The willingness-to-accept/willingness-to-pay disparity in repeated markets: Loss aversion or 'bad-deal' aversion?

Theory and Decision

Volumn 71, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 409-430

  Isoni, A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bad deal aversion; Loss aversion; Price sensitivity; Reference dependence; Vickrey auctions; WTA WTP disparity

Indexed keywords

BAD-DEAL AVERSION; LOSS AVERSION; PRICE SENSITIVITY; REFERENCE-DEPENDENCE; VICKREY AUCTION; WTA/WTP DISPARITY;

EID: 80052481351     PISSN: 00405833     EISSN: 15737187     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11238-010-9207-6     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Adamowicz, W. L., Bhardwaj, V., & Macnab, B. (1993). Experiments on the difference between willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept. Land Economics, 69(4), 416-427.
2. Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2003). Coherent arbitrariness: Stable demand curves without stable preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 73-105. (Pubitemid 36263882)
3. Bateman, I., Munro, A., Rhodes, B., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1997). A test of the theory of reference-dependent preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 479-505.
4. Bell, D. E. (1985). Disappointment in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Research, 33, 1-27.
5. Boyce, R. R., Brown, T. C., McClelland, G. H., Peterson, G. L., & Schulze, W. D. (1992). An experimental examination of intrinsic values as a source of the WTA-WTP disparity. The American Economic Review, 82(5), 1366-1373.
6. Braga, J., & Starmer, C. (2005). Preference anomalies, preference elicitation and the discovered preference hypothesis. Environmental and Resource Economics, 32(1), 55-89. (Pubitemid 41215959)
7. Braga, J., Humphrey, S. J., & Starmer, C. (2009). Market experience eliminates some anomalies-and creates new ones. European Economic Review, 53(4), 401-416.
8. Brown, T. C. (2005). Loss aversion without the endowment effect, and other explanations for the WTA-WTP Disparity. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 57(3), 367-379. (Pubitemid 40742605)
9. Bruni, L., & Sugden, R. (2007). The road not taken: How psychology was removed from economics, and how it might be brought back. The Economic Journal, 117, 146-173. (Pubitemid 46128750)
10. Coursey, D. L., Hovis, J. L., & Schulze, W. D. (1987). The disparity between willingness to accept and willingness to pay measures of value. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 102(3), 679-690.
11. Cox, J. C., & Grether, D. M. (1996). The preference reversal phenomenon: Response mode, markets and incentives. Economic Theory, 7(3), 381-405. (Pubitemid 126174408)
12. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817-868.
13. Freeman, A.M. (1979). The benefits on environmental improvement: Theory and practice. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.
14. Geanakoplos, J., Pearce, D.,&Stacchetti, E. (1989). Psychological games and sequential rationality. Games and Economic Behavior, 1, 60-79.
15. Hammack, J., & Brown, G. (1974).Waterfowl and wetland: Toward bioeconomic analysis. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.
16. Hanemann, W. M. (1991). Willingness to pay and willingness to accept-how much can they differ?. The American Economic Review, 81(3), 635-647.
17. Harless, D. W. (1989). More laboratory evidence on the disparity between willingness to pay and compensation demanded. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 11(3), 359-379.
18. Hicks, J. R. (1943). The four consumer surpluses. Review of Economic Studies, 8, 108-116.
19. Horowitz, J. K., & McConnell, K. E. (2002). A review of WTA/WTP studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44(3), 426-447. (Pubitemid 35235477)
20. Horowitz, J. K., & McConnell, K. E. (2003). Willingness to accept, willingness to pay and the income effect. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 51(4), 537-545. (Pubitemid 36649694)
21. Hu, W. (2007). Bargains or rip-offs? Reference price effects in cojoint stated demand. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 32(2), 256-272.
22. Huck, S., Kirchsteiger, G., & Oechssler, J. (2005). Learning to like what you have-Explaining the endowment effect. The Economic Journal, 115, 689-702. (Pubitemid 41695118)
23. Isoni, A. (2009). The willingness-to-accept/willingness-to-pay disparity in repeated markets: Loss aversion or 'bad-deal' aversion? CSERGE Working Paper edm-2009-06, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia.
24. Isoni, A., Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (2010, in press). The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap, the 'endowment effect', subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations: A reassessment. The American Economic Review.
25. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1325-1348.
26. Knetsch, J. L. (1989). The endowment effect and evidence of non-reversible indifference curves. The American Economic Review, 79(5), 1277-1284.
27. Knetsch, J. L., & Sinden, J. A. (1984). Willingness to pay and compensation demanded-Experimental evidence of an unexpected disparity in measures of value. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 99(3), 507-521.
28. Knetsch, J. L., Tang, F. F., & Thaler, R. (2001). The endowment effect and repeated market trials: Is the Vickrey auction demand revealing?. Experimental Economics, 4, 257-269.
29. Kolstad, C. D., & Guzman, R. M. (1999). Information and the divergence between willingness to accept and willingness to pay. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 38(1), 68-80.
30. Kopalle, P. K., & Lindsey-Mullikin, J. (2003). The impact of external referene price on consumer price expectations. Journal of Retailing, 79, 225-236. (Pubitemid 37445620)
31. KÖszegi, B., & Rabin, M. (2006). A model of reference-dependent preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(4), 1133-1165. (Pubitemid 44888170)
32. List, J. A. (2003). Does market experience eliminate market anomalies?. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 41-71. (Pubitemid 36263881)
33. List, J. A. (2004). Neoclassical theory versus prospect theory: Evidence from the market place. Econometrica, 72(2), 615-625.
34. Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1982). Regret theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. The Economic Journal, 92(368), 805-824.
35. Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1986). Disappointment and dynamic consistency in choice under uncertainty. Review of Economic Studies, 53(2), 271-282.
36. Loomes, G., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (2003). Do anomalies disappear in repeated markets?. The Economic Journal, 113(486), C153-C166.
37. Loomes, G., Orr, S., & Sugden, R. (2009). Preference uncertainty and status quo effects in consumer choice. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 39, 113-135.
38. Mandler, M. (2004). Status quo maintenance reconsidered: Changing or incomplete preferences?. The Economic Journal, 114(499), F518-F535. (Pubitemid 39500381)
39. Mas-Colell, A., Whinston, M. D., & Green, J. R. (1995). Microeconomic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40. Milgrom, P. R., & Weber, R. J. (1982). A theory of auctions and competitive bidding. Econometrica, 50(5), 1089-1122.
41. Munro, A., & Sugden, R. (2003). On the theory of reference-dependent preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 50(4), 407-428.
42. Plott, C. R. (1996). Rational individual behaviour in markets and social choice processes: The discovered preference hypothesis. In K. Arrow, E. Colombatto, M. Perleman, & C. Schmidt (Eds.), Rational foundations of economic behavior (pp. 225-250). London: Macmillan.
43. Plott, C. R., & Zeiler, K. (2005). The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap, the 'endowment effect', subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations. The American Economic Review, 95(3), 530-545. (Pubitemid 43104402)
44. Putler, D. S. (1992). Incorporating reference price effects into a theory of consumer choice. Marketing Science, 11, 287-309.
45. Randall, A., & Stoll, J. R. (1980). Consumer's surplus in commodity space. The American Economic Review, 70(3), 449-455.
46. Rowe, R. D., D'Arge, R. C., & Brookshire, D. S. (1980). An experiment on the economic value of visibility. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 7(1), 1-19. (Pubitemid 10067041)
47. Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7-59.
48. Schulze, W. D., D'Arge, R. C., & Brookshire, D. S. (1981). Valuing environmental commodities: Some recent experiments. Land Economics, 57(2), 151-172. (Pubitemid 12268508)
49. Shogren, J. F., Shin, S. Y., Hayes, D. J., & Kliebenstein, J. B. (1994). Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept. The American Economic Review, 84(1), 255-270.
50. Shogren, J. F., Cho, S., Koo, C., List, J., Park, C., Polo, P., & Wilhelmi, R. (2001). Auction mechanisms and the measurement of WTP and WTA. Resource and Energy Economics, 23, 97-109. (Pubitemid 33124798)
51. Sugden, R. (1999). Alternatives to the neo-classical theory of choice. In I. J. Bateman & K. G. Willis (Eds.), Valuing environmental preferences: Theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU and developing countries (pp. 152-180). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
52. Sugden, R. (2003). Reference-dependent subjective expected utility. Journal of Economic Theory, 111(2), 172-191. (Pubitemid 36989338)
53. Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1(1), 39-60.
54. Thaler, R. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4, 199-214.
55. Tversky, A.,&Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice:Areference-dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039-1061.
56. Vickrey, W. (1961). Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. Journal of Finance, 16(1), 8-37.
57. Wicksteed, P. (1910). The common sense of political economy (Vol. I). London: Routledge [page reference to 1933 edition].
58. Willig, R. D. (1976). Consumer's surplus without apology. The American Economic Review, 66(4), 589-597.