Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Trading Under the Influence: The Effects of Psychological Ownership on Economic Decision-Making

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Psychological Ownership and Consumer Behavior

Abstract

The current chapter examines the role of psychological ownership in different economic decision-making contexts. These include the allocation of personal resources, trade-offs between costs and benefits, and subjective valuations reflecting underlying preferences. Economic decision-making usually coincides with a change in legal ownership. However, feelings of ownership need not coincide with actually owning or possessing anything. We investigate the influence of psychological and legal ownership on buying and selling (as seen in the endowment effect), general bargaining behavior, and prosocial decision-making in the context of charitable giving. Different theoretical accounts for these economic behaviors are reviewed with a specific focus on the prominent role that psychological ownership can play as an underlying mechanism for each. In buying and selling situations, ownership of an object may change people’s self-perception by creating affective associations to the object and increasing its psychological value. Similarly, in bargaining and coordination decisions, different contextual cues (such as proximity) can suggest psychological ownership over objects and thereby influence cooperative behavior. Finally, psychological ownership can influence prosocial decision-making by increasing affective reactions, moral obligations, and perceived effectiveness. We close with a proposal for a holistic approach to understand the relationship between psychological ownership and economic decision-making.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    It should be noted that the endowment effect can also occur in bargaining situations. We look at these two phenomena separately because bargaining also encompasses other forms of economic decision-making than just buying and selling.

  2. 2.

    Shu and Peck (2011) used choosers instead of buyers, as in the original studies by Kahneman et al. (1990).

  3. 3.

    Two more Nash equilibria exist in pure strategies.

References

  • Akerlof, G. A. (1970). A market for lemons: Quality, uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84, 488–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni, J. (2007). Giving gifts to groups: How altruism depends on the number of recipients. Journal of Public Economics, 91, 1731–1749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angulo, A. N., Colby, H., & Goldstein, N. J. (2015, August). Strength of ownership counterintuitively increases charitable donations. Paper presented at Academy of Management, Vancouver.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armel, K. C., Beaumel, A., & Rangel, A. (2008). Biasing simple choices by manipulating relative visual attention. Judgment and Decision making, 3, 396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashby, N., Jekel, M., Dickert, S., & Glöckner, A. (2016). Finding the right fit: A comparison of cognitive process assumptions underlying popular drift-diffusion models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition., 42, 1982.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ashby, N. J., Dickert, S., & Glöckner, A. (2012). Focusing on what you own: Biased information uptake due to ownership. Judgment and Decision making, 7, 254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashby, N. J., Walasek, L., & Glöckner, A. (2015). The effect of consumer ratings and attentional allocation on product valuations. Judgment and Decision making, 10, 172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacharach, M., & Bernasconi, M. (1997). The variable frame theory of focal points: An experimental study. Games and Economic Behaviour, 19, 1–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bae, K.-H., Stulz, R. M., & Tan, H. (2008). Do local analysts know more? A cross-country study of the performance of local analysts and foreign analysts. Journal of Financial Economics, 88, 581–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 881–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2017). Liquid consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(3), 582–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, I., Kahneman, D., Munro, A., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (2005). Testing competing models of loss aversion: An adversarial collaboration. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 1561–1580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batson, C. D. (1990). How social an animal? The human capacity for caring. American Psychologist, 45, 336–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beggan, J. K. (1992). On the social nature of nonsocial perception: The mere ownership effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 229–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 924–973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 139–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belk, R. W. (2013). Extended self in a digital world. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 477–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettman, J. R. (1979). Information processing theory of consumer choice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 187–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, M. H., & Stegner, S. E. (1979). Source credibility in social judgment: Bias, expertise, and the judge's point of view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, G. E., & Ockenfels, A. (2000). ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. American Economic Review, 90, 166–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burson, K., Faro, D., & Rottenstreich, Y. (2013). Multiple-unit holdings yield attenuated endowment effects. Management Science, 59, 545–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (1993). Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review, 100, 432–459.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C. F. (2004). Prospect theory in the wild: Evidence from the field. In C. F. Camerer, G. Loewenstein, & R. Rabin (Eds.), Advances in behavioral economics (pp. 148–161). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, C. D., & Payne, B. K. (2011). Escaping affect: How motivated emotion regulation creates insensitivity to mass suffering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 1–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carmon, Z., & Ariely, D. (2000). Focusing on the forgone: How value can appear so different to buyers and sellers. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 360–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caviola, L., Faulmüller, N., Everett, J. A., Savulescu, J., & Kahane, G. (2014). The evaluability bias in charitable giving: Saving administration costs or saving lives? Judgment and Decision making, 9, 303.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., & Neuberg, S. L. (1997). Reinterpreting the empathy–altruism relationship: When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 481–494.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, H., & Wu, A. (2001). On the valuation of goods and selection of the best design alternative. Research in Engineering Design, 13, 42–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, V., Gneezy, U., & Rottenstreich, Y. (2008). The power of focal points is limited: Even minute payoff asymmetry may yield large coordination failures. American Economic Review, 98, 1443–1458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cryder, C. E., Loewenstein, G., & Scheines, R. (2013). The donor is in the details. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120, 15–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickert, A. (2016). Essays on bargaining and coordination games: The role of social preferences and focal points. Doctoral Dissertation, University of East Anglia, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickert, S., Kleber, J., Västfjäll, D., & Slovic, P. (2016). Mental imagery, impact, and affect: A mediation model for charitable giving. PLoS One, 11, e0148274.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Dickert, S., Sagara, N., & Slovic, P. (2011). Affective motivations to help others: A two-stage model of donation decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24, 361–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickert, S., & Slovic, P. (2009). Attentional mechanisms in the generation of sympathy. Judgment and Decision making, 4, 297–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubourg, W. R., Jones-Lee, M. W., & Loomes, G. (1994). Imprecise preferences and the WTP-WTA disparity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 9, 115–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dufwenberg, M., & Kirchsteiger, G. (2004). A theory of sequential reciprocity. Games and economic behavior, 47, 268–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erlandsson, A., Björklund, F., & Bäckström, M. (2014). Perceived utility (not sympathy) mediates the proportion dominance effect in helping decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 27, 37–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erlandsson, A., Björklund, F., & Bäckström, M. (2015). Emotional reactions, perceived impact and perceived responsibility mediate the identifiable victim effect, proportion dominance effect and in-group effect respectively. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 127, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fetherstonhaugh, D., Slovic, P., Johnson, S. M., & Friedrich, J. (1997). Insensitivity to the value of human life: A study of psychophysical numbing. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14, 283–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiedler, S., Glöckner, A., Nicklisch, A., & Dickert, S. (2013). Social value orientation and information search in social dilemmas: An eye-tracking analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120, 272–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Global Humanitarian Assistance. (2015). GHA Report 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gneezy, U., Keenan, E. A., & Gneezy, A. (2014). Avoiding overhead aversion in charity. Science, 346, 632–635.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, J., & McConnell, K. (2002). A review of WTA/WTP studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44, 426–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isoni, A., Poulsen, A., Sugden, R., & Tsutsui, K. (2013). Focal points in tacit bargaining problems: Experimental evidence. European Economic Review, 59, 167–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isoni, A., Poulsen, A., Sugden, R., & Tsutsui, K. (2014). Efficiency, equality, and labeling: An experimental investigation of focal points in explicit bargaining. American Economic Review, 104, 3256–3287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, E. J., Häubl, G., & Keinan, A. (2007). Aspects of endowment: A query theory of value construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 461–474.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. G., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2005). A dynamic, stochastic, computational model of preference reversal phenomena. Psychological Review, 112, 841–861.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kachelmeier, S. J., & Shehata, M. (1992). Examining risk preferences under high monetary incentives: Experimental evidence from the People's Republic of China. The American Economic Review, 1120–1141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 1325–1348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: Analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamleitner, B., & Dickert, S. (2015). The two faces of ownership: Introduction to the special section on ownership and economic decisions. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 58, 159–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamleitner, B., & Feuchtl, S. (2015). “As if it were mine”: Imagery works by inducing psychological ownership. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 23, 208–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleber, J., Dickert, S., & Betsch, T. (2013). The influence of differential focus on the endowment effect in risky objects. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 72, 159–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleber, J., Dickert, S., Peters, E., & Florack, A. (2013). Same numbers, different meanings: How numeracy influences the importance of numbers for pro-social behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 699–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knetsch, J. L., & 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, 99, 507–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knutson, B., Wimmer, G. E., Rick, S., Hollon, N. G., Prelec, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2008). Neural antecedents of the endowment effect. Neuron, 58, 814–822.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, T., & Kogut, E. (2011). Possession attachment: Individual differences in the endowment effect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24, 377–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005a). The "Identified victim" effect: An identified group, or just a single individual? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18, 157–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005b). The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 106–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2007). "One of us": Outstanding willingness to help save a single identified compatriot. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104, 150–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kouchaki, M., Gino, F., & Jami, A. (2015, November). It’s Mine, But I’ll Help You: How Psychological Ownership Increases Prosocial Behavior. Paper presented at Society for Judgment and Decision Making Conference, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. S., Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2004). Heart strings and purse strings carryover effects of emotions on economic decisions. Psychological Science, 15, 337–341.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (2006). The construction of preference. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C. H., & Lin, H. M. (2006). Role of social value orientation in the endowment effect. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 210–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G., & Issacharoff, S. (1994). Source dependence in the valuation of objects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 157–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G., & Small, D. A. (2007). The scarecrow and the tin man: The vicissitudes of human sympathy and caring. Review of General Psychology, 11, 112–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehta, J., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1994a). The nature of salience: An experimental investigation of pure coordination games. American Economic Review, 84, 533–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehta, J., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1994b). Focal points in pure coordination games: An experimental investigation. Theory and Decision, 36, 163–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morewedge, C. K., & Giblin, C. E. (2015). Explanations of the endowment effect: An integrative review. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 339–348.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morewedge, C. K., Shu, L. L., Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2009). Bad riddance or good rubbish? Ownership and not loss aversion causes the endowment effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 947–951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nash, J. (1953). Two-person cooperative games. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 21, 128–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nayakankuppam, D., & Mishra, H. (2005). The endowment effect: Rose-tinted and dark-tinted glasses. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 390–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orquin, J. L., & Loose, S. M. (2013). Attention and choice: A review on eye movements in decision making. Acta Psychologica, 144, 190–206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pachur, T., & Scheibehenne, B. (2012). Constructing preference from experience: The endowment effect reflected in external information search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 1108.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peck, J., & Shu, S. B. (2009). The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 434–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, E., Slovic, P., & Gregory, R. (2003). The role of affect in the WTA/WTP disparity. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16, 309–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7, 84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plott, C. R., & Zeiler, K. (2005). The willingness to pay–willingness to accept gap, the. The American Economic Review, 95, 530–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plott, C. R., & Zeiler, K. (2007). Exchange asymmetries incorrectly interpreted as evidence of endowment effect theory and prospect theory? The American Economic Review, 97, 1449–1466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabin, M. (1993). Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. The American Economic Review, 1281–1302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reb, J., & Connolly, T. (2007). Possession, feelings of ownership and the endowment effect. Judgment and Decision making, 2, 107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubaltelli, E., Dickert, S., & Slovic, P. (2012). Response mode, compatibility, and dual-processes in the evaluation of simple gambles: An eye-tracking investigation. Judgment and Decision making, 7, 427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubinstein, A. (1982). Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 50, 97–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sayman, S., & Öncüler, A. (2005). Effects of study design characteristics on the WTA–WTP disparity: A meta analytical framework. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26, 289–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schelling, T. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schurr, A., & Ritov, I. (2014). The effect of giving it all up on valuation: A new look at the endowment effect. Management Science, 60, 628–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shimojo, S., Simion, C., Shimojo, E., & Scheier, C. (2003). Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 1317–1322.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shu, S. B., & Peck, J. (2011). Psychological ownership and affective reaction: Emotional attachment process variables and the endowment effect. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21, 439–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, H. (1991). The disparity between willingness to pay and compensation demanded: Another look at laboratory evidence. Economics Letters, 35, 263–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1995). The construction of preference. American Psychologist, 50, 364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002). The affect heuristic. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 397–420). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Griffin, D., & Tversky, A. (1990). Compatibility effects in judgment and choice. In R. M. Hogarth (Ed.), Insights in decision making: A tribute to Hillel. J. Einhorn (pp. 5–27). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (2007). If I look at the mass I will never act: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making, 2(2), 79–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., & Västfjäll, D. (2010). Affect, moral intuition, and risk. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 387–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small, D. A., Loewenstein, G., & Slovic, P. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 143–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. W., Faro, D., & Burson, K. A. (2013). More for the many: The impact of entitativity on charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 961–976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, C. (1996). Modelling reciprocal altruism. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 47, 533–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, J. E. (2000). The contributions of the economics of information to twentieth centuary economics. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 1441–1478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strahilevitz, M. A., & Loewenstein, G. (1998). The effect of ownership history on the valuation of objects. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 276–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugden, R. (1995). A theory of focal points. The Economic Journal, 105, 533–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1, 39–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory – Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., Sattath, S., & Slovic, P. (1988). Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological Review, 95, 371–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., Slovic, P., & Kahneman, D. (1990). The causes of preference reversal. The American Economic Review, 204–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Boven, L., Dunning, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2000). Egocentric empathy gaps between owners and buyers: Misperceptions of the endowment effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 66–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M., & van Dijk, E. (2005). Buying and selling exchange goods: Outcome information, curiosity and the endowment effect. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26, 459–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, E., & Van Knippenberg, D. (1996). Buying and selling exchange goods: Loss aversion and the endowment effect. Journal of Economic Psychology, 17, 517–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., Mayorga, M., & Peters, E. (2014). Compassion fade: Affect and charity are greatest for a single child in need. PLoS One, 9, e100115.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, L., & Johar, G. V. (2013). Egocentric categorization and product judgment: Seeing your traits in what you own (and their opposite in what you don’t). Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 185–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yechiam, E., Ashby, N. J. S., & Pachur, T. (2017). Who’s biased? A meta-analysis of buyer-seller differences in the pricing of lotteries. Psychological Bulletin, 143(5), 543–563.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yechiam, E., Ashby, N. J. S., & Walasek, L. (2016). Biased buyers: Sellers prices are closer to market prices than buyers. Unpublished Manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yechiam, E., Abofol, T., & Pachur, T. (2017). The seller’s sense: Buying–selling perspective affects the sensitivity to expected value differences. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30(2), 197–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., & Fishbach, A. (2005). The role of anticipated emotions in the endowment effect. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, 316–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business and Management, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

    Stephan Dickert

  2. Harrisburg University of Science & Technology, Harrisburg, PA, USA

    Nathaniel J. S. Ashby

  3. School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

    Andreas Dickert

Authors
  1. Stephan Dickert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nathaniel J. S. Ashby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andreas Dickert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephan Dickert .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Wisconsin School of Business, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA

    Joann Peck

  2. Anderson School of Management, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA

    Suzanne B. Shu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Dickert, S., Ashby, N.J.S., Dickert, A. (2018). Trading Under the Influence: The Effects of Psychological Ownership on Economic Decision-Making. In: Peck, J., Shu, S. (eds) Psychological Ownership and Consumer Behavior. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77158-8_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation