The Endowment Effect and Repeated Market Trials: Is the Vickrey Auction Demand Revealing?

176 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Preference Elicitation under Oath (2010, background): “Here off-the-margin bidders tend to over-bid if they perceive their induced value is far removed from the potential market clearing price in a real auction (see for example, Shogren et al., 2001; Knetsch et al., 2001).”
The endowment effect and the reference state: Evidence and manipulations (2009, result): “similar preferences and choices, suggesting little reason for any lack of generality in the present findings ( Knetsch et al., 2001 ).”
Economic Theory and Experimental Economics (2005, background): “For example, Knetsch, Tang and Thaler [135], who also provide references to earlier work, comment that “The endowment effect and loss aversion have been among the most”
Auction mechanisms and the measurement of WTP and WTA (2001, background): “The random nth-price auction: design and results But these findings still cannot completely explain the observations of Knetsch et al. (1998).”
An experimental examination of the house money effect in a multi-period setting (2006, unknown): “Knetsch et al. (2001) shed light on this puzzling behavior.”
Do Anomalies Disappear in Repeated Markets (2003, background): “However, other experiments using apparently similar repeated market designs have found that anomalies persist: for example, preference reversal decays in only one of the two 2 experimental markets investigated by Cox and Grether, and Knetsch et al (2001) find persistence of the WTP–WTA disparity.”