IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jdm/journl/v7y2012i3p254-267.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Focusing on what you own: Biased information uptake due to ownership

Author

Listed:
  • Nathaniel J. S. Ashby
  • Stephan Dickert
  • Andreas Glockner

Abstract

The endowment effect has been debated for over 30 years. Recent research suggests that differential focus of attention might play a role in shaping preferences. In two studies we investigated the role of biased attention in the emergence of endowment effects. We thereby derive predictions from an extended version of evidence accumulation models by additionally assuming a bias in attentional allocation based on one's endowment status. We test these predictions against an alternative account in which the endowment effect is the result of initial anchoring and adjustment differences (Sequential Value Matching model; Johnson & Busemeyer, 2005). In both studies we add deliberation time constraints to a standard Willingness-to-Accept/Willingness-to-Pay paradigm and consistently find that the endowment effect grows as deliberation time increases. In Study 2 we additionally use eye tracking and find that buyers focus more on value decreasing attributes than sellers (and vice versa for value increasing attributes). This shift in attention plays a pivotal role in the construction of value and partially mediates the endowment effect.

Suggested Citation

  • Nathaniel J. S. Ashby & Stephan Dickert & Andreas Glockner, 2012. "Focusing on what you own: Biased information uptake due to ownership," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(3), pages 254-267, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:jdm:journl:v:7:y:2012:i:3:p:254-267
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://journal.sjdm.org/11/11915a/jdm11915a.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://journal.sjdm.org/11/11915a/jdm11915a.html
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jack L. Knetsch & J. A. Sinden, 1984. "Willingness to Pay and Compensation Demanded: Experimental Evidence of an Unexpected Disparity in Measures of Value," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 99(3), pages 507-521.
    2. Alessandro Innocenti & Alessandra Rufa & Jacopo Semmoloni, 2009. "Overconfident Behavior In Informational Cascades: An Eye-Tracking Study," Department of Economic Policy, Finance and Development (DEPFID) University of Siena 1109, Department of Economic Policy, Finance and Development (DEPFID), University of Siena.
    3. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    4. Charles R. Plott & Kathryn Zeiler, 2007. "Exchange Asymmetries Incorrectly Interpreted as Evidence of Endowment Effect Theory and Prospect Theory?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1449-1466, September.
    5. van Dijk, Eric & van Knippenberg, Daan, 1998. "Trading wine: On the endowment effect, loss aversion, and the comparability of consumer goods," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 485-495, August.
    6. 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.
    7. Brown, Thomas C., 2005. "Loss aversion without the endowment effect, and other explanations for the WTA-WTP disparity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 367-379, July.
    8. Greiner, Ben, 2004. "An Online Recruitment System for Economic Experiments," MPRA Paper 13513, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Strahilevitz, Michal A & Loewenstein, George, 1998. " The Effect of Ownership History on the Valuation of Objects," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 276-289, December.
    10. Michael Schulte-Mecklenbeck & Anton Kuhberger & Rob Ranyard, 2011. "The role of process data in the development and testing of process models of judgment and decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 733-739, December.
    11. 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.
    12. K. Carrie Armel & Aurelie Beaumel & Antonio Rangel, 2008. "Biasing simple choices by manipulating relative visual attention," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 396-403, June.
    13. Stephan Dickert & Paul Slovic, 2009. "Attentional mechanisms in the generation of sympathy," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(4), pages 297-306, June.
    14. Eisenberger, Roselies & Weber, Martin, 1995. "Willingness-to-Pay and Willingness-to-Accept for Risky and Ambiguous Lotteries," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 223-233, May.
    15. K. Carrie Armel & Antonio Rangel, 2008. "The Impact of Computation Time and Experience on Decision Values," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(2), pages 163-168, May.
    16. Ana M. Franco-Watkins & Joseph G. Johnson, 2011. "Applying the decision moving window to risky choice: Comparison of eye-tracking and mousetracing methods," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 740-749, December.
    17. Carmon, Ziv & Ariely, Dan, 2000. " Focusing on the Forgone: How Value Can Appear So Different to Buyers and Sellers," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(3), pages 360-370, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thomas, Veronica L. & Yeh, Marie & Jewell, Robert D., 2015. "Enhancing valuation: the impact of self-congruence with a brand on the endowment effect," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 178-185.
    2. Lunn, Pete & Lunn, Mary, 2014. "A Computational Theory of Willingness to Exchange," Papers WP477, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    3. Axelrad, Hila & Luski, Israel & Malul, Miki, 2016. "Behavioral biases in the labor market, differences between older and younger individuals," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 23-28.
    4. Nathaniel J.S. Ashby & Lukasz Walasek & Andreas Glöckner, 2015. "The effect of consumer ratings and attentional allocation on product valuations," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(2), pages 172-184, March.
    5. Lu, Jingyi & Jia, Huiyuan & Xie, Xiaofei & Wang, Qiuhong, 2016. "Missing the best opportunity; who can seize the next one? Agents show less inaction inertia than personal decision makers," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 100-112.
    6. Enrico Rubaltelli & Stephan Dickert & Paul Slovic, 2012. "Response mode, compatibility, and dual-processes in the evaluation of simple gambles: An eye-tracking investigation," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(4), pages 427-440, July.
    7. repec:kap:theord:v:84:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s11238-017-9607-y is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Arora, Poonam & Bert, Federico & Podesta, Guillermo & Krantz, David H., 2015. "Ownership effect in the wild: Influence of land ownership on agribusiness goals and decisions in the Argentine Pampas," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 162-170.
    9. Signe Waechter & Bernadette Sütterlin & Michael Siegrist, 2017. "Decision-Making Strategies for the Choice of Energy-friendly Products," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 81-103, March.

    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:jdm:journl:v:7:y:2012:i:3:p:254-267. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jonathan Baron). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.