Advertisement

The Disparity Between Willingness-to-Pay Versus Willingness-to-Accept as a Framing Effect

  • Gary H. McClelland
  • William D. Schulze
Part of the Recent Research in Psychology book series (PSYCHOLOGY)

Abstract

A number of studies (see, e.g., Kahneman & Tversky, 1984; Thaler, 1985; and Tversky & Kahneman, 1981) have demonstrated that the way an individual frames or represents a choice problem can have important effects on the choices made. Machina (1987) argues that such framing effects remain one of the major unsolved problems of choice under uncertainty. A dramatic illustration of a framing effect was presented by Knetsch and Sinden (1984); they showed in a series of experiments that the amount people were willing to accept (WTA) to sell back lottery tickets exceeded the amount they were willing to pay (WTP) for purchase of lottery tickets by a factor of about two to one. The underlying choice problem is the same, either (a) to have a certain amount of money and no lottery ticket or (b) to hold a lottery ticket but to forgo a certain amount of money. The difference in behavior is apparently due to whether the choice is framed as buying (WTP) or selling (WTA).1

Keywords

Prospect Theory Insurance Policy Expect Utility Theory Lottery Ticket Vickrey Auction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Becker, G.M., DeGroot, M.H., & Marshak, J. (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science, 9, 226–232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell, D.E. (1982). Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Research, 30, 961–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyce, R.R., McClelland, G.H., Schulze, W.D., Brown, T., & Peterson, G. (1988). An experimental examination of intrinsic environmental values. Paper presented at the meetings of the Economic Science Association, Tucson, AZ, October 1988.Google Scholar
  4. Coombs, C.H., Bezembinder, T.G., & Goode, F.M. (1967). Testing expectation theories of decision making without measuring utility or subjective probability. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 4, 72–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coppinger, V.M., Smith, V.L., & Titus, J.A. (1980). Incentives and behavior in English, Dutch, and sealed-bid auctions. Economic Inquiry, 18, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coursey, D.L, Hovis, J.J., & Schulze, W.D. (1987). The disparity between willingness to accept and willingness to pay measures of value. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 102, 679–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cummings, R.G., Brookshire, D.S., & Schulze, W.D. (Eds). (1986). Valuing environmental goods: An assessment of the contingent valuation method. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.Google Scholar
  8. Einhorn, H.J., & Hogarth, R.M. (1985). Ambiguity and uncertainty in probabilistic inference. Psychological Review, 92, 433–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fisher, A., McClelland, G. H., & Schulze, W. D. (1988). Measures of willingness to pay versus willingness to accept: Evidence, explanations, and potential reconciliation. In G. L. Peterson, B. L. Driver, & R. Gregory (Eds.), Amenity resource valuation: Integrating economics with other disciplines (pp. 127–134 ). State College, PA: Venture Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Grether, D.M., & Plott, C.R. (1979). Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon. American Economic Review, 69, 623–638.Google Scholar
  11. Kagel, J.H., Harstadt, R.M., & Levin, D. (1987). Information impart and allocation rules in auctions with affiliated private values: A laboratory study. Econometrica, 55, 1275–1304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The psychology of preference. Scientific American, 246, 160–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Knetsch, J.L, Thaler, R., & Kahneman, D. (1987). Reluctance to trade: An experimental refutation of the Coase Theorem. Paper presented at the meetings of the Public Choice Society and the Economics Science Association, Tucson, AZ, March 1987.Google Scholar
  16. 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, 102, 507–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Machina, M.J. (1987). Choice under uncertainty: Problems solved and unsolved. Economic Perspectives, 1, 121–154.Google Scholar
  18. McClelland, G.H., Schulze, W.D., & Coursey, D. (1988). The effects of framing and the status quo on compensating and equivalent variation measures of value. Paper presented at the meetings of the Public Choice Society and the Economic Science Association, San Francisco, March 1988.Google Scholar
  19. Rowe, R.D., d’Arge, R.C., & Brookshire, D.S. (1980). An experiment on the economic value of visibility. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 7, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1968). Relative importance of probabilities and payoffs in risk taking. Journal of Experimental Psychology (Monograph), 78, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1, 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Thaler, R. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4, 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vickrey, W. (1961). Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. Journal of Finance, 16, 8–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vickrey, W. (1976). Auctions, markets, and optimal allocation. In Y. Amihud (Ed.), Bidding and auctioning for procurement and allocation. New York: University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Willig, R.D. (1976). Consumers’ surplus without apology. American Economic Review, 66, 589–597.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gary H. McClelland
  • William D. Schulze

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations