Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The willingness-to-accept/willingness-to-pay disparity in repeated markets: loss aversion or ‘bad-deal’ aversion?

  • Published:
Theory and Decision Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Several experimental studies have reported that an otherwise robust regularity—the disparity between Willingness-To-Accept and Willingness-To-Pay—tends to be greatly reduced in repeated markets, posing a serious challenge to existing reference-dependent and reference-independent models alike. This article offers a new account of the evidence, based on the assumptions that individuals are affected by good and bad deals relative to the expected transaction price (price sensitivity), with bad deals having a larger impact on their utility (`bad-deal’ aversion). These features of preferences explain the existing evidence better than alternative approaches, including the most recent developments of loss aversion models.

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

  • Adamowicz W. L., Bhardwaj V., Macnab B. (1993) Experiments on the difference between willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept. Land Economics 69(4): 416–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariely D., Loewenstein G., Prelec D. (2003) Coherent arbitrariness: Stable demand curves without stable preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics 118(1): 73–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman I., Munro A., Rhodes B., Starmer C., Sugden R. (1997) A test of the theory of reference-dependent preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(2): 479–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell D. E. (1985) Disappointment in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Research 33: 1–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyce R. R., Brown T. C., McClelland G. H., Peterson G. L., Schulze W. D. (1992) An experimental examination of intrinsic values as a source of the WTA-WTP disparity. The American Economic Review 82(5): 1366–1373

    Google Scholar 

  • Braga J., Starmer C. (2005) Preference anomalies, preference elicitation and the discovered preference hypothesis. Environmental and Resource Economics 32(1): 55–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braga J., Humphrey S.J., Starmer C. (2009) Market experience eliminates some anomalies—and creates new ones. European Economic Review, 53(4): 401–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown T. C. (2005) Loss aversion without the endowment effect, and other explanations for the WTA-WTP Disparity. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 57(3): 367–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruni L., Sugden R. (2007) The road not taken: How psychology was removed from economics, and how it might be brought back. The Economic Journal 117: 146–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(3): 679–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox J. C., Grether D. M. (1996) The preference reversal phenomenon: Response mode, markets and incentives. Economic Theory 7(3): 381–405

    Google Scholar 

  • Fehr E., Schmidt K. M. (1999) A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics 114(3): 817–868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman A. M. (1979) The benefits on environmental improvement: Theory and practice. John Hopkins Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Geanakoplos J., Pearce D., Stacchetti E. (1989) Psychological games and sequential rationality. Games and Economic Behavior 1: 60–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammack J., Brown G. (1974) Waterfowl and wetland: Toward bioeconomic analysis. John Hopkins Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann W. M. (1991) Willingness to pay and willingness to accept—how much can they differ? The American Economic Review 81(3): 635–647

    Google Scholar 

  • Harless D. W. (1989) More laboratory evidence on the disparity between willingness to pay and compensation demanded. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 11(3): 359–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks J. R. (1943) The four consumer surpluses. Review of Economic Studies 8: 108–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz J. K., McConnell K. E. (2002) A review of WTA/WTP studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44(3): 426–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz J. K., McConnell K. E. (2003) Willingness to accept, willingness to pay and the income effect. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 51(4): 537–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu W. (2007) Bargains or rip-offs? Reference price effects in cojoint stated demand. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 32(2): 256–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Huck S., Kirchsteiger G., Oechssler J. (2005) Learning to like what you have—Explaining the endowment effect. The Economic Journal 115: 689–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isoni, A. (2009). The willingness-to-accept/willingness-to-pay disparity in repeated markets: Loss aversion or ‘bad-deal’ aversion? CSERGE Working Paper edm-2009-06, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia.

  • Isoni, A., Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (2010, in press). The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap, the ‘endowment effect’, subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations: A reassessment. The American Economic Review.

  • Kahneman D., Knetsch J. L., Thaler R. H. (1990) Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy 98(6): 1325–1348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knetsch J. L. (1989) The endowment effect and evidence of non-reversible indifference curves. The American Economic Review 79(5): 1277–1284

    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. Quarterly Journal of Economics 99(3): 507–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knetsch J. L., Tang F. F., Thaler R. (2001) The endowment effect and repeated market trials: Is the Vickrey auction demand revealing? Experimental Economics 4: 257–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolstad C. D., Guzman R. M. (1999) Information and the divergence between willingness to accept and willingness to pay. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 38(1): 68–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kopalle P. K., Lindsey-Mullikin J. (2003) The impact of external referene price on consumer price expectations. Journal of Retailing 79: 225–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Köszegi B., Rabin M. (2006) A model of reference-dependent preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics 121(4): 1133–1165

    Google Scholar 

  • List J. A. (2003) Does market experience eliminate market anomalies? Quarterly Journal of Economics 118: 41–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List J. A. (2004) Neoclassical theory versus prospect theory: Evidence from the market place. Econometrica 72(2): 615–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomes G., Sugden R. (1982) Regret theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. The Economic Journal 92(368): 805–824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomes G., Sugden R. (1986) Disappointment and dynamic consistency in choice under uncertainty. Review of Economic Studies 53(2): 271–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomes G., Starmer C., Sugden R. (2003) Do anomalies disappear in repeated markets? The Economic Journal 113(486): C153–C166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomes G., Orr S., Sugden R. (2009) Preference uncertainty and status quo effects in consumer choice. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 39: 113–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandler M. (2004) Status quo maintenance reconsidered: Changing or incomplete preferences? The Economic Journal 114(499): F518–F535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mas-Colell A., Whinston M. D., Green J. R. (1995) Microeconomic theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Milgrom P. R., Weber R. J. (1982) A theory of auctions and competitive bidding. Econometrica 50(5): 1089–1122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munro A., Sugden R. (2003) On the theory of reference-dependent preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 50(4): 407–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plott C. R. (1996) Rational individual behaviour in markets and social choice processes: The discovered preference hypothesis. In: Arrow K., Colombatto E., Perleman M., Schmidt C. (eds) Rational foundations of economic behavior. Macmillan, London, pp 225–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Plott C. R., Zeiler K. (2005) The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap, the ‘endowment effect’, subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations. The American Economic Review 95(3): 530–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putler D. S. (1992) Incorporating reference price effects into a theory of consumer choice. Marketing Science 11: 287–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randall A., Stoll J. R. (1980) Consumer’s surplus in commodity space. The American Economic Review 70(3): 449–455

    Google Scholar 

  • 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): 1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson W., Zeckhauser R. (1988) Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1: 7–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulze W. D., D’Arge R. C., Brookshire D. S. (1981) Valuing environmental commodities: Some recent experiments. Land Economics 57(2): 151–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shogren J. F., Shin S. Y., Hayes D. J., Kliebenstein J. B. (1994) Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept. The American Economic Review 84(1): 255–270

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. Resource and Energy Economics 23: 97–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugden R. (1999) Alternatives to the neo-classical theory of choice. In: Bateman I. J., 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, pp 152–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugden R. (2003) Reference-dependent subjective expected utility. Journal of Economic Theory 111(2): 172–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler R. (1985) Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science 4: 199–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A., Kahneman D. (1991) Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics 106(4): 1039–1061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vickrey W. (1961) Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. Journal of Finance 16(1): 8–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wicksteed, P. (1910). The common sense of political economy (Vol. I). London: Routledge [page reference to 1933 edition].

  • Willig R. D. (1976) Consumer’s surplus without apology. The American Economic Review 66(4): 589–597

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

    Andrea Isoni

Authors
  1. Andrea Isoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Isoni.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Isoni, A. The willingness-to-accept/willingness-to-pay disparity in repeated markets: loss aversion or ‘bad-deal’ aversion?. Theory Decis 71, 409–430 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-010-9207-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-010-9207-6

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation