Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T09:28:17.892Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Game form misconceptions are not necessary for a willingness-to-pay vs. willingness-to-accept gap

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Björn Bartling ,
Florian Engl  and
Roberto A. Weber
Björn Bartling
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Zurich, Blümlisalpstrasse 10, 8006 Zurich, Switzerland
Florian Engl
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Zurich, Blümlisalpstrasse 10, 8006 Zurich, Switzerland
Roberto A. Weber*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Zurich, Blümlisalpstrasse 10, 8006 Zurich, Switzerland
*
e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cason and Plott (J Polit Econ, 122(6):1235–1270, 2014) show that subjects’ misconception about the incentive properties of the Becker-DeGroot-Marschak (BDM) value elicitation procedure can generate data patterns that look like—and might thus be misinterpreted as evidence for—preferences constructed from endowments or reference points. We test whether game form misconceptions are necessary to produce willingness-to-pay (WTP) vs. willingness-to-accept (WTA) gaps in a valuation experiment in which subjects are randomly assigned to the role of either buyer or seller. We employ a design that allows us to identify whether a subject understood the incentive properties of a price-list version of the BDM mechanism. We find a robust WTP-WTA gap, even among subjects whose elicited valuations for a good of induced and known monetary value and whose ability to identify the payoffs resulting from their choices indicate an understanding of the incentive properties of the BDM mechanism. We conclude that game form misconceptions are not a necessary condition for the emergence of WTP-WTA gaps.

Keywords

WTP-WTA gapGame from misconceptionBDM mechanismEndowment effectExperimental methodsHighly replicable laboratory environment

JEL classification

C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior
Type
Original Paper
Information
Journal of the Economic Science Association , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2015 , pp. 72 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © Economic Science Association 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40881-015-0008-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Becker, Gordon M., DeGroot, Morris H., Marschak, Jacob. (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science, 9(3), 226–232. 10.1002/bs.3830090304CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, Olaf, Baetge, Ingmar, Nicklisch, Andreas. (2014). hroot: Hamburg registration and organization online tool. European Economic Review, 71, 117. 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2014.07.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cason, Timothy N., Plott, Charles R. (2014). Misconceptions and game form recognition: challenges to theories of revealed preferences and framing. Journal of Political Economy, 122(6), 1235–1270. 10.1086/677254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericson, Keith M., Marzilli, E., Fuster, A. (2014). The endowment effect. Annual Review of Economics, 6, 555–579. 10.1146/annurev-economics-080213-041320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, D., Hakimov, R., Küber, D. (2015). The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap: A failed replication of plott and zeiler, WZB Discussion Paper SP II 2015-204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, Urs. (2007). z-tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10, 171–178. 10.1007/s10683-006-9159-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frederick, Shane. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42. 10.1257/089533005775196732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, Knetch, Jack L., Thaler, Richard H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1325–1348. 10.1086/261737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, Knetch, Jack L., Thaler, Richard H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193–206. 10.1257/jep.5.1.193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, James J., Stevens, Thomas H., Yadav, Lava. (2010). A comparison of induced value and home-grown value experiments to test for hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 47(1), 111–123. 10.1007/s10640-010-9367-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plott, Charles R., Zeiler, Kathryn. (2005). The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap, the “endowment effect”, subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations. American Economic Review, 95(3), 530–545. 10.1257/0002828054201387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plott, Charles R., Zeiler, Kathryn. (2007). Exchange asymmetries incorrectly interpreted as evidence of endowment effect theory and prospect theory? American Economic Review, 97(4), 1449–1466. 10.1257/aer.97.4.1449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raven, John, Raven, John C., Court, John. (1998). Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales, San Antonio: Harcourt Assessment.Google Scholar
Weaver, Ray, Frederick, Shane. (2012). A reference price theory of the endowment effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(5), 696–707. 10.1509/jmr.09.0103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Bartling et. al. supplementary material

Bartling et. al. supplementary material
Download Bartling et. al. supplementary material(File)
File 911.1 KB