IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iim/iimawp/12888.html

Endowment Effects in Bundles

Author

Listed:
  • Dutta, Swati
  • Mukhopadhyay, Jyoti Prasad
  • Pingali, Viswanath

Abstract

Behavioral experiments conducted so far to establish existence of endowment effect as propounded by prospect theorists typically endow subjects with a single good. In this paper we depart from this setting by giving subjects initial endowment bundles which consist of two goods: chocolates and pens and directly pit neo-classical theory against prospect theory by comparing divergence between willingness to pay (WTA) and willingness to accept (WTP). Using a novel experimental setting we examine the difference in such divergence for a group that is given physical bundles as endowment vis-à-vis a group which is asked to imagine the same initial endowment bundle in their possession. We find weak evidence of endowment effect. Moreover, we examine how endowment effect of a good changes when units of the other good in initial endowment bundle change. We find no statistically significant evidence of endowment effect of a good being sensitive to the number of units of the other good in initial endowment bundle.

Suggested Citation

  • Dutta, Swati & Mukhopadhyay, Jyoti Prasad & Pingali, Viswanath, 2014. "Endowment Effects in Bundles," IIMA Working Papers WP2014-06-01, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    • Handle: RePEc:iim:iimawp:12888
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.iima.ac.in/sites/default/files/rnpfiles/21256422172014-06-01.pdf
    File Function: English Version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Thaler, Richard, 1980. "Toward a positive theory of consumer choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 39-60, March.
    3. repec:bla:jfinan:v:53:y:1998:i:5:p:1775-1798 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. John A. List, 2004. "Neoclassical Theory Versus Prospect Theory: Evidence from the Marketplace," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(2), pages 615-625, March.
    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. Holden, Stein T. & Bezu, Sosina, 2019. "Exchange asymmetries in productive assets: Tools, fertilizer or cash?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 269-278.
    2. Gong, Cynthia M. & Lizieri, Colin & Bao, Helen X.H., 2019. "“Smarter information, smarter consumers”? Insights into the housing market," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 51-64.
    3. Eduard Marinov, 2017. "The 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 117-159.
    4. Smith, Alec, 2019. "Lagged beliefs and reference-dependent utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 331-340.
    5. Robinson, Peter John & Botzen, W. J. Wouter & Kunreuther, Howard & Chaudhry, Shereen J., 2021. "Default options and insurance demand," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 39-56.
    6. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    7. Eric Johnson & Simon Gaechter & Andreas Herrmann, 2006. "Exploring the Nature of Loss Aversion," Discussion Papers 2006-02, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    8. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2016. "Field Experiments in Markets," Artefactual Field Experiments j0002, The Field Experiments Website.
    9. Florian Englmaier & Arno Schmöller, 2008. "Reserve Price Formation in Online Auctions," CESifo Working Paper Series 2374, CESifo.
    10. repec:isu:genstf:201501010800005579 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Emmanuel Flachaire & Guillaume Hollard & Jason Shogren, 2013. "On the origin of the WTA–WTP divergence in public good valuation," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(3), pages 431-437, March.
    12. De Borger, Bruno & Fosgerau, Mogens, 2007. "Discrete choices and the trade-off between money and time: A test of the theory of reference-dependent preferences," MPRA Paper 3904, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Holden, Stein & Bezu, Sosina, 2014. "Tools, Fertilizer or Cash? Exchange Asymmetries in Productive Assets," CLTS Working Papers 13/14, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 11 Oct 2019.
    14. Brian Albrecht & Omar Al-Ubaydli & Peter Boettke, 2022. "Testing the Hayek hypothesis: Recent theoretical and experimental evidence," Artefactual Field Experiments 00759, The Field Experiments Website.
    15. Fosgerau, Mogens, 2008. "Hedonic preferences, symmetric loss aversion and the willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap," MPRA Paper 10041, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Dirk Engelmann & Guillaume Hollard, 2010. "Reconsidering the Effect of Market Experience on the “Endowment Effect”," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(6), pages 2005-2019, November.
    17. Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Uler, Neslihan, 2013. "Understanding the reference effect," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 403-423.
    18. Dirk Engelmann & Guillaume Hollard, 2009. "A Shock Therapy Against the “Endowment Effect”," Discussion Papers 09-04, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    19. Lauren Chenarides & Carola Grebitus & Jayson L Lusk & Iryna Printezis, 2022. "A calibrated choice experiment method," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(5), pages 971-1004.
    20. Malcolm Baker & Xin Pan & Jeffrey Wurgler, 2009. "A Reference Point Theory of Mergers and Acquisitions," NBER Working Papers 15551, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. Ashtiani, Amin Zokaei & Rieger, Marc Oliver & Stutz, David, 2021. "Nudging against panic selling: Making use of the IKEA effect," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 30(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:iim:iimawp:12888. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eciimin.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.