Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-nzzs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-17T06:23:28.362Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Jack L. Knetsch ,
Fang-Fang Tang  and
Richard H. Thaler
Jack L. Knetsch*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada
Fang-Fang Tang*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Business Administration, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong
Richard H. Thaler*
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL USA
*
email: knetsch@sfu.ca
email: fftang@baf.msmail.cuhk.edu.hk
email: thaler@gsb.uchicago.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The difference between people's valuations of gains and losses has been widely observed in both single trial and repeated trial experiments, as well as in survey responses and in commonplace behavior. However, the results of some Vickrey auction experiments indicate that the disparity may decrease, or even disappear, over repeated trials. This paper reports the results of two further repeated Vickrey auction experiments that test the impact of both a second price and a ninth price auction rule on valuations. Although valuations should be independent of this variation in the exchange price rule, the manipulation had a dramatic impact on subjects’ stated values of a common market good. The results suggest that the endowment effect remains robust over repeated trials, and that contrary to common understanding, the Vickrey auction may elicit differing demands dependent on the context of the valuation.

Keywords

endowment effectlearningVickrey auctions

JEL classification

D44: Auctions C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , December 2001 , pp. 257 - 269
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This research has benefited from the suggestions and comments of Daniel Kahneman, the research assistance of Roland Cheo and organizational help of Zeng Jinli, and was, in part, supported by the U.S. Forest Service.

References

Becker, G., DeGroot, M., and Marschak, J. (1964). “Measuring Utility by a Single Response Sequential Method.” Behavioral Science. 9, 226–236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyce, R.R., Brown, T.C., McClelland, G.H., Peterson, G.L., and Schulze, W.D. (1992). An Experimental Examination of Intrinsic Values as a Source of the WTA-WTP Disparity.” The American Economic Review. 87, 1366–1376.Google Scholar
Davis, D.D. and Holt, C.A. (1993). Experimental Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harless, D.W. (1989). “More Laboratory Evidence on the Disparity Between Willingness to Pay and Compensation Demanded.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 11, 359–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kachelmeier, S.J. and Shehata, M. (1992). Examining Risk Preferences Under High Monetary Incentives: Experimental Evidence from the People's Republic of China.” The American Economic Review. 82, 1120–1141.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L., and Thaler, R.H. (1990). “Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem.” The Journal of Political Economy. 98, 1325–1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knetsch, J.L. and Sinden, J.A. (1984). “Willingness to Pay and Compensation Demanded: Experimental Evidence of an Unexpected Disparity in Measures of Value.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics. IC, 507–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laffont, J.J. (1987). “Revelation of Preferences.” In Eatwell, John, Milgate, Murray, and Newman, Peter, (eds.), The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics. London: Macmillan Press, 170–171.Google Scholar
Shogren, J.F. and Hayes, D.J. (1997). “Resolving Differences in Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: Reply.” The American Economic Review. 87, 241–244.Google Scholar
Shogren, J.F., Shin, S.Y., Hayes, D.J., and Kliebenstein, J.B. (1994). “Resolving Differences in Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept.” The American Economic Review. 84, 225–270.Google Scholar
Smith, V. L. (1980). “Relevance of Laboratory Experiments to Testing Resource Allocation Theory.” In Kinsata, J. and Ramsey, J., (eds), Evaluation of Econometric Models. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Thaler, R.H. (1990). “Anomalies: Preference Reversals.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 4.2, 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vickrey, W. (1961). “Counter speculation, Auctions, and Competitive Sealed Tenders.” The Journal of Finance. 16, 8–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar