Theory and Decision

, Volume 66, Issue 3, pp 229–262 | Cite as

An Experimental Investigation of the Disparity Between WTA and WTP for Lotteries

Article

Abstract

In this paper we experimentally investigate the disparity between willingness-to-accept (WTA) and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for risky lotteries. The direction of the income effect is reversed by endowing subjects with the highest price of a lottery when asking the WTP question. Our results show that the income effect is too small to be the only source of the disparity. Since the disparity concentrates on a subsample of subjects, parametric and nonparametric tests of the WTA-WTP ratio may lead to contradictory results. The disparity is significantly reduced when background risk is introduced. That is, putting subjects always into a risky position could improve the contingent valuation method, which is often concerned with the assessment of risky situations such as health risks, automobile safety, etc.

Keywords

WTA-WTP disparity lotteries background risk contingent valuation 

JEL Classification

C91 D81 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bar-Hillel M., Neter E. (1996) Why are people reluctant to exchange lottery tickets?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70: 17–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bateman I., Munro A., Rhodes B., Starmer C., Sugden R. (1997) A test of the theory of reference-dependent preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics 62: 479–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateman, I. and Willis, K.G. (eds.) (1999), Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries, Oxford: Oxford University Press,Google Scholar
  4. Bell D.E. (1982) Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Research 30: 961–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bleichrodt H., Schmidt U. (2002) A Context-dependent model of the gambling effect. Management Science 48: 802–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borges B.F., Knetsch J.L. (1998), Test of market outcomes with asymmetric valuations of gains and losses: smaller gains, fewer trades, and less value. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 33: 185–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen M. (1992) Security level, potential level, expected utility: a three-criteria decision model under risk. Theory and Decision 33: 101–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coursey D.L., Hovis J.L., Schulze W.D. (1987) The disparity between willingness to accept and willingness to pay measures of value. Quarterly Journal of Economics 102: 679–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cummings, R.G., Brookshire, D.S. and Schulze, W.D. (eds.) (1986), Valuing Environmental Goods, An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method, Totowa: Rowman and Allanheld.Google Scholar
  10. Dubourg W.R., Jones-Lee M.W., Loomes G. (1994) Imprecise preferences and the WTP-WTA disparity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 9:115–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eisenberger R., Weber M. (1995) Willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept for risky and ambiguous lotteries. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 10: 223–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fishburn P.C. (1980) A simple model for the utility of gambling. Psychometrika 45: 435–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Franciosi R., Kujal P., Michelitsch R., Smith V., Deng G. (1996) Experimental tests of the endowment effect. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 30: 213–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harless D.W. (1989) More laboratory evidence on the disparity between willingness to pay and compensation demanded. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 11: 359–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hartman R.S., Doane M.J., Woo C.-K. (1990) Status quo bias in the measurement of value in service. Resources and Energy 12: 197–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hartman R.S., Doane M.J., Woo C.-K. (1991) Consumer Rationality and the Status Quo. Quarterly Journal of Economics 95: 141–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jaffray J.Y. (1988) Choice under risk and the security factor: an axiomatic model. Theory and Decision 24: 169–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kahneman D., Knetsch J.L., Thaler R.H. (1990) Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy 98: 1325–1348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kahneman D., Knetsch J.L., Thaler R.H. (1991) The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5: 193–206Google Scholar
  20. Kahneman D., Tversky A. (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47: 263–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Knetsch J.L. (1989) The endowment effect and evidence of nonreversible indifference curves. American Economic Review 79: 1277–1284Google Scholar
  22. Knetsch J.L. (1990) Environmental policy implications of disparities between willingness to pay and compensation demanded measures of values. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18: 227–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Knetsch J.L. (1992) Preferences and nonreversability of indifference curves. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 17: 131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Knetsch J.L. (1995) Assumptions, behavioral findings, and policy analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 14: 68–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Knetsch, J.L. (2000), Environmental valuations and standard theory: behavioral findings, context dependence and implications, International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics 267–299.Google Scholar
  26. Knetsch J.L., Sinden J.A. (1984) Willingness to pay and compensation demanded: experimental evidence of an unexpected disparity in measures of value. Quarterly Journal of Economics 99: 507–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Knetsch J.L., Sinden J.A. (1987) The persistence of evaluation disparities. Quarterly Journal of Economics 102: 691–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Loomes G., Sugden R. (1982) Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Economic Journal 92: 805–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Loomes G., Starmer C., Sugden R. (2003) Do anomalies disappear in repeated markets?. Economic Journal 113: C153–C166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McDaniels T.L. (1992) Reference points, loss aversion, and contingent values for auto safety. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5: 187–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morrison G. (1997) Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: some evidence of an endowment effect. Applied Economics 29: 411–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Payne J.W., Laughhunn D.J., Crum R. (1980) Translation of gambles and aspiration level effects in risky choice behavior. Management Science 26: 1039–1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Payne J.W., Laughhunn D.J., Crum R. (1981) Further tests of aspiration level effects in risky choice behavior. Management Science 27: 953–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Samuelson W., Zeckhauser R. (1988) Status-quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1: 7–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shogren J.F, Shin S.Y., Hayes D.J., Kliebenstein J.B. (1994) Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept. American Economic Review 84: 255–270Google Scholar
  36. Shogren J.F, Cho S., Koo C., List J., Park C., Polo P., Wilhelmi R. (2001) Auction mechanisms and the measurement of WTP and WTA. Ressource and Energy Economics 23: 97–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sugden, R. (1999), Alternatives to the neo-classical theory of choice, in Bateman, I. and Willis, K.G. (eds.), Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries, Oxford University Press: Oxford, Chapter 5.Google Scholar
  38. Thaler R.H. (1980) Towards a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 1: 39–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thaler R.H., Johnson E.J. (1990) Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: the effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Management Science 36: 643–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Traub S. (1999) Framing Effects in Taxation: An Empirical Study Using the German Income Tax Schedule. Physica, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  41. Tversky A., Kahneman D. (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185, 1124–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tversky A., Sattah S., Slovic P. (1988) Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological Review 95, 371–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Willig R.D. (1976) Consumer surplus without apology. Amercian Economic Review 66: 589–597Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics, Institut für VolkswirtschaftslehreChristian-Albrechts-Universität zu KielKielGermany
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations