Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Endowment effect theory, prediction bias and publicly provided goods: an experimental study

  • OriginalPaper
  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many studies report on a systematic disparity between the willingness to pay for a certain good (WTP) and the willingness to accept retribution payments in exchange for giving up this good (WTA). Thaler [Thaler RH (1980) J Econ Behav Organ 1:39–60] employs prospect theory to explain this disparity. The literature contains two different interpretations of his endowment effect theory. Accordingly, the disparity is caused either by the disutility from parting with one’s endowment and/or by an extra utility from ownership which is not anticipated by individuals who are not endowed with the good. So far, the empirical evidence on the applicability of endowment effect theory is limited to private goods. This paper reports on an experiment which finds a significant ownership utility effect for a publicly provided good. This result indicates that prospect theory applies to publicly provided goods even though consumers do not have exclusive property rights.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adamovicz W (1993). Experiments on the difference between willingness to pay and willingess to accept. Land Econo 64: 416–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahlheim M and Buchholz W (2000). WTA or WTP – Is that the question?. Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik und Umweltrecht, 253(-271): 253–271

    Google Scholar 

  • Biel A, Johansson-Stenman O, Nilsson A (2006) Emotions, morality and public goods: the WTA–WTP disparity revisited. Göteborg University, Department of Economics, Working papers in economics no. 193

  • Brookshire DS and Coursey DL (1987). Measuring the value of a public good: An empirical comparison of elicitation procedures. Am Econ Rev 77: 554–566

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown TC (2005). Loss aversion without the endowment effect and other explanations for the WTA–WTP-disparity. J Econ Behavi Organ 57: 367–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark J, Burgess J and Harrison CM (2000). I struggled with this money business. respondents’ perspective on contingent valuation. Ecol Econ 33: 45–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper P, Poe GL and Bateman IJ (2004). The structure of motivation for contingent values: a case study of lake water quality improvement. Ecol Econ 50: 69–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis HL, Hoch SJ and Ragsdale EKE (1986). An anchoring and adjustment model of spousal predictions. J Consum Res 13: 25–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dupont DY and Lee GS (2002). The endowment effect, status quo bias and loss aversions: Rational alternative explanations. J Risk Uncertain 25(1): 87–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr E and Fischbacher U (2004). The nature of human altruism. Nature 425: 785–791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franciosi R (1996). Experimental test of the endowment effect. J Econ Behav Organ 30: 213–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey BS and Eichenberger R (1991). Anomalies in political economy. Public Choice 68: 71–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann WM (1991). Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: how much can they differ?. Am Econ Rev 81: 635–647

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N and Spash CL (1993). Cost-benefit analysis and the environment. Edward Elgar, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Hildebrandt A (1995) Politisch-ökonomische Ursachen und ökonomisch-institutionelle Restriktionen der Entwicklung öffentlicher Finanzen: ein Beitrag zur Theorie des Staatshaushalts. Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang.

  • Hoehn JP and Randall A (1987). A satisfactory benefit cost indication from contingent valuation. J Environ Plann Manage 14: 226–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz JK and McConnell KE (2002). A review of WTP/WTA studies. J Environ Econ Manage 44: 426–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isaac MR (1984). Divergent evidence on free riding: an experimental examination of possible explanations. Public Choice 43: 113–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D and Knetsch JL (1992). Valuing public goods. The purchase of moral satisfaction.. J Environ Econ Manage 22: 57–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Knetsch JL and Thaler RA (1991). Anomalies: the endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. J Econ Perspec 5: 193–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Ritov I and Schkade D (1999). Economic preferences or attitude expressions?: An analysis of Dollar responses to public issues. J Risk Uncertain 19(1): 203–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D and Tversky A (1979). Prospect Theory: An analysis of decision under uncertainty. Econometrica 47: 263–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knetsch JL (1994). Environmental valuation: some problems of wrong questions and misleading answers. Environ Values 3: 351–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List JA (2004). Neoclassical theory versus prospect theory. evidence from the marketplace. Econometrica 72(2): 615–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein G and Adler D (1995). A bias in the prediction of tastes. Econ J 105: 929–937

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez EJ, Nelson WR Jr (2005) The endowment effect in a public good experiment. EconWPA http://econwpa.wustl.edu:80/eps/exp/papers/0512/0512001.pdf [downloaded October 2006]

  • Morrison GC (1997). Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: some evidence of an endowment effect. App. Econ 29: 411–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison GC (1998). Understanding the disparity between WTP and WTA: endowment effect, substitutability, or imprecise preferences. Econ Lett 59: 189–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nape S (2003). Hypothetical bias and willingness to accept. Econ Lett 78: 423–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunes P and Schokkaert E (2003). Identifying the warm glow effect in contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 45: 231–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plott CR and Zeiler K (2005). The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap, the endowment effect, subjective misconceptions and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations. Am Econ Rev 93: 530–545

    Google Scholar 

  • Randall A and Stoll JR (1980). Consumer’s surplus in commodity space. Am Econ Rev 71: 449–457

    Google Scholar 

  • Svedsäter H (2003). Economic valuation of the environment: how citizens make sense of contingent valuation questions. Land Econ 79(1): 122–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler RH (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. J Econ Behav Organization 1: 39–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Boven L, Dunning D and Loewenstein G (2000). Egocentric empathy gaps between owners and buyers. Misperceptions of the endowment effect.. J Personal Soc Psychol 79(1): 66–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Boven L, Dunning D and Loewenstein G (2003). Mispredicting the endowment effect: underestimation of owners’ selling prices by buyers’ agents. J Econ Behav Organ 51: 351–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton D, Thomas JA and Cenek PD (2004). Self and others’ willingness to pay for improvements to the paved road surface. Transport Res Part A 38: 483–494

    Google Scholar 

  • West PM (1996). Predicting preferences: an examination of agent learning. J Consum Res 23: 68–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, University of Giessen, Licher Strasse 74, 35394, Giessen, Germany

    Ivo Bischoff

Authors
  1. Ivo Bischoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivo Bischoff.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bischoff, I. Endowment effect theory, prediction bias and publicly provided goods: an experimental study. Environ Resource Econ 39, 283–296 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9126-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9126-3

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation