IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecj/ac2002/132.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do Anomalies Disappear in Repeated Markets?

Author

Listed:
  • Loomes, Graham

    (University of East Anglia)

  • Chris Starmer

    (University of Nottingham)

  • Robert Sugden

    (University of East Anglia)

Abstract

There is some evidence that, as individuals participate in repeated markets, "anomalies" tend to disappear. One interpretation is that individuals — particularly marginal traders — are learning to act on underlying preferences which satisfy standard assumptions. An alternative interpretation, the "shaping" hypothesis, is that individuals" preferences are adjusting in response to cues given by market prices. The paper reports an experiment designed to discriminate between these hypotheses with particular reference to the disparity between willingness to pay and willingness to accept. Copyright Royal Economic Society 2003
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Loomes, Graham & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2002. "Do Anomalies Disappear in Repeated Markets?," Royal Economic Society Annual Conference 2002 132, Royal Economic Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ecj:ac2002:132
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repec.org/res2002/Loomes.pdf
    File Function: full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shogren, Jason F. & Cho, Sungwon & Koo, Cannon & List, John & Park, Changwon & Polo, Pablo & Wilhelmi, Robert, 2001. "Auction mechanisms and the measurement of WTP and WTA," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 97-109, April.
    2. David M. Grether & James C. Cox, 1996. "The preference reversal phenomenon: Response mode, markets and incentives (*)," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 7(3), pages 381-405.
    3. Jack Knetsch & Fang-Fang Tang & Richard Thaler, 2001. "The Endowment Effect and Repeated Market Trials: Is the Vickrey Auction Demand Revealing?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 4(3), pages 257-269, December.
    4. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    5. Franciosi Robert & Isaac R. Mark & Pingry David E. & Reynolds Stanley S., 1993. "An Experimental Investigation of the Hahn-Noll Revenue Neutral Auction for Emissions Licenses," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 1-24, January.
    6. Binmore, Ken, 1999. "Why Experiment in Economics?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 109(453), pages 16-24, February.
    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. Isoni, Andrea & Brooks, Peter & Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 2016. "Do markets reveal preferences or shape them?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 1-16.
    2. Loomes, Graham & Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 2010. "Preference reversals and disparities between willingness to pay and willingness to accept in repeated markets," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 374-387, June.
    3. Jose-Luis Pinto-Prades & Jose-Maria Abellan-Perpiñan, 2012. "When normative and descriptive diverge: how to bridge the difference," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(4), pages 569-584, April.
    4. Braga, Jacinto & Humphrey, Steven J. & Starmer, Chris, 2009. "Market experience eliminates some anomalies--and creates new ones," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 401-416, May.
    5. Robin Cubitt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2001. "Discovered preferences and the experimental evidence of violations of expected utility theory," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(3), pages 385-414.
    6. Jay R. Corrigan & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Matthew C. Rousu, 2012. "Repeated Rounds with Price Feedback in Experimental Auction Valuation: An Adversarial Collaboration," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 97-115.
    7. Andreas C. Drichoutis & Panagiotis Lazaridis & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2009. "Would consumers value food-away-from-home products with nutritional labels?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(4), pages 550-575.
    8. Andrea Isoni, 2011. "The willingness-to-accept/willingness-to-pay disparity in repeated markets: loss aversion or ‘bad-deal’ aversion?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(3), pages 409-430, September.
    9. Drichoutis, Andreas & Nayga, Rodolfo & Klonaris, Stathis, 2010. "The Effects of Induced Mood on Preference Reversals and Bidding Behavior in Experimental Auction Valuation," MPRA Paper 25597, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Gijs Kuilen & Peter Wakker, 2006. "Learning in the Allais paradox," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 155-164, December.
    11. Ben McQuillin & Robert Sugden, 2012. "Reconciling normative and behavioural economics: the problems to be solved," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(4), pages 553-567, April.
    12. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Lazaridis, Panagiotis, 2012. "When a risky prospect is valued more than its best possible outcome," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 1-18, January.
    13. Shogren, Jason F., 2002. "A behavioral mindset on environment policy," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 355-369.
    14. R. Karina Gallardo & Ines Hanrahan & Chengyan Yue & Vicki A. McCracken & James Luby & James R. McFerson & Carolyn Ross & Lilian Carrillo†Rodriguez, 2018. "Combining sensory evaluations and experimental auctions to assess consumers’ preferences for fresh fruit quality characteristics," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 407-425, March.
    15. Ty Feldkamp & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Experimental Auction Procedure: Impact on Valuation of Quality Differentiated Goods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 389-405.
    16. Li, Yingzi & Gallardo, R. Karina & McCracken, Vicki A. & Yue, Chengyan & Luby, James & McFerson, James R., 2014. "How does the revelation of previous bid affect new bid?," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170439, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. 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.
    18. List, John A., 2004. "Substitutability, experience, and the value disparity: evidence from the marketplace," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 486-509, May.
    19. Robin Cubitt, 2005. "Experiments and the domain of economic theory," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 197-210.
    20. Andreas Drichoutis & Rodolfo Nayga & Panagiotis Lazaridis & Beom Park, 2011. "A Consistent Econometric Test for Bid Interdependence in Repeated Second-Price Auctions with Posted Prices," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 39(4), pages 329-341, December.

    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:ecj:ac2002:132. 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: Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/resssea.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.