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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Becker, G., DeGroot, M., and Marschak, J. (1964). “Measuring Utility by a Single Response Sequential Method.” Behavioral Science. 9, 226–236.
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.
Davis, D.D. and Holt, C.A. (1993). Experimental Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Harless, D.W. (1989). “More Laboratory Evidence on the Disparity BetweenWillingness to Pay and Compensation Demanded.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 11, 359–379.
Kachelmeier, S.J. and Shehata, M. (1992). Examining Risk Preferences Under High Monetary Incentives: Experimental Evidence from the People' Republic of China.”The American Economic Review. 82, 1120–1141.
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.
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.
Laffont, J.J. (1987). “Revelation of Preferences.” In John Eatwell, Murray Milgate, and Peter Newman, (eds.), The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics. London: Macmillan Press, 170–171.
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.
Shogren, J.F., Shin, S.Y., Hayes, D.J., and Kliebenstein, J.B. (1994). “Resolving Differences inWillingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept.” The American Economic Review. 84, 225–270.
Smith, V. L. (1980). “Relevance of Laboratory Experiments to Testing Resource Allocation Theory.” In J. Kinsata and J. Ramsey, (eds), Evaluation of Econometric Models. New York: Academic Press.
Tversky, A. and Thaler, R.H. (1990). “Anomalies: Preference Reversals.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 4.2, 201–211.
Vickrey, W. (1961). “Counterspeculation, Auctions, and Competitive Sealed Tenders.” The Journal of Finance. 16, 8–37.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Knetsch, J.L., Tang, FF. & Thaler, R.H. The Endowment Effect and Repeated Market Trials: Is the Vickrey Auction Demand Revealing?. Experimental Economics 4, 257–269 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013221421382
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013221421382