IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/wzbmbh/spii2015204.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap: A failed replication of Plott and Zeiler

Author

Listed:
  • Fehr, Dietmar
  • Hakimov, Rustamdjan
  • Kübler, Dorothea

Abstract

We report on experiments to replicate Plott and Zeiler's (2005) findings that the WTP-WTA gap disappears when using procedures that are aimed at reducing misunderstandings, such as training rounds for the BDM mechanism. Following the design by Plott and Zeiler (2005) and Isoni, Loomes, and Sugden (2011) who re-ran the Plott/Zeiler experiments to study the paid practice rounds with lotteries, we replicate the findings from the lottery tasks where a WTP-WTA gap is present in all studies. However, unlike in the two previous studies the WTP-WTA gap does not disappear in the main task where subjects state their WTA or WTP for a mug. We introduce two additional lottery tasks to classify subjects and find that even for the most rational group of subjects who never make dominated choices in the paid practice rounds, the WTP-WTA gap in the mug task exists. The findings are replicated in a similar experiment with USB sticks instead of mugs.

Suggested Citation

  • Fehr, Dietmar & Hakimov, Rustamdjan & Kübler, Dorothea, 2015. "The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap: A failed replication of Plott and Zeiler," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Market Behavior SP II 2015-204, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:wzbmbh:spii2015204
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/108946/1/820643831.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Charles R. Plott & Kathryn Zeiler, 2011. "The Willingness to Pay--Willingness to Accept Gap, the "Endowment Effect," Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 1012-1028, April.
    3. Steffen Huck & Georg Kirchsteiger & Jörg Oechssler, 2005. "Learning to like what you have - explaining the endowment effect," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 115(505), pages 689-702, July.
    4. Ernst Fehr & Lorenz Goette, 2007. "Do Workers Work More if Wages Are High? Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 298-317, March.
    5. Keith M. Marzilli Ericson & Andreas Fuster, 2014. "The Endowment Effect," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 555-579, August.
    6. 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.
    7. John A. List, 2003. "Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 118(1), pages 41-71.
    8. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    9. Björn Bartling & Florian Engl & Roberto A. Weber, 2015. "Game form misconceptions are not necessary for a willingness-to-pay vs. willingness-to-accept gap," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 72-85, July.
    10. Charles R. Plott & Kathryn Zeiler, 2007. "Exchange Asymmetries Incorrectly Interpreted as Evidence of Endowment Effect Theory and Prospect Theory?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1449-1466, September.
    11. 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.
    12. Greiner, Ben, 2004. "An Online Recruitment System for Economic Experiments," MPRA Paper 13513, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Andrea Isoni & Graham Loomes & Robert Sugden, 2011. "The Willingness to Pay—Willingness to Accept Gap, the "Endowment Effect," Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 991-1011, April.
    14. Björn Bartling & Florian Engl & Roberto A. Weber, 2014. "Game Form Misconceptions Do Not Explain the Endowment Effect," CESifo Working Paper Series 5094, CESifo.
    15. Hanemann, W Michael, 1991. "Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(3), pages 635-647, June.
    16. Alexander Brown & Gregory Cohen, 2015. "Does anonymity affect the willingness to accept and willingness to pay gap? A generalization of Plott and Zeiler," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 173-184, June.
    17. Kovalchik, Stephanie & Camerer, Colin F. & Grether, David M. & Plott, Charles R. & Allman, John M., 2005. "Aging and decision making: a comparison between neurologically healthy elderly and young individuals," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 79-94, September.
    18. Thaler, Richard, 1980. "Toward a positive theory of consumer choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 39-60, March.
    19. Timothy N. Cason & Charles R. Plott, 2014. "Misconceptions and Game Form Recognition: Challenges to Theories of Revealed Preference and Framing," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 122(6), pages 1235-1270.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Drouvelis, Michalis & Sonnemans, Joep, 2017. "The endowment effect in games," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 240-262.
    2. Jonathan Chapman & Mark Dean & Pietro Ortoleva & Erik Snowberg & Colin Camerer, 2017. "Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept are Probably Less Correlated Than You Think," NBER Working Papers 23954, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Currarini, Sergio & Mengel, Friederike, 2016. "Identity, homophily and in-group bias," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 40-55.
    4. Bull, Charles & Courty, Pascal & Doyon, Maurice & Rondeau, Daniel, 2019. "Failure of the Becker–DeGroot–Marschak mechanism in inexperienced subjects: New tests of the game form misconception hypothesis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 235-253.
    5. Koń, Beata & Jakubczyk, Michał, 2019. "Is the literature on the WTP-WTA disparity biased?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    6. Brebner, Sarah & Sonnemans, Joep, 2018. "Does the elicitation method impact the WTA/WTP disparity?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 40-45.

    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. Brebner, Sarah & Sonnemans, Joep, 2018. "Does the elicitation method impact the WTA/WTP disparity?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 40-45.
    2. Smith, Alec, 2019. "Lagged beliefs and reference-dependent utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 331-340.
    3. Andrea Isoni & Graham Loomes & Robert Sugden, 2011. "The Willingness to Pay—Willingness to Accept Gap, the "Endowment Effect," Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 991-1011, April.
    4. Isabel Marcin & Andreas Nicklisch, 2014. "Testing the Endowment Effect for Default Rules," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2014_01, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    5. Ashworth, Laurence & Darke, Peter R. & McShane, Lindsay & Vu, Tiffany, 2019. "The rules of exchange: The role of an exchange surplus in producing the endowment effect," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 11-24.
    6. Drouvelis, Michalis & Sonnemans, Joep, 2017. "The endowment effect in games," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 240-262.
    7. Bull, Charles & Courty, Pascal & Doyon, Maurice & Rondeau, Daniel, 2019. "Failure of the Becker–DeGroot–Marschak mechanism in inexperienced subjects: New tests of the game form misconception hypothesis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 235-253.
    8. Kingsley, David C. & Brown, Thomas C., 2013. "Value learning and the willingness to accept–willingness to pay disparity," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 120(3), pages 473-476.
    9. Spantig, Lisa, 2019. "Cash in Hand and Savings Decisions," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 180, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    10. Lisa Spantig, 2019. "Cash in Hand and Savings Decisions," CESifo Working Paper Series 7767, CESifo.
    11. Alexander Brown & Gregory Cohen, 2015. "Does anonymity affect the willingness to accept and willingness to pay gap? A generalization of Plott and Zeiler," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 173-184, June.
    12. Lunn,Pete & Lunn, Mary, 2014. "What Can I Get For It? The Relationship Between the Choice Equivalent, Willingness to Accept and Willingness to Pay," Papers WP479, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    13. Dietmar Fehr & Günther Fink & Kelsey Jack, 2019. "Poverty, Seasonal Scarcity and Exchange Asymmetries," NBER Working Papers 26357, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Eduard Marinov, 2017. "The 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 117-159.
    15. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2017. "Richard H. Thaler: Integrating Economics with Psychology," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2017-1, Nobel Prize Committee.
    16. Lunn, Pete & Lunn, Mary, 2014. "A Computational Theory of Willingness to Exchange," Papers WP477, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    17. S. Dellavigna., 2011. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," VOPROSY ECONOMIKI, N.P. Redaktsiya zhurnala "Voprosy Economiki", vol. 4.
    18. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2018. "Incentives," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2018-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    19. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2016. "Field Experiments in Markets," Artefactual Field Experiments j0002, The Field Experiments Website.
    20. Simon Gaechter & Eric Johnson & Andreas Herrmann, 2007. "Individual-Level Loss Aversion In Riskless And Risky Choices," Discussion Papers 2007-02, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    endowment effect; WTP-WTA gap; BDM mechanism; misconceptions; replication;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior

    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:zbw:wzbmbh:spii2015204. 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: (ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vawzbde.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.