Bad riddance or good rubbish? Ownership and not loss aversion causes the endowment effect

被引:216
作者
Morewedge, Carey K. [2 ]
Shu, Lisa L. [1 ]
Gilbert, Daniel T. [1 ]
Wilson, Timothy D. [3 ]
机构
[1] Harvard Univ, Dept Psychol, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
[2] Carnegie Mellon Univ, Dept Social & Decis Sci, Pittsburgh, PA USA
[3] Univ Virginia, Dept Psychol, Charlottesville, VA 22904 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
Decision-making; Behavioral economics; PROSPECT-THEORY; MERE OWNERSHIP; BIAS; DECISIONS; VALUATION; EMOTIONS; OBJECTS; BUYERS; CHOICE;
D O I
10.1016/j.jesp.2009.05.014
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
People typically demand more to relinquish the goods they own than they would be willing to pay to acquire those goods if they did not already own them (the endowment effect). The standard economic explanation of this phenomenon is that people expect the pain of relinquishing a good to be greater than the pleasure of acquiring it (the loss aversion account). The standard psychological explanation is that people are reluctant to relinquish the goods they own simply because they associate those goods with themselves and not because they expect relinquishing them to be especially painful (the ownership account). Because sellers are usually owners, loss aversion and ownership have been confounded in previous studies of the endowment effect. In two experiments that deconfounded them, ownership produced an endowment effect but loss aversion did not. In Experiment 1, buyers were willing to pay just as much fora coffee mug as sellers demanded if the buyers already happened to own an identical mug. In Experiment 2, buyers' brokers and sellers' brokers agreed on the price of a mug, but both brokers traded at higher prices when they happened to own mugs that were identical to the ones they were trading. In short, the endowment effect disappeared when buyers were owners and when sellers were not, suggesting that ownership and not loss aversion causes the endowment effect in the standard experimental paradigm. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:947 / 951
页数:5
相关论文
共 38 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2007, COGNITIVE DISSONANCE, DOI DOI 10.4135/9781446214282
[2]  
[Anonymous], [No title captured]
[3]   A test of the theory of reference-dependent preferences [J].
Bateman, I ;
Munro, A ;
Rhodes, B ;
Starmer, C ;
Sugden, R .
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 1997, 112 (02) :479-505
[4]   MEASURING UTILITY BY A SINGLE-RESPONSE SEQUENTIAL METHOD [J].
BECKER, GM ;
DEGROOT, MH ;
MARSCHAK, J .
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE, 1964, 9 (03) :226-232
[5]   ON THE SOCIAL NATURE OF NONSOCIAL PERCEPTION - THE MERE OWNERSHIP EFFECT [J].
BEGGAN, JK .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1992, 62 (02) :229-237
[6]   SOURCE CREDIBILITY IN SOCIAL JUDGMENT - BIAS, EXPERTISE, AND THE JUDGES POINT OF VIEW [J].
BIRNBAUM, MH ;
STEGNER, SE .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1979, 37 (01) :48-74
[7]   POSTDECISION CHANGES IN THE DESIRABILITY OF ALTERNATIVES [J].
BREHM, JW .
JOURNAL OF ABNORMAL AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1956, 52 (03) :384-389
[8]   Loss aversion without the endowment effect, and other explanations for the WTA-WTP disparity [J].
Brown, TC .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR & ORGANIZATION, 2005, 57 (03) :367-379
[9]   Focusing on the forgone: How value can appear so different to buyers and sellers [J].
Carmon, Z ;
Ariely, D .
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, 2000, 27 (03) :360-370
[10]  
Chapman GB, 1998, J BEHAV DECIS MAKING, V11, P47, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199803)11:1<47::AID-BDM278>3.0.CO