Construct · 4 names · 7 citations
Different names. Different fields. One construct. One map.
● jangle · one gap, many names Nearest construct by meaningloss aversioncompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to endowment effect is loss aversion.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are the names and the models that coined them; dashed arcs are borrowings. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each name appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
The endowment effect is the finding that people tend to value a good more once they own it, so the least they will accept to give it up (willingness to accept) runs well above the most they would pay to obtain it (willingness to pay). Thaler named it in his 1980 paper Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice, casting the gap as a consequence of treating the loss of an owned good as more painful than the forgone gain of not acquiring one. Kahneman, Knetsch, and Thaler put it on firm experimental ground in 1990 with the coffee-mug studies, where students given a mug demanded about twice what buyers would pay, and trade fell far below the level a frictionless market predicts. Their 1991 review placed the effect beside loss aversion and status quo bias as a family of anomalies for standard consumer theory. Here the referent is a robust valuation gap tied to ownership, measured by comparing selling and buying prices for the same good.[1][2][3]
In the psychology of judgment the endowment effect is usually read as a downstream sign of loss aversion, the idea from prospect theory that a loss looms larger than an equal gain relative to a reference point. On this account owning a good moves the reference point, so parting with it registers as a loss, and giving it up feels worse than acquiring it feels good. Morewedge and Giblin's 2015 review Explanations of the endowment effect: an integrative review gathered the competing accounts and argued that loss aversion is only one of several, alongside query theory, biased information search, and a psychology of ownership in which the good becomes bound to the self. The construct here is the effect explained as a reference-dependent evaluation, with loss aversion as the leading but contested mechanism. Which process actually drives the gap is the fault line for this whole page.[3][4]
A strand of experimental economics disputes that the endowment effect reflects any true preference at all. Plott and Zeiler, in their 2005 paper The Willingness to Pay–Willingness to Accept Gap, the "Endowment Effect," Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations, showed that when subjects are trained on the elicitation mechanism, given practice rounds, and shielded from signals about a good's value, the gap between selling and buying prices can shrink to nothing. On their reading the gap is an artifact of confused subjects and loose procedures rather than a reference-dependent preference. Later exchange-asymmetry work keeps the debate open, since ordinary goods still show reluctance to trade under careful controls. The construct here is the same gap, but claimed as a measurement error to be designed away rather than a bias to be modeled.[5]
In consumer research and applied valuation the same gap appears wherever owning or expecting to own a good shifts what it is worth. Carmon and Ariely's 2000 study Focusing on the Forgone: How Value Can Appear So Different to Buyers and Sellers showed that sellers dwell on what they would give up while buyers dwell on what they would spend, so the two attend to different things and price the identical good apart. The effect underwrites pricing built on ownership, from free trials to money-back guarantees that let a product become the customer's before purchase. It reappears in environmental and health economics as the persistent willingness-to-accept and willingness-to-pay disparity in contingent valuation, which Horowitz and McConnell's 2002 A Review of WTA/WTP Studies documented across dozens of studies and found largest for public and non-market goods. The construct here is the ownership valuation gap put to work, and the same measurement questions that trouble the lab follow it into the field.[6][7]
Next
See how endowment effect sits against neighbouring constructs in the Collider, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct