A test of diminishing marginal value
The notion of diminishing marginal value had a profound impact on the development of neoclassical theory. Early neoclassical scholars had difficulty convincing contemporaries of the new paradigm's value until political economists used the critical assumption of diminishing marginal value to link utility and demand. While diminishing marginal value remains a key component of modern economic intuition, there is little direct verification of this behavioral property. This paper reports experiments on a myriad of subject pools to examine behavior in both price and exchange settings. We report results from nearly 900 subjects across 19 treatments and find strong evidence of diminishing marginal value.
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Kagel,John H. & Battalio,Raymond C. & Green,Leonard, 2007. "Economic Choice Theory," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521035927, May.
- 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.
- Harrison, Glenn W, 1992. "Theory and Misbehavior of First-Price Auctions: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(5), pages 1426-1443, December.
- John A. List, 2003.
"Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies?,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
Oxford University Press, vol. 118(1), pages 41-71.
- John List, 2003. "Does market experience eliminate market anomalies?," Natural Field Experiments 00297, The Field Experiments Website.
- John A. List, 2004.
"Neoclassical Theory Versus Prospect Theory: Evidence from the Marketplace,"
Econometric Society, vol. 72(2), pages 615-625, March.
- John A. List, 2003. "Neoclassical Theory Versus Prospect Theory: Evidence from the Marketplace," NBER Working Papers 9736, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- John List, 2004. "Neoclassical theory versus prospect theory: Evidence from the marketplace," Framed Field Experiments 00174, The Field Experiments Website.
- Horowitz, John K. & McConnell, K. E., 2000. "Values elicited from open-ended real experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 221-237, March.
- Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
- 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.
- Horowitz, John K & McConnell, K E & Quiggin, John, 1999. "A Test of Competing Explanations of Compensation Demanded," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 37(4), pages 637-646, October.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:feb:framed:00160. 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: (Joe Seidel)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.