IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mos/moswps/2013-58.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Anticipated Regret or Endowment effect? A Reconsideration of Exchange Asymmetry in Laboratory Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Anmol Ratan

Abstract

In simple exchange experiments participants have been reported to trade their endowments with similar objects less frequently than predicted by the neoclassical demand theory. Recent research has indicated that the experimental support for exchange asymmetry is fragile in alternative environments. In this paper, we report an environment which is different from all other environments previously known in which exchange asymmetry is not observed. In this environment, participants knew at the time of making exchange decisions that they will have an opportunity to reverse their decisions. We find significant differences in exchange asymmetry in this environment and an environment in which exchange decisions were final. Such differences suggest that anticipated regret theory provides an adequate explanation for exchange asymmetry which is often reported in the laboratory experiments. Our results underscore the importance of careful design for testing theories in the laboratory experiments.

Suggested Citation

  • Anmol Ratan, 2013. "Anticipated Regret or Endowment effect? A Reconsideration of Exchange Asymmetry in Laboratory Experiments," Monash Economics Working Papers 58-13, Monash University, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:mos:moswps:2013-58
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/eco/research/papers/2013/index.html
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Wettstein, Dominik J. & Boes, Stefan, 2022. "How value-based policy interventions influence price negotiations for new medicines: An experimental approach and initial evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 112-121.
    2. John List, 2020. "Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem," Natural Field Experiments 00687, The Field Experiments Website.
    3. Xiaodong Du & Hongli Feng & David A. Hennessy, 2017. "Rationality of Choices in Subsidized Crop Insurance Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(3), pages 732-756.
    4. Yang, Feng & Wang, Manman & Ang, Sheng, 2021. "Optimal remanufacturing decisions in supply chains considering consumers’ anticipated regret and power structures," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    5. Luxford, Anthony, 2022. "Exchange Asymmetry and Charitable Objects," Warwick-Monash Economics Student Papers 34, Warwick Monash Economics Student Papers.
    6. Xiaodong Du & Hongli Feng & David A. Hennessy, 2017. "Rationality of Choices in Subsidized Crop Insurance Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(3), pages 732-756.
    7. Banerji A & Jeevant Rampal, 2015. "Loss Aversion and Willingness to Pay for New Products," Working Papers id:7798, eSocialSciences.
    8. Brown, Thomas C. & Morrison, Mark D. & Benfield, Jacob A. & Rainbolt, Gretchen Nurse & Bell, Paul A., 2015. "Exchange asymmetry in experimental settings," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 104-116.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    prospect-theory; endowment effect; reference-dependence; loss aversion; lab experiments; field experiments;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:mos:moswps:2013-58. 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.

    We have no bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Simon Angus (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dxmonau.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.