Loss aversion without the endowment effect, and other explanations for the WTA-WTP disparity

139 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.

Opportunity Cost Neglect (2009, background): “Brown (2005) found that fewer than 10% of his participants mentioned outside goods when instructed to describe how they arrived at their maximum willingness to pay, we found that only 13% of participants mentioned outside goods in the control condition of study 3, and Rick et al. (2008) found only…”
The endowment effect and the reference state: Evidence and manipulations (2009, unknown): “Brown (2005) also finds evidence of misconception using the verbal protocol technique; when stating WTA, most subjects referred to what the good would be worth to others or in store, instead of what the good was worth to them, despite the use of a random price auction.”
Bad riddance or good rubbish? Ownership and not loss aversion causes the endowment effect. (2009, background): “The endowment effect is typically described as ‘‘the purest and most robust instantiation of loss aversion” (Rozin & Royzman, 2001) which ‘‘does not require a change in preference for the good once it becomes part of an individual’s endowment” (Brown, 2005, p. 337).”