Choice uncertainty and the endowment effect.

IF 1.3 2区 经济学 Q3 BUSINESS, FINANCE Journal of Risk and Uncertainty Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2022-06-16 DOI:10.1007/s11166-022-09387-8
Christina McGranaghan, Steven G Otto
{"title":"Choice uncertainty and the endowment effect.","authors":"Christina McGranaghan,&nbsp;Steven G Otto","doi":"10.1007/s11166-022-09387-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We experimentally test for the role of choice uncertainty in generating \"endowment effects\" - the robust empirical finding that endowing participants with an item raises their reported valuation relative to participants being asked to purchase it instead. While there is some compelling evidence concerning trade uncertainty in the literature, there is substantially less evidence regarding the importance of choice uncertainty. This paper provides novel support for the significance of choice uncertainty in the context of both trading and stated valuations. In a primary set of studies, we find that reducing choice uncertainty eliminates under-trading in the exchange setting and decreases (but does not eliminate) the difference in average valuations reported by buyers and sellers, mainly by decreasing the number of extreme valuations by sellers. Interestingly, our treatment does not lead to a significant increase in the number of mutually acceptable trades implied by stated valuations. Comparing the results from our two primary experiments therefore suggests that value uncertainty continues to play a role in generating valuation asymmetries even after relevant product uncertainty has been resolved. A set of follow-up studies with modified designs replicates this finding in the exchange setting but fails to generate a valuation asymmetry in the control condition, possibly due to pandemic-related mitigation measures and less participant time with the endowed item.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11166-022-09387-8.</p>","PeriodicalId":48066,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk and Uncertainty","volume":"65 1","pages":"83-104"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9200560/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Risk and Uncertainty","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-022-09387-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/6/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

We experimentally test for the role of choice uncertainty in generating "endowment effects" - the robust empirical finding that endowing participants with an item raises their reported valuation relative to participants being asked to purchase it instead. While there is some compelling evidence concerning trade uncertainty in the literature, there is substantially less evidence regarding the importance of choice uncertainty. This paper provides novel support for the significance of choice uncertainty in the context of both trading and stated valuations. In a primary set of studies, we find that reducing choice uncertainty eliminates under-trading in the exchange setting and decreases (but does not eliminate) the difference in average valuations reported by buyers and sellers, mainly by decreasing the number of extreme valuations by sellers. Interestingly, our treatment does not lead to a significant increase in the number of mutually acceptable trades implied by stated valuations. Comparing the results from our two primary experiments therefore suggests that value uncertainty continues to play a role in generating valuation asymmetries even after relevant product uncertainty has been resolved. A set of follow-up studies with modified designs replicates this finding in the exchange setting but fails to generate a valuation asymmetry in the control condition, possibly due to pandemic-related mitigation measures and less participant time with the endowed item.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11166-022-09387-8.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
选择不确定性与禀赋效应。
我们通过实验测试了选择不确定性在产生“禀赋效应”中的作用——强有力的实证发现,与被要求购买的参与者相比,赠予参与者一件物品会提高他们的报告估值。虽然文献中有一些关于贸易不确定性的令人信服的证据,但关于选择不确定性重要性的证据却少得多。本文为选择不确定性在交易和声明估值背景下的重要性提供了新的支持。在一组初步研究中,我们发现减少选择不确定性消除了交易环境中的交易不足,并减少(但没有消除)买卖双方报告的平均估值差异,主要是通过减少卖方极端估值的数量。有趣的是,我们的处理并没有导致陈述估值所暗示的相互接受的交易数量显著增加。因此,比较我们两个主要实验的结果表明,即使在相关产品的不确定性得到解决之后,价值不确定性仍然在产生估值不对称方面发挥作用。一组设计经过修改的后续研究在交换环境中重复了这一发现,但未能在对照条件下产生估值不对称,这可能是由于与大流行相关的缓解措施以及参与者与指定物品接触的时间较少。补充信息:在线版本包含补充资料,可在10.1007/s11166-022-09387-8获得。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
10.60%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty (JRU) welcomes original empirical, experimental, and theoretical manuscripts dealing with the analysis of risk-bearing behavior and decision making under uncertainty. The topics covered in the journal include, but are not limited to, decision theory and the economics of uncertainty, experimental investigations of behavior under uncertainty, empirical studies of real world risk-taking behavior, behavioral models of choice under uncertainty, and risk and public policy. Review papers are welcome. The JRU does not publish finance or behavioral finance research, game theory, note length work, or papers that treat Likert-type scales as having cardinal significance. An important aim of the JRU is to encourage interdisciplinary communication and interaction between researchers in the area of risk and uncertainty. Authors are expected to provide introductory discussions which set forth the nature of their research and the interpretation and implications of their findings in a manner accessible to knowledgeable researchers in other disciplines. Officially cited as: J Risk Uncertain
期刊最新文献
Subjective beliefs, health, and health behaviors Randomization advice and ambiguity aversion The gambler’s fallacy prevails in lottery play Are economic preferences shaped by the family context? The relation of birth order and siblings’ gender composition to economic preferences Reference-dependent discounting
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1