Understanding Behavioral Explanations of the WTP-WTA Divergence Through a Neoclassical Lens: Implications for Environmental Policy

Annual Review of Resource Economics

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 169-187

  Kim, Younjun ^a   Kling, Catherine L ^b   Zhao, Jinhua ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

^b IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Hicksian welfare theory; nonmarket valuation; welfare economics; WTP WTA disparity

Indexed keywords

EID: 84943223305     PISSN: 19411340     EISSN: 19411359     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012501     Document Type: Review

References (95)

1. AdamowiczWL, Bhardwaj V, Macnab B. 1993. Experiments on the difference between willingness to pay and willingness to accept. Land Econ. 69:416-27
2. Anderson J, Vadnjal D, Uhlin H-E. 2000. Moral dimensions of the WTA-WTP disparity: an experimental examination. Ecol. Econ. 32:153-62
3. Arlen J, Spitzer M, Talley E. 2002. Endowment effects within corporate agency relationships. J. Legal Stud. 31:1-37
4. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H. 1993. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed. Regist. 58:4602-14
5. Barberis NC. 2013. Thirty years of prospect theory in economics: a review and assessment. J. Econ. Perspect. 27:173-95
6. Bateman I, Munro A, Rhodes B, Starmer C, Sugden R. 1997. A test of the theory of reference-dependent preferences. Q. J. Econ. 112:479-505
7. Bateman IJ, Day BH, Jones AP, Jude S. 2009. Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: a virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 58:106-18
8. Becker GM, DeGroot MH, Marschak J. 1964. Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behav. Sci. 9:226-32
9. Biel A, Johansson-Stenman O, Nilsson A. 2011. The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap revisited: the role of emotions and moral satisfaction. J. Econ. Psychol. 32:908-17
10. Bishop RC. 1982. Option value: an exposition and extension. Land Econ. 58:1-15
11. Bordalo P, Gennaioli N, Shleifer A. 2012. Salience in experimental tests of the endowment effect. Am. Econ. Rev. 102:47-52
12. Bowles S. 1998. Endogenous preferences: the cultural consequences of markets and other economic institutions. J. Econ. Lit. 36:75-111
13. Boyce RR, Brown TC, McClelland GH, Peterson GL, Schulze WD. 1992. An experimental examination of intrinsic values as a source of the WTA-WTP disparity. Am. Econ. Rev. 82:1366-73
14. Braga J, Starmer C. 2005. Preference anomalies, preference elicitation and the discovered preference hypothesis. Environ. Resour. Econ. 32:55-89
15. Brown TC. 2005. Loss aversion without the endowment effect, and other explanations for the WTA-WTP disparity. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 57:367-79
16. Brown TC, Gregory R. 1999. Why the WTA-WTP disparity matters. Ecol. Econ. 28:323-35
17. Carmon Z, Ariely D. 2000. Focusing on the forgone: how value can appear so different to buyers and sellers. J. Consum. Res. 27:360-70
18. Carmon Z, Wertenbroch K, Zeelenberg M. 2003. Option attachment: when deliberating makes choosing feel like losing. J. Consum. Res. 30:15-29
19. Carson RT, Flores NE, Meade NF. 2001. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ. Resour. Econ. 19:173-210
20. Carson RT, Groves T. 2007. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ. Resour. Econ. 37:181-210
21. Cherry T, Frykblom P, Shogren J, List J, Sullivan M. 2004. Laboratory testbeds and non-market valuation: the case of bidding behavior in a second-price auction with an outside option. Environ. Resour. Econ. 29:285-94
22. Corrigan JR, Kling CL, Zhao J. 2008. Willingness to pay and the cost of commitment: an empirical specification and test. Environ. Resour. Econ. 40:285-98
23. Coursey DL, Hovis JL, Schulze WD. 1987. The disparity between willingness to accept and willingness to pay measures of value. Q. J. Econ. 102:679-90
24. Dubourg WR, Jones-Lee MW, Loomes G. 1994. Imprecise preferences and the WTP-WTA disparity. J. Risk Uncertain. 9:115-33
25. Engelmann D, Hollard G. 2010. Reconsidering the effect of market experience on the "endowment effect." Econometrica 78:2005-19
26. Ericson KMM, Fuster A. 2014. The endowment effect. Annu. Rev. Econ. 6:555-79
27. Franciosi R, Kujal P, Michelitsch R, Smith V, Deng G. 1996. Experimental tests of the endowment effect. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 30:213-26
28. FreemanAM, Herriges JA, Kling CL. 2014. The Measurement of Environmental Resource Values: Theory and Methods. Washington, DC: Resour. Future
29. Gächter S, Johnson EJ, Herrmann A. 2010. Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices.Work. Pap., Sch. Econ., Univ. Nottingham
30. Georgantzis N, Navarro-Martínez D. 2010. Understanding the WTA-WTP gap: attitudes, feelings, uncertainty and personality. J. Econ. Psychol. 31:895-907
31. Graham DA. 1981. Cost-benefit analysis under uncertainty. Am. Econ. Rev. 71:715-25
32. Grutters JP, Kessels AG, Dirksen CD, Helvoort-Postulart V, Anteunis LJ, Joore MA. 2008. Willingness to accept versus willingness to pay in a discrete choice experiment. Value Health 11:1110-19
33. Guria J, Leung J, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G. 2005. The willingness to accept value of statistical life relative to the willingness to pay value: evidence and policy implications. Environ. Resour. Econ. 32:113-27
34. Hanemann WM. 1991. Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: How much can they differ? Am. Econ. Rev. 81:635-47
35. Harrison GW. 2007. Making choice studies incentive compatible. In Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies, ed. BJ Kanninen, pp. 67-110. Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer
36. Harstad RM, Selten R. 2013. Bounded-rationality models: tasks to become intellectually competitive. J. Econ. Lit. 51:496-511
37. Hoehn JP, Randall A. 1987. A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 14:226-47
38. Hoffman E, Spitzer ML. 1993. Willingness to pay vs. willingness to accept: legal and economic implications. Wash. Univ. Law Q. 71:59-114
39. Horowitz JK, McConnell KE. 2002. A review of WTA/WTP studies. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 44:426-47
40. Horowitz JK, McConnell KE. 2003. Willingness to accept, willingness to pay and the income effect. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 51:537-45
41. Horowitz JK, McConnell KE, Murphy JJ. 2013. Behavioral foundations of environmental economics and valuation. See List & Price 2013, pp. 115-56
42. Isoni A. 2011. The willingness-to-accept/willingness-to-pay disparity in repeated markets: loss aversion or 'bad-deal' aversion? Theory Decis. 71:409-30
43. Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH. 1990. Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. J. Polit. Econ. 98:1325-48
44. Kahneman D, Tversky A. 1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263-91
45. KingsleyDC, Brown TC. 2013. Value learning and the willingness to accept-willingness to pay disparity. Econ. Lett. 120:473-76
46. Kling CL, List JA, Zhao J. 2013. A dynamic explanation of the willingness to pay and willingness to accept disparity. Econ. Inq. 51:909-21
47. Kling CL, Phaneuf DJ, Zhao J. 2012. From Exxon to BP: Has some number become better than no number? J. Econ. Perspect. 26:3-26
48. Knetsch JL. 1989. The endowment effect and evidence of nonreversible indifference curves. Am. Econ. Rev. 79:1277-84
49. Knetsch JL. 1990. Environmental policy implications of disparities between willingness to pay and compensation demanded measures of values. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 18:227-37
50. Knetsch JL. 2005. Gains, losses, and the US-EPA economic analyses guidelines: a hazardous product? Environ. Resour. Econ. 32:91-112
51. Knetsch JL. 2010. Values of gains and losses: reference states and choice of measure. Environ. Resour. Econ. 46:179-88
52. Knetsch JL, Tang F-F, Thaler RH. 2001. The endowment effect and repeated market trials: Is the Vickrey auction demand revealing? Exp. Econ. 4:257-69
53. Knetsch JL, Wong W-K. 2009. The endowment effect and the reference state: evidence and manipulations. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 71:407-13
54. KolstadCD,GuzmanRM.1999. Information and the divergence between willingness to accept and willingness to pay. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 38:66-80
55. KTszegi B, Rabin M. 2006. A model of reference-dependent preferences. Q. J. Econ. 121:1133-65
56. Lerner JS, Small DA, Loewenstein G. 2004. Heart strings and purse strings carryover effects of emotions on economic decisions. Psychol. Sci. 15:337-41
57. Lin C-H, Chuang S-C, Kao DT, Kung C-Y. 2006. The role of emotions in the endowment effect. J. Econ. Psychol. 27:589-97
58. List JA. 2004. Substitutability, experience, and the value disparity: evidence from the marketplace. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 47:486-509
59. List JA. 2006. Using Hicksian surplus measures to examine consistency of individual preferences: evidence from a field experiment. Scand. J. Econ. 108:115-34
60. List JA, Price MK, ed. 2013. Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
61. List JA, Shogren JF. 1999. Price information and bidding behavior in repeated second-price auctions. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 81:942-49
62. Loewenstein G, O'Donoghue T, Rabin M. 2003. Projection bias in predicting future utility. Q. J. Econ. 118:1209-48
63. Loomes G, Starmer C, Sugden R. 2003. Do anomalies disappear in repeated markets? Econ. J. 113:C153-66
64. Loomes G, Starmer C, Sugden R. 2010. Preference reversals and disparities between willingness to pay and willingness to accept in repeated markets. J. Econ. Psychol. 31:374-87
65. Lusk JL. 2003. An experimental test of the commitment cost theory. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 85:1316-22
66. Mishan EJ, Quah E. 2007. Cost Benefit Analysis. New York: Routledge
67. Morewedge CK, Shu LL, Gilbert DT, Wilson TD. 2009. Bad riddance or good rubbish? Ownership and not loss aversion causes the endowment effect. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 45:947-51
68. Neilson WS, McKee M, Berrens RP. 2013. Value and outcome uncertainty as explanations for the WTA vs WTP disparity. See List & Price 2013, pp. 171-89
69. Noussair C, Robin S, Ruffieux B. 2004. Revealing consumers' willingness-to-pay: a comparison of the BDM mechanism and the Vickrey auction. J. Econ. Psychol. 25:725-41
70. O'Brien BJ, Goeree R, Gafni A, Torrance GW, Pauly MV, et al. 1998. Assessing the value of a new pharmaceutical: a feasibility study of contingent valuation in managed care. Med. Care 36:370-84
71. Okada EM. 2010. Uncertainty, risk aversion, and WTA vs. WTP. Mark. Sci. 29:75-84
72. OMB (US Off. Manag. Budg.). 2003. Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis. Washington, DC: OMB
73. Plott CR. 1996. Rational individual behavior in markets and social choice processes: the discovered preference hypothesis. In Rational Foundations of Economic Behavior, ed. K Arrow, E Colombatto, M Perleman, C Schmidt, pp. 225-50. London: Macmillan/St.
74. Martin's Plott CR, Zeiler K. 2005. The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap, the "endowment effect," subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations. Am. Econ. Rev. 95:530-45
75. Plott CR, Zeiler K. 2007. Exchangeasymmetries incorrectly interpreted as evidence of endowment effect theory and prospect theory? Am. Econ. Rev. 97:1449-66
76. Putler DS. 1992. Incorporating reference price effects into a theory of consumer choice. Mark. Sci. 11:287-309
77. Randall A, Stoll JR. 1980. Consumer's surplus in commodity space. Am. Econ. Rev. 70:449-55
78. Ratan A. 2013. Anticipated regret or endowment effect? A reconsideration of exchange asymmetry in laboratory experiments. B.E. J. Econ. Anal. Policy 14:277-98
79. Reb J, Connolly T. 2007. Possession, feelings of ownership, and the endowment effect. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 2:107-14
80. Sayman S, Öncüler A. 2005. Effects of study design characteristics on the WTA-WTP disparity: a meta analytical framework. J. Econ. Psychol. 26:289-312
81. Shogren JF, Cho S, Koo C, List J, Park C, et al. 2001. Auction mechanisms and the measurement of WTP and WTA. Resour. Energy Econ. 23:97-109
82. Shogren JF, Shin SY, Hayes DJ, Kliebenstein JB. 1994. Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept. Am. Econ. Rev. 84:255-70
83. Smith VK, Moore EM. 2010. Behavioral economics and benefit cost analysis. Environ. Resour. Econ. 46:217-34
84. Strahilevitz MA, Loewenstein G. 1998. The effect of ownership history on the valuation of objects. J. Consum. Res. 25:276-89
85. Svirsky D. 2014. Money is no object: testing the endowment effect in exchange goods. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 106:227-34
86. Tan J, Zhao J. 2015. Experiences and environmental preferences: the case of Beijing Olympics. Work. Pap., Dep. Econ., Mich. State Univ.
87. Thaler R. 1985. Mental accounting and consumer choice. Mark. Sci. 4:199-214
88. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. 2003. Libertarian paternalism. Am. Econ. Rev. 93:175-79
89. Tunçel T, Hammitt JK. 2014. A new meta-analysis on the WTP/WTA disparity. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 68:175-87
90. Viscusi WK, Huber J. 2012. Reference-dependent valuations of risk: why willingness-to-accept exceeds willingness-to-pay. J. Risk Uncertain. 44:19-44
91. Weaver R, Frederick S. 2012. A reference price theory of the endowment effect. J. Mark. Res. 49:696-707
92. Weber TA. 2003. An exact relation between willingness to pay and willingness to accept. Econ. Lett. 80:311-15
93. Zhao J, Kling CL. 2001. A new explanation for the WTP/WTA disparity. Econ. Lett. 73:293-300
94. Zhao J, Kling CL. 2004. Willingness to pay, compensating variation, and the cost of commitment. Econ. Inq. 42:503-17
95. Zhao J, Kling CL. 2009. Welfare measures when agents can learn: a unifying theory. Econ. J. 119:1560-85