preference elicitation such as standard gambles. But, most preference elicitation methods used by economists require people to express their preferences for one good in terms of their willingness to forego some of another good. Consequently, it is reasonable to expect that, and prudent to check whether, an endowment effect is also evident in other methods of preference elicitation such as von Neumann‐Morgenstern’s standard gambles. Internal inconsistencies in the standard gamble method from the experimental economics literature and from a study into the value of non‐fatal road injuries are shown to be evidence that an endowment effect is also at work in standard gambles.

Suggested Citation

  • Gwendolyn, C. Morrison, 2000. "The Endowment Effect and Expected Utility," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 47(2), pages 183-197, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:scotjp:v:47:y:2000:i:2:p:183-197
    DOI: 10.1111/1467-9485.00159
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9485.00159
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1467-9485.00159?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
    ---><---

    More about this item

    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:bla:scotjp:v:47:y:2000:i:2:p:183-197. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sesssea.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.