Using Hicksian surplus measures to examine consistency of individual preferences: Evidence from a field experiment

Scandinavian Journal of Economics

Volumn 108, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 115-134

  List, John A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Endowment effect; Experience; Field experiment

Indexed keywords

CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR; ECONOMIC THEORY; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR;

EID: 33646388708     PISSN: 03470520     EISSN: 14679442     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9442.2006.00438.x     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Brookshire, D. and Coursey, D. (1987), Measuring the Value of a Public Good: An Empirical Comparison of Elicitation Procedures, American Economic Review 77, 554-566.
2. Camerer, C. F. and Hogarth, R. (1999), The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19, 7-42.
3. Coursey, D., Hovis, J. and Schulze, W. (1987), The Disparity between Willingness to Accept and Willingness to Pay Measures of Value, Quarterly Journal of Economics 102, 679-690.
4. Harrison, G. W. and List, J. A. (2004), Field Experiments, Journal of Economic Literature XLII, 1009-1055.
5. Hoffman, E. and Spitzer, M. (1993), Willingness to Pay vs. Willingness to Accept: Legal and Economic Implications, Washington University Law Quarterly 71, 59-114.
6. Horowitz, J. K., McConnell, K. E. and Quiggin, J. (1999), Test of Competing Explanations of Compensation Demanded, Economic Inquiry 37, 637-646.
7. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk, Econometrica 47, 263-291.
8. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L. and Thaler, R. H. (1990), Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem, Journal of Political Economy 98, 1325-1348.
9. Knez, P., Smith, V. L. and Williams, A. (1985), Individual Rationality, Market Rationality, and Value Estimation, American Economic Review 75, 397-402.
10. List, J. A. (2001), Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards, American Economic Review 91, 1498-1507.
11. List, J. A. (2003), Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies?, Quarterly Journal of Economics 118, 41-71.
12. List, J. A. (2004a), Neoclassical Theory versus Prospect Theory: Evidence from the Marketplace, Econometrica 72, 615-625.
13. List, J. A. (2004b), Substitutability, Experience, and the Value Disparity: Evidence from the Marketplace, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 47, 486-509.
14. Loewenstein, G. (1999), Experimental Economics from the Vantage-point of Behavioural Economics, Economic Journal 109, F25-F34.
15. Loewenstein, G. and Kahneman, D. (1991), Explaining the Endowment Effect, Carnegie-Mellon Working Paper, Pittsburgh, PA.
16. Mäler, K.-G. (1974), Environmental Economics: A Theoretical Inquiry, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
17. Myagkov, M. and Plott, C. (1997), Exchange Economies and Loss Exposure: Experiments Exploring Prospect Theory and Competitive Equilibria in Market Environments, American Economic Review 87, 801-828.
18. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1991), Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-dependent Model, Quarterly Journal of Economics 106, 1039-1061.