IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ecinqu/v33y1995i1p134-41.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Asymmetric Valuation of Gains and Losses and Preference Order Assumptions

Author

Listed:
  • Knetsch, Jack L

Abstract

Recent findings of large differences between people's valuations of gains and losses imply that the common preference order axioms of completeness, transitivity, and dominance on which economic analyses and predictions of consumer behavior are largely based, may not be consistent with actual choices. This paper reports the results of an experimental test of the preference order assumptions using real exchanges of two goods and money. The findings show consistent differences in the valuation placed on goods and money, depending on whether the entitlements are being acquired or given up, and provide direct evidence of preference assumption violations. Copyright 1995 by Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Knetsch, Jack L, 1995. "Asymmetric Valuation of Gains and Losses and Preference Order Assumptions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 33(1), pages 134-141, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:ecinqu:v:33:y:1995:i:1:p:134-41
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Sun, Lili & van Kooten, G. Cornelis & Voss, Graham M., 2006. "Quality of Life as an Explanation of the Divergence between Ranchers' WTA and WTP for Public Forage," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21162, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Courard-Hauri, David, 2007. "Using Monte Carlo analysis to investigate the relationship between overconsumption and uncertain access to one's personal utility function," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 152-162, October.
    3. Peter R. Mueser & Jay K. Dow, 1998. "Experimental Evidence on the Divergence Between Measures of Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept--The Role of Value Uncertainty," Experimental 9803001, EconWPA.
    4. Bruno S. Frey & Simon Luechinger, 2005. "Measuring terrorism," Chapters,in: Law and the State, chapter 6 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. de Groot, I. Manon & Antonides, Gerrit & Read, Daniel & Raaij, W. Fred van, 2009. "The effects of direct experience on consumer product evaluation," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 509-518, June.
    6. 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.
    7. Brown, Thomas C. & Gregory, Robin, 1999. "Why the WTA-WTP disparity matters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 323-335, March.
    8. repec:eee:touman:v:34:y:2013:i:c:p:172-183 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Coelho, Philip R. P. & McClure, James E., 1998. "Social context and the utility of wealth: Addressing the Markowitz challenge," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 305-314, November.
    10. Sun, Lili & van Kooten, G. Cornelis & Voss, Graham M., 2009. "What accounts for the divergence between ranchers' WTA and WTP for public forage?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 271-279, July.
    11. Borges, Bernhard F. J. & Knetsch, Jack L., 1998. "Tests of market outcomes with asymmetric valuations of gains and losses: Smaller gains, fewer trades, and less value," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 185-193, January.
    12. Ahlheim, Michael & Frör, Oliver & Heinke, Antonia & Duc, Nguyen Minh & Dinh, Pham Van, 2010. "Labour as a utility measure in contingent valuation studies: how good is it really?," FZID Discussion Papers 13-2010, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).

    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:oup:ecinqu:v:33:y:1995:i:1:p:134-41. 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: (Oxford University Press) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/weaaaea.html .

    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 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.

    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.