Explanations of the endowment effect: An integrative review

Trends in Cognitive Sciences

Volumn 19, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 339-348

  Morewedge, Carey K ^a   Giblin, Colleen E ^b  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Confirmatory hypothesis testing; Endowment effect; Loss aversion; Memory bias; Mere ownership effect; Willingness to pay willingness to accept gap

Indexed keywords

COMMERCE;

ENDOWMENT EFFECT; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; LOSS AVERSION; MEMORY BIAS; MERE OWNERSHIP EFFECT; WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT;

ACCEPTANCE TESTS;

DECISION MAKING; EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT; ENDOWMENT EFFECT; EVOLUTIONARY ADAPTATION; EXPECTATION; FRAMING BIAS; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEMORY BIAS; NONHUMAN; PERCEPTION; REVIEW; SAMPLING BIAS; SELF EVALUATION; ANIMAL; BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS; COGNITION; EVOLUTION; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

ANIMALS; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; COGNITION; ECONOMICS, BEHAVIORAL; HUMANS; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PERCEPTION; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 84931561432     PISSN: 13646613     EISSN: 1879307X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2015.04.004     Document Type: Review

References (125)

1. Thaler R. Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 1980, 1:39-60.
2. Kahneman D., et al. Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. J. Polit. Econ. 1990, 98:1325-1348.
3. Knetsch J.L. The endowment effect and evidence of nonreversible indifference curves. Am. Econ. Rev. 1989, 79:1277-1284.
4. Knetsch J.L., Sinden J.A. Willingness to pay and compensation demanded: experimental evidence of an unexpected disparity in measures of value. Q. J. Econ. 1984, 99:507-521.
5. Horowitz J.K., McConnell K.E. A review of WTA/WTP studies. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2002, 44:426-447.
6. Buccafusco C., Sprigman C. Valuing intellectual property: an experiment. Cornell Law Rev. 2010, 96:1-45.
7. Hammack J., Brown G.M. Waterfowl and wetlands: Toward Bioeconomic Analysis 1974, Johns Hopkins Press.
8. Ariely D., Norton M.I. How actions create - not just reveal - preferences. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2008, 12:13-16.
9. Vlaev I., et al. Does the brain calculate value?. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2011, 15:546-554.
10. Plassmann H., et al. Marketing actions can modulate neural representations of experienced pleasantness. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2008, 105:1050-1054.
11. Willemsen M.C., et al. Choice by value encoding and value construction: processes of loss aversion. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2011, 140:303-324.
12. Kahneman D., Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979, 47:263-292.
13. Koszegi B., Rabin M. A model of reference-dependent preferences. Q. J. Econ. 2006, 121:1133-1165.
14. Ericson K.M., Fuster A. The endowment effect. Annu. Rev. Econ. 2014, 6:555-579.
15. Barberis N.C. Thirty years of prospect theory in economics: a review and assessment. J. Econ. Perspect. 2013, 27:173-195.
16. Odean T. Are investors reluctant to realize their losses?. J. Finance 1998, 53:1775-1798.
17. Weber M., Camerer C. The disposition effect in securities trading: an experimental analysis. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 1998, 33:167-184.
18. Coase R.H. The problem of social cost. J. Law Econ. 1960, 3:69.
19. Korobkin R. The endowment effect and legal analysis. Northwestern Univ. Law Rev. 2003, 97:1227-1291.
20. Novemsky N., Kahneman D. The boundaries of loss aversion. J. Market. Res. 2005, 42:119-128.
21. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent model. Q. J. Econ. 1991, 106:1039-1061.
22. De Martino B., et al. The neurobiology of reference-dependent value computation. J. Neurosci. 2009, 29:3833-3842.
23. Knutson B., et al. Neural antecedents of the endowment effect. Neuron 2008, 58:814-822.
24. Saqib N.U., et al. The influence of involvement on the endowment effect: the moveable value function. J. Consum. Psychol. 2010, 20:355-368.
25. DeWall C.N., et al. Can acetaminophen reduce the pain of decision-making?. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2015, 56:117-120.
26. Strahilevitz M.A., Loewenstein G. The effect of ownership history on the valuation of objects. J. Consum. Res. 1998, 25:276-289.
27. Nash J.G., Rosenthal R.A. An investigation of the endowment effect in the context of a college housing lottery. J. Econ. Psychol. 2014, 42:74-82.
28. Reb J., Connolly T. Possession, feelings of ownership, and the endowment effect. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 2007, 2:107-114.
29. Ericson K.M., Fuster A. Expectations as endowments: evidence on reference-dependent preferences from exchange and valuation experiments. Q. J. Econ. 2011, 126:1879-1907.
30. Heffetz O., List J.A. Is the endowment effect an expectations effect?. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 2014, 12:1396-1422.
31. Ariely D., Simonson I. Buying, bidding, playing, or competing? Value assessment and decision dynamics in online auctions. J. Consum. Psychol. 2003, 13:113-123.
32. List J.A. Does market experience eliminate market anomalies?. Q. J. Econ. 2003, 118:41-71.
33. Englemann D., Hollard G. Reconsidering the effect of market experience on the 'endowment effect'. Econometrica 2010, 78:2005-2019.
34. Novemsky N., Kahneman D. How do intentions affect loss aversion?. J. Market. Res. 2005, 42:139-140.
35. Bateman I., et al. Testing competing models of loss aversion: an adversairal collaboration. J. Public Econ. 2005, 89:1561-1580.
36. Huck S., et al. Learning to like what you have - explaining the endowment effect. Econ. J. 2005, 115:689-702.
37. Heifetz A., Segev E. The evolutionary role of toughness in bargaining. Games Econ. Behav. 2004, 49:117-134.
38. Harbaugh W.T., et al. Are adults better behaved than children? Age, experience, and the endowment effect. Econ. Lett. 2001, 70:175-181.
39. McGraw A.P., et al. The limits of fungibility: relational schemata and the value of things. J. Consum. Res. 2003, 30:219-229.
40. Maddux W.W., et al. For whom is parting with possessions more painful? Cultural differences in the endowment effect. Psychol. Sci. 2010, 21:1910-1917.
41. Apicella C.L., et al. Evolutionary origins of the endowment effect: evidence from hunter-gatherers. Am. Econ. Rev. 2014, 104:1793-1805.
42. Brosnan S.F., et al. Endowment effects in chimpanzees. Curr. Biol. 2007, 17:1704-1707.
43. Lakshminaryanan V., et al. Endowment effect in capuchin monkeys. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 2008, 363:3837-3844.
44. Chen M.K., et al. How basic are behavioral biases? Evidence from capuchin monkey trading behavior. J. Polit. Econ. 2006, 114:517-537.
45. Mahajan N., et al. The evolution of intergroup bias: perceptions and attitudes in rhesus macaques. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2011, 100:387-405.
46. Plott C.R., Zeiler K. The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap, the 'endowment effect,' subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations. Am. Econ. Rev. 2005, 95:530-545.
47. Plott C.R., Zeiler K. The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap, the 'endowment effect,' subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations: reply. Am. Econ. Rev. 2011, 101:1012-1028.
48. Klass G., Zeiler K. Against endowment theory: experimental economics and legal scholarship. UCLA Law Rev. 2013, 61:2-64.
49. Knez P., et al. Individual rationality, market rationality, and value estimation. Am. Econ. Rev. 1985, 75:397-402.
50. Plott C.R., Zeiler K. Exchange asymmetries incorrectly interpreted as evidence of endowment effect theory and prospect theory?. Am. Econ. Rev. 2007, 97:1449-1466.
51. Van Boven L., et al. Egocentric empathy gaps between owners and buyers: misperceptions of the endowment effect. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 79:66-76.
52. Kurt D., Inman J.J. Mispredicting others' valuations: self-other difference in the context of endowment. J. Consum. Res. 2013, 40:78-89.
53. Isoni A., et al. The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap, the 'endowment effect,' subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations: comment. Am. Econ. Rev. 2011, 101:991-1011.
54. Mazumdar T., et al. Reference price research: review and propositions. J. Market. 2005, 69:84-102.
55. Carmon Z., Ariely D. Focusing on the forgone: how value can appear so different to buyers and sellers. J. Consum. Res. 2000, 27:360-370.
56. Thaler R.H. Mental accounting matters. J. Behav. Dec. Mak. 1999, 12:183-206.
57. Winer R.S. A reference price model of brand choice for frequently purchased products. J. Consum. Res. 1986, 13:250-256.
58. Weaver R., Frederick S. A reference price theory of the endowment effect. J. Market. Res. 2012, 49:696-707.
59. Birnbaum M.H., Stegner S.E. Source credibility in social judgment: bias, expertise, and the judge's point of view. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1979, 37:48-74.
60. Pachur T., Scheibehenne B. Constructing preference from experience: the endowment effect reflected in external information search. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 2012, 38:1108-1116.
61. Birnbaum M.H., Zimmermann J.M. Buying and selling prices of investments: configural weight model of interactions predicts violations of joint independence. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1998, 74:145-187.
62. Nayakankuppam D., Mishra H. The endowment effect: rose-tinted and dark-tinted glasses. J. Consum. Res. 2005, 32:390-395.
63. Johnson E.J., et al. Aspects of endowment: a query theory of value construction. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 2007, 33:461-474.
64. Ashby N.J.S., et al. Focusing on what you own: biased information uptake due to ownership. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 2012, 7:254-267.
65. Beggan J.K. On the social nature of nonsocial perception: the mere ownership effect. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 62:229-237.
66. Morewedge C.K., et al. Bad riddance or good rubbish? Ownership and not loss aversion causes the endowment effect. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2009, 45:947-951.
67. De Dreu C.K., van Knippenberg D. The possessive self as a barrier to conflict resolution: effects of mere ownership, process accountability, and self-concept clarity on competitive cognitions and behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2005, 89:345-357.
68. Kim K., Johnson M.K. Extended self: medial prefrontal activity during transient association of self and objects. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 2012, 7:199-207.
69. Peck J., Shu S.B. The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. J. Consum. Res. 2009, 36:434-447.
70. Shu S.B., Peck J. Psychological ownership and affective reaction: emotional attachment process variables and the endowment effect. J. Consum. Psychol. 2011, 21:439-452.
71. Carmon Z., et al. Option attachment: when deliberating makes choosing feel like losing. J. Consum. Res. 2003, 30:15-29.
72. Brasel S.A., Gips J. Tablets, touchscreens, and touchpads: how varying touch interfaces trigger psychological ownership and endowment. J. Consum. Psychol. 2014, 24:226-233.
73. Ariely D., et al. When do losses loom larger than gains?. J. Market. Res. 2005, 42:134-138.
74. Heider F. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations 1958, Wiley.
75. James W. The Principles of Psychology 1890, H. Holt and Company.
76. Belk R.W. Possessions and the extended self. J. Consum. Res. 1988, 15:139-168.
77. Weiss L., Johar G.V. Egocentric categorization and product judgment: seeing your traits in what you own (and their opposite in what you don't). J. Consum. Res. 2013, 40:185-201.
78. Gawronski B., et al. I like it, because I like myself: associative self-anchoring and post-decisional change of implicit evaluations. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 43:221-232.
79. Loewenstein G., Issacharoff S. Source dependence in the valuation of objects. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 1994, 7:157-168.
80. Dommer S.L., Swaminathan V. Explaining the endowment effect through ownership: the role of identity, gender, and self-threat. J. Consum. Res. 2013, 39:1034-1050.
81. Chatterjee P., et al. The endowment effect as self-enhancement in response to threat. J. Consum. Res. 2013, 40:460-476.
82. Kogut T., Kogut E. Possession attachment: individual differences in the endowment effect. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2011, 24:377-393.
83. Schurr A., Ritov I. The effect of giving it all up on valuation: a new look at the endowment effect. Manag. Sci. 2014, 60:628-637.
84. Symons C.S., Johnson B.T. The self-reference effect in memory: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 1997, 121:371-394.
85. Cunningham S.J., et al. Yours or mine? Ownership and memory. Conscious. Cogn. 2008, 17:312-318.
86. van den Bos M., et al. Mine to remember: the impact of ownership on recollective experience. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 2010, 63:1065-1071.
87. Cunningham S.J., et al. Exploring early self-referential memory effects through ownership. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 2013, 31:289-301.
88. Turk D.J., et al. Mine and me: exploring the neural basis of object ownership. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2011, 23:3657-3668.
89. Nesselroade K.P., et al. Possession enhancement in an interpersonal context: an extension of the mere ownership effect. Psychol. Market. 1999, 16:21-34.
90. Brenner L., et al. On the psychology of loss aversion: possession, valence, and reversals of the endowment effect. J. Consum. Res. 2007, 34:369-376.
91. Kim K., Johnson M.K. Extended self: spontaneous activation of medial prefrontal cortex by objects that are 'mine'. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 2014, 9:1006-1012.
92. Barone M.J., et al. Product ownership as a moderator of self-congruity effects. Market. Lett. 1999, 10:75-85.
93. Chiao J.Y., et al. Neural basis of individualistic and collectivistic views of self. Hum. Brain Mapp. 2009, 30:2813-2820.
94. Chiao J.Y., et al. Dynamic cultural influences on neural representations of the self. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2010, 22:1-11.
95. Kim K., Johnson M.K. Distinct neural networks support the mere ownership effect under different motivational contexts. Soc. Neurosci. 2015, Published online January 9, 2015. 10.1080/17470919.2014.999870.
96. Morewedge C.K., Kahneman D. Associative processes in intuitive judgment. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2010, 14:435-440.
97. Klayman J., Ha Y.W. Hypothesis-testing in rule discovery: strategy, structure, and content. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. 1989, 15:596-604.
98. Nickerson R.S. Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 1998, 2:175-220.
99. Shah A.K., Oppenheimer D.M. The path of least resistance: using easy-to-access information. Curr. Direct. Psychol. Sci. 2009, 18:232-236.
100. Bhatia S. Associations and the accumulation of preference. Psychol. Rev. 2013, 120:522-543.
101. Houston D.A., et al. The influence of unique features and direction of comparison on preferences. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1989, 25:121-141.
102. Dhar R., Simonson I. The effect of the focus of comparison on consumer preferences. J. Market. Res. 1992, 29:430-440.
103. Samuelson W., Zeckhauser R. Status quo bias in decision making. J. Risk Uncertainty 1988, 1:7-59.
104. Liberman N., et al. Promotion and prevention choices between stability and change. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 77:1135-1145.
105. Cryder C.E., et al. Misery is not miserly: sad and self-focused individuals spend more. Psychol. Sci. 2008, 19:525-530.
106. Lerner J.S., et al. Heart strings and purse strings: carryover effects of emotions on economic decisions. Psychol. Sci. 2004, 15:337-341.
107. Stewart N., et al. Decision by sampling. Cogn. Psychol. 2006, 53:1-26.
108. Johnson J.G., Busemeyer J.R. A dynamic, stochastic, computational model of preference reversal phenomena. Psychol. Rev. 2005, 112:841-861.
109. Idson L.C., et al. Distinguishing gains from nonlosses and losses from nongains: a regulatory focus perspective on hedonic intensity. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 36:252-274.
110. Murayama K., et al. Forgetting as a consequence of retrieval: a meta-analytic review of retrieval-induced forgetting. Psychol. Bull. 2014, 140:1383-1409.
111. Shafir E. Choosing versus rejecting: why some options are both better and worse than others. Mem. Cogn. 1993, 21:546-556.
112. Svirsky D. Money is no object: testing the endowment effect in exchange goods. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2014, 106:227-234.
113. Buechel E.C., Morewedge C.K. The (relative and absolute) subjective value of money. The Psychological Science of Money 2014, 93-120. Springer. E.H. Biljleved, H. Aarts (Eds.).
114. Hull J.G., Levy A.S. Organizational functions of the self: an alternative to the Duval and Wicklund model of self-awareness. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1979, 37:756-768.
115. Fenigstein A., et al. Public and private self-consciousness - assessment and theory. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 1975, 43:522-527.
116. Kahneman D., et al. Anomalies: the endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. J. Econ. Perspect. 1991, 5:193-206.
117. Becker G.M., et al. Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behav. Sci. 1964, 9:226-232.
118. Koriat A., et al. Reasons for confidence. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Learn. Mem. 1980, 6:107-118.
119. Morewedge C.K., et al. The least likely of times: how remembering the past biases forecasts of the future. Psychol. Sci. 2005, 16:626-630.
120. Morewedge C.K. It was a most unusual time: how memory bias engenders nostalgic preferences. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2013, 26:319-326.
121. Morewedge C.K., et al. Unfixed resources: perceived costs, consumption, and the accessible account effect. J. Consum. Res. 2007, 34:459-467.
122. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 1974, 185:1124-1131.
123. Todd P.M., Gigerenzer G. Precis of simple heuristics that make us smart. Behav. Brain Sci. 2000, 23:727-741.
124. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Availability: heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn. Psychol. 1973, 5:207-232.
125. Roe R.M., et al. Multialternative decision field theory: a dynamic connectionist model of decision making. Psychol. Rev. 2001, 108:370-392.