Reconsidering the Effect of Market Experience on the "Endowment Effect"
Simple exchange experiments have revealed that participants trade their endowment less frequently than standard demand theory would predict. List (2003a) ﬁnds that the most experienced dealers acting in a well-functioning market are not subject to this exchange asymmetry, suggesting that a signiﬁcant amount of market experience is required to overcome it. In order to understand this market-experience effect, we introduce a distinction between two types of uncertainty, choice uncertainty and trade uncertainty, both of which could lead to exchange asymmetry. We conjecture that trade uncertainty is most important for exchange asymmetry. To test this conjecture, we design an experiment where the two treatments impact diﬀerently on trade uncertainty, while controlling for choice uncertainty. Supporting our conjecture, we ﬁnd that "forcing" subjects to give away their endowment in a series of exchanges eliminates exchange asymmetry in a subsequent test. We discuss why markets might not provide sufficient incentives for learning to overcome exchange asymmetry.
|Date of creation:||2010|
|Date of revision:|
|Publication status:||Published in Econometrica, Econometric Society, 2010, 78 (6), pp.2005-2019. <10.3982/ECTA8424>|
|Note:||View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00633557|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/|
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.:
- John List, 2003.
"Does market experience eliminate market anomalies?,"
Natural Field Experiments
00297, The Field Experiments Website.
- 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 A. List, 2003.
"Neoclassical Theory Versus Prospect Theory: Evidence from the Marketplace,"
NBER Working Papers
9736, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- John A. List, 2004. "Neoclassical Theory Versus Prospect Theory: Evidence from the Marketplace," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(2), pages 615-625, 03.
- John List, 2004. "Neoclassical theory versus prospect theory: Evidence from the marketplace," Framed Field Experiments 00174, The Field Experiments Website.
- Seidl, Christian, 2002. " Preference Reversal," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(5), pages 621-55, December.
- Botond Koszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2004.
"A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences,"
Method and Hist of Econ Thought
- Botond Koszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2005. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," Levine's Bibliography 784828000000000341, UCLA Department of Economics.
- Koszegi, Botond & Rabin, Matthew, 2004. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt0w82b6nm, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Jacinto Braga & Chris Starmer, 2005. "Preference Anomalies, Preference Elicitation and the Discovered Preference Hypothesis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 55-89, 09.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:cesptp:hal-00633557. 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: (CCSD)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.