Encyclopedia of Law and Economics

2019 Edition
| Editors: Alain Marciano, Giovanni Battista Ramello

Endowment Effect

  • Ben DepoorterEmail author
  • Sven HoeppnerEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7753-2_545

Abstract

A vast body of experimental studies in psychology and economics finds that individuals tend to value goods more and demand higher prices when they own the goods than they would be willing to pay for the good when they do not already own it. Although research on the endowment effect has been done for more than three decades, it’s theory, empirical methodology, results, and implications continue to be topics of intense discussion among economists, lawyers and psychologists. In this entry, we review the theoretical framework and empirical evidence on the endowment effect and highlight some implications for law and economics research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Arlen J, Talley E (2008) Introduction: experimental law and economics. In: Arlen J, Talley E (eds) Experimental law and economics. Edward Elgar, Northampton, pp xv–lxiGoogle Scholar
  2. Bar-Hillel M, Neter E (1996) Why are people reluctant to exchange lottery tickets? J Pers Soc Psychol 70:17–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown TC (2005) Loss aversion without the endowment effect, and other explanations for the WTA-WTP disparity. J Econ Behav Organ 57:367–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cialdini RB, Trost MR, Newsom JT (1995) Preference for consistency: the development of a valid measure and the discovery of surprising behavioral implications. J Pers Soc Psychol 69:318–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coursey DL, Hovis JL, Schultze WD (1987) The disparity between willingness to accept and willingness to pay measures of value. Q J Econ 102:670–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Depoorter B, Tontrup S (2012) How law frames moral intuitions: the expressive effect of specific performance. Ariz Law Rev 54:673–717Google Scholar
  7. Dubourg WR, Jones-Lee MW, Loomes G (1994) Imprecise preferences and the WTP-WTA disparity. J Risk Uncertainty 9:115–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Festinger L (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Gilovich T, Medvec VH (1995) The experience of regret: what, when, and why. Psychol Rev 102:379–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harbaugh WT, Krause K, Vesterlund L (2001) Are adults better behaved than children? Age, experience, and the endowment effect. Econ Lett 70:175–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hartman R, Doane MJ, Woo CK (1991) Consumer rationality and the status quo. Q J Econ 106:141–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoeppner S (2012) The unintended consequence of doorstep consumer protection: surprise, reciprocation, and consistency. Eur J Law Econ 38:247–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Horowitz JK, McConnell KE (2002) A review of WTA/WTP studies. J Environ Econ Manag 44:426–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Isoni A, Loomes G, Sugden R (2011) The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap, the “endowment effect”, subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations: comment. Am Econ Rev 101:991–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Issacharoff S (1998) Can there be a behavioral law and economics? Vanderbilt Law Rev 91:1729–1745Google Scholar
  16. Johnson EJ, Hershey J, Meszaros J, Kunreuther H (1993) Framing, probability distortions, and insurance decisions. J Risk Uncertainty 7:35–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson EJ, Haubl G, Keinan A (2007) Aspects of endowment: a query theory account of loss aversion for simple objects. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 33:461–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jolls C, Sunstein CR, Thaler RH (1998) A behavioral approach to law and economics. Stanford Law Rev 50:1471–1550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kahan M, Klausner M (1996) Path dependence in corporate contracting: increasing returns, herd behavior and cognitive biases. Wash Univ Law Q 74:347–366Google Scholar
  20. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH (1990) Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the coase theorem. J Polit Econ 98:1325–1348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH (1991) The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. J Econ Perspect 5:193–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Klass G, Zeiler K (2013) Against endowment theory: experimental economics and legal scholarship. UCLA Law Rev 61:2–64Google Scholar
  24. Knetsch JL (1989) Endowment effect and evidence of nonreversible indifference curves. Am Econ Rev 79:1277–1284Google Scholar
  25. Knetsch JL, Sinden JA (1984) Willingness to pay and compensation demanded: experimental evidence of an unexpected disparity in measures of value. Q J Econ 99:507–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Knetsch JL, Sinden JA (1987) The persistence of evaluation disparities. Q J Econ 102:691–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Knetsch JL, Wong WK (2009) The endowment effect and the reference state: evidence and manipulations. J Econ Behav Organ 71:407–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Knez P, Smith VL, Williams AW (1985) Individual rationality, market rationality, and value estimation. Am Econ Rev 75:397–402Google Scholar
  29. Korobkin RB (1998a) The status quo bias and contract default rules. Cornell Law Rev 83:608–687Google Scholar
  30. Korobkin RB (1998b) Inertia and preference in contract negotiation: the psychological power of default rules and form terms. Vanderbilt Law Rev 51:1583–1651Google Scholar
  31. Korobkin RB (2003) The endowment effect and legal analysis. Northwestern Univ Law Rev 97:1227–1293Google Scholar
  32. Korobkin RB, Ulen TS (2000) Law and behavioral science: removing the rationality assumption from law and economics. Calif Law Rev 88:1051–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Landman J (1987) Regret and elation following action and inaction: affective responses to positive versus negative outcomes. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 13:524–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lin CH, Chuang SC, Kao DT, Kung CY (2006) The role of emotions in the endowment effect. J Econ Psychol 27:589–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. List JA (2003) Does market experience eliminate market anomalies? Q J Econ 118:47–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. List JA (2004) Neoclassical theory versus prospect theory: evidence from the market place. Econometrica 72:615–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Loewenstein GF, Issacharoff S (1994) Source dependence in the evaluation of objects. J Behav Decis Mak 7:157–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Martinez LF, Zeelenberg M, Rijsman JB (2011) Regret, disappointment and the endowment effect. J Econ Psychol 32:962–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morewedge CK, Shu LL, Gilbert DT, Wilson DT (2009) Bad riddance or good rubbish? Ownership and not loss aversion causes the endowment effect. J Exp Soc Psychol 45:947–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nayakankuppam D, Mishra H (2005) The endowment effect: rose-tinted and dark-tinted glasses. J Consum Res 32:390–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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 95:530–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Plott CR, Zeiler K (2007) Exchange asymmetries incorrectly interpreted as evidence of endowment effect theory and prospect theory? Am Econ Rev 97:1449–1466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Plott CR, Zeiler K (2011) The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap, the “endowment effect”, subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations: reply. Am Econ Rev 101:1012–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rachlinksy JJ, Jourden F (1998) Remedies and the psychology of ownership. Vanderbilt Law Rev 51:1541–1582Google Scholar
  45. Samuelson W, Zeckhauser R (1988) Status quo bias in decision making. J Risk Uncertainty 1:7–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shogren JF, Shin SY, Hayes DJ, Kliebenstein JB (1994) Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept. Am Econ Rev 84:255–270Google Scholar
  47. Thaler RH (1980) Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. J Econ Behav Organ 1:39–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. van Dijk E, van Knippenberg D (1996) Buying and selling exchange goods: loss aversion and the endowment effect. J Econ Psychol 17:517–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. van Dijk E, van Knippenberg D (1998) Trading wine: on the endowment effect, loss aversion, and the comparability of consumer goods. J Econ Psychol 19:485–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhang Y, Fishbach A (2005) The role of anticipated emotions in the endowment effect. J Consum Psychol 15:316–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hastings College of the LawUniversity of CaliforniaSan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Center for Advanced Studies in Law and Economics (CASLE)Ghent University Law SchoolGhentBelgium