Unpacking buyer-seller differences in valuation from experience: A cognitive modeling approach

People often indicate a higher price for an object when they own it (i.e., as sellers) than when they do not (i.e., as buyers)—a phenomenon known as the endowment effect. We develop a cognitive modeling approach to formalize, disentangle, and compare alternative psychological accounts (e.g., loss aversion, loss attention, strategic misrepresentation) of such buyer-seller differences in pricing decisions of monetary lotteries. To also be able to test possible buyer-seller differences in memory and learning, we study pricing decisions from experience, obtained with the sampling paradigm, where people learn about a lottery’s payoff distribution from sequential sampling. We first formalize different accounts as models within three computational frameworks (reinforcement learning, instance-based learning theory, and cumulative prospect theory), and then fit the models to empirical selling and buying prices. In Study 1 (a reanalysis of published data with hypothetical decisions), models assuming buyer-seller differences in response bias (implementing a strategic-misrepresentation account) performed best; models assuming buyer-seller differences in choice sensitivity or memory (implementing a loss-attention account) generally fared worst. In a new experiment involving incentivized decisions (Study 2), models assuming buyer-seller differences in both outcome sensitivity (as proposed by a loss-aversion account) and response bias performed best. In both Study 1 and 2, the models implemented in cumulative prospect theory performed best. Model recovery studies validated our cognitive modeling approach, showing that the models can be distinguished rather well. In summary, our analysis supports a loss-aversion account of the endowment effect, but also reveals a substantial contribution of simple response bias.     

Beyond mere ownership: transaction demand as a moderator of the endowment effect

Transaction demand refers to the motivation to complete a transaction. As transaction demand increases, owners should sell at lower prices and buyers should buy at higher ones. It was predicted that the endowment effect—the tendency for minimum selling price to exceed maximum buying price for a particular commodity—should be minimized when buyers and sellers have high transaction demand. The results of two experiments supported this hypothesis: In Experiment 1, the endowment effect was observed when participants imagined another individual wanting to buy from or sell to them, but not when they imagined wanting to buy from or sell to another individual. In Experiment 2, a reversal of the endowment effect was observed when transaction demand was high for both prospective buyers and sellers. The findings highlight the importance of motivational factors in addition to other factors (e.g., loss aversion, reference dependence) in determining behavior.     

The Seller's Sense: Buying–Selling Perspective Affects the Sensitivity to Expected Value Differences

Previous work comparing pricing decisions by buyers and sellers has primarily focused on the endowment effect, the phenomenon that selling prices exceed buying prices. Here, we examine whether pricing decisions by buyers and sellers also vary in sensitivity to differences between objects' expected values (EVs). Both a loss‐aversion account (which posits that losses are weighted more heavily than gains) and a loss‐attention account (which posits increased attention to a task when it involves possible losses) predict that pricing decisions by sellers should exhibit higher sensitivity. The latter, however, additionally predicts that this pattern should only emerge under certain conditions. In studies 1 and 2, we reanalyzed two published datasets in which participants priced monetary lotteries as sellers or buyers. It emerged that sellers showed greater EV sensitivity (defined as the rank correlation between the set price for each lottery and its EV) except in a condition with an extended deliberation time of 15 seconds. In study 3, the buyer–seller difference in EV sensitivity was replicated even when the pricing task was presented repeatedly, while in study 4, it was eliminated when buying and selling trials were randomly mixed. The reduction of the “seller's sense” in long deliberation and mixed trials settings supports an attentional resource‐based account of the differences between sellers and buyers in their EV sensitivity. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Bad riddance or good rubbish? Ownership and not loss aversion causes the endowment effect

People typically demand more to relinquish the goods they own than they would be willing to pay to acquire those goods if they did not already own them (the endowment effect). The standard economic explanation of this phenomenon is that people expect the pain of relinquishing a good to be greater than the pleasure of acquiring it (the loss aversion account). The standard psychological explanation is that people are reluctant to relinquish the goods they own simply because they associate those goods with themselves and not because they expect relinquishing them to be especially painful (the ownership account). Because sellers are usually owners, loss aversion and ownership have been confounded in previous studies of the endowment effect. In two experiments that deconfounded them, ownership produced an endowment effect but loss aversion did not. In Experiment 1, buyers were willing to pay just as much for a coffee mug as sellers demanded if the buyers already happened to own an identical mug. In Experiment 2, buyers’ brokers and sellers’ brokers agreed on the price of a mug, but both brokers traded at higher prices when they happened to own mugs that were identical to the ones they were trading. In short, the endowment effect disappeared when buyers were owners and when sellers were not, suggesting that ownership and not loss aversion causes the endowment effect in the standard experimental paradigm.     

For whom is parting with possessions more painful? Cultural differences in the endowment effect

The endowment effect--the tendency for owners (potential sellers) to value objects more than potential buyers do--is among the most widely studied judgment and decision-making phenomena. However, the current research is the first to explore whether the effect varies across cultures. Given previously demonstrated cultural differences in self-construals and self-enhancement, we predicted a smaller endowment effect for East Asians compared with Westerners. Two studies involving buyers and sellers of a coffee mug (Study 1a) and a box of chocolates (Study 1b) supported this prediction. Study 2 conceptually replicated this cultural difference by experimentally manipulating independent and interdependent self-construals. Finally, Study 3 provided evidence for an underlying self-enhancement mechanism: Cultural differences emerged when self-object associations were made salient, but disappeared when self-object associations were minimized. Thus, the endowment effect may be influenced by the degree to which independence and self-enhancement (vs. interdependence and self-criticism) are culturally valued or normative.     

买卖交易中谈判者角色影响谈判结果的机制

现实生活中的谈判通常发生在特定的社会情境中, 谈判者也总在扮演着某种角色。本研究探索了买卖交易谈判中谈判者角色影响谈判结果的作用机制。研究提出了一个关于谈判者角色诱发框架效应的理论模型, 然后通过两个模拟谈判实验对这一模型进行验证。实验1表明, 买家知觉到的馅饼大于卖家知觉到的馅饼, 且谈判者知觉到的馅饼在谈判者角色与谈判者绩效间起部分中介作用。实验2发现, 即使保留买家与卖家的角色标签, 如果剥离了金钱作为交易介质这一重要特征, 两个谈判角色知觉到的馅饼也没有差异。研究揭示了谈判者角色影响谈判结果的作用机制, 对谈判者如何利用情境因素取得更好的谈判结果具有实践意义。     

Making Decisions in Foreign Languages: Weaker Senses of Ownership Attenuate the Endowment Effect

Although the number of bilingual consumers is expanding, research on the impact of language on consumer decision making is scarce. The current research examines the endowment effect, which is a fundamental consumer decision‐making regularity, under native versus foreign language processing. I show that the endowment effect, which refers to higher valuation of a given product by sellers than buyers, is attenuated when sellers and buyers process information in a foreign language due to a decrease in sellers’ valuation of the product. I further document empirical evidence for the underlying mechanism of this finding. Thinking in a foreign language diminishes the impact of affective reactions on sellers’ judgment, which results in lowered sense of psychological ownership. This lowered sense of psychological ownership significantly decreases sellers’ valuation to a level comparable to the valuation of buyers. The implications of these results for theory and practice, and avenues for future research are discussed.     

引入中立方参照：对禀赋效应的再探讨

在以往禀赋效应研究的基础上, 本研究引入中立方估价值作为参照, 在时间维度上探讨了禀赋效应的变化趋势, 并尝试延伸禀赋效应的定义。研究发现, 随着卖方拥有物品的时间延长, 买卖双方的估价呈下降趋势, 卖方的估价总是显著高于买方, 但买卖双方的估价之差不随卖方拥有物品的时间延长发生变化; 以中立方的估价为参照, 在较短的时间内卖方的估价倾向于理性, 在较长的时间内买方的估价倾向于理性; 卖方的估价在时间水平上相对于中立价格呈递增性, 而买方的估价相对于中立价格呈递减性。引入中立方再探讨禀赋效应并没有否定它的存在, 而且能够更好地解释生活中的非理性行为。     

Time pressure and the endowment effect

This research examines how time pressure influences bidding behavior in experiment auctions. The studies reported herein investigate how time pressure systematically impacts individual trading of an endowed object by looking at the disparity between buying and selling prices for that object. Study 1 tests whether the effect of time pressure eliminates the disparity between selling and buying prices. In Study 2, transaction demand is employed to see whether sellers and buyers are more sensitive to changes in the item (amount of work). In Study 3, sellers and buyers access information of differing valence in the task. In Study 4, the framing of the reference price is manipulated to moderate the endowment effect. These studies indicate that under time pressure, endowment bias is reduced and, more generally, elucidate the role of trading behavior in decision making.     

禀赋效应对产品更换决策的影响

以禀赋效应理论为研究基础, 通过两个情景实验对产品更换过程中买卖双方的决策心理进行了研究。实验1表明, 在以旧换新活动中新产品的买方对旧产品的价格有高估的倾向, 对新产品的价格有低估的倾向; 相反, 新产品的卖方对旧产品的价格有低估的倾向, 而对于新产品的价格有高估的倾向, 这说明产品更换决策中存在着双重的禀赋效应。实验2表明, 新产品的买方对旧产品的属性评价显著高于新产品的卖方, 对新产品的属性评价显著低于新产品的卖方, 说明属性评价也存在禀赋效应的特征。双重禀赋效应的存在从消费者行为的角度解释了为什么消费者会出现创新抵制行为。     

Power at work: Linking objective power to psychological power

Experimental research conducted with student participants has documented that feeling powerful or powerless (psychological power) affects outcomes with high practical relevance for organizations. However, it is unclear how results from these studies can be generalized to organizational settings in which individuals have various roles that imply more or less objective power. To address this gap, we present a theoretical framework to aid in the understanding of how objective power in organizations affects psychological power. We assume that stable differences in organizational rank (i.e., structural power) determine the likelihood of interactions with superiors, subordinates, or peers. These interactions give rise to within-person variation in situational power which should lead to dynamic fluctuations of psychological power and eventually its outcomes. Results of a preregistered experiment (n = 190 participants) and a preregistered experience sampling study (n = 129 participants) conducted with working adults support our key predictions: Structural power was associated with the likelihood of being in a high power versus low power situation. Within-person differences in situational power were related to feelings of power such as judgments about (1) one's own ability to influence others in a given social situation (i.e., interpersonal power) and (2) one's own competence, agency, autonomy, and independence (i.e., personal power).     

The Role of Anticipated Emotions in the Endowment Effect

This research explored the role of anticipated negative feelings in the observed disparity between buying and selling prices for the same endowed object. We assumed that anticipated negative reactions to losses deter people from trading an endowed object and therefore psychological variables that attenuate the emotional response to negative events should further reduce the price disparity between buyers and sellers. In 3 studies, we tested whether factors that either decrease concern about negative feelings (e.g., positive mood, framing of the transaction as involving no action) or increase the anticipated negative reaction to failure to act (e.g., priming errors of omission) further eliminate the disparity between buying and selling prices. These studies provide a novel conceptualization of the endowment bias and, more generally, illustrate the role of anticipated negative feelings in decision making.     

How beliefs influence the relative magnitude of pleasure and pain

Loss aversion is an economic assumption about utility—people value giving up a good more than they value getting it. It also has hedonic meaning—the pain of a loss is greater in magnitude than the pleasure of a comparable gain. But value and pleasure are not necessarily identical. We test the hedonic interpretation of loss aversion in experimental markets. With hedonic forecasts, sellers imagine the pain of losing their endowment, and buyers imagine the pleasure of being endowed. With hedonic experiences, sellers rate the pleasure of having the endowment, and buyers rate the pain of being without it. Contrary to loss aversion, predicted pleasure is greater in magnitude than predicted pain, and experienced pleasure surpasses experienced pain. We show that the relative magnitude of pleasure and pain depends on beliefs about the likelihood of outcomes, as well as utilities. Surprise makes gains more pleasurable and losses more painful. With surprising gains and expected losses, pleasure can surpass pain. But when gains and losses are equally likely (or losses are surprising and gains are expected), the opposite pattern can occur. Finally, within‐group and between‐group prices are significantly correlated with hedonic experiences. Sellers who feel better with their endowments assign higher selling prices, and buyers who feel worse about the absence of endowment assign higher buying prices. Despite the fact that hedonic experiences deviate from loss aversion, these emotions predict the endowment effect. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Buyers Versus Sellers: How They Differ in Their Responses to Framed Outcomes

Consumers’ reactions to a difference in price can depend on how it is framed. If buyers interpret paying $60 rather than $65 as getting a $5 discount, then they are likely to consider paying $60 to be a gain and paying $65 to be a nongain. Alternatively, if they interpret having to pay $65 rather than $60 as incurring a $5 penalty, then they may consider paying $60 to be a nonloss and paying $65 to be a loss. Similarly, sellers can also experience gains, nongains, nonlosses, and losses. This article suggests that buyers are prevention focused and consequently place a greater emphasis on loss‐related frames, whereas sellers are promotion focused and place a greater emphasis on gain‐related frames. Therefore, for equivalent positive outcomes, buyers feel better about nonlosses, but sellers feel better about gains. For equivalent negative outcomes, buyers feel worse about losses, but sellers feel worse about nongains. These effects, however, disappear when there is little motivation to process information about the monetary transaction.     

Paying for sanctions in social dilemmas: The effects of endowment asymmetry and accountability

The present research examines whether or not endowment asymmetry leads those with many endowments to contribute more than those with few endowments towards the public good (i.e., a first-order dilemma), but also towards the implementation of a sanctioning system (i.e., a second-order dilemma). In Experiment 1, we found that those with many endowments contributed more than those with few endowments in a public good dilemma without a sanctioning system present, whereas those with many endowments did not contribute more than those with few endowments toward the implementation of a sanctioning system. The latter effect, however, was eliminated when participants were accountable (i.e., when expectations that they would have to justify their decisions to others in the group were high). Experiment 2 showed that when participants were accountable, the contributions of those with many endowments (and not those with few endowments) toward the sanctioning system increased, but only when they perceived the group to be more self-evaluative in terms of morality (i.e., high-evaluation expectancy). Experiment 3 showed that this effect of evaluation expectancy only emerged when participants were accountable to the whole group rather than to only one group member.     

财富越多，责任越大：资金数量和来源对公共物品困境中第三方惩罚的影响

本研究探讨了公共物品困境中,初始资金的数量和来源如何影响第三方对成员贡献值的评价及惩罚。行为结果发现了“贵族责任效应”,即在同等贡献值条件下,相比于获得较少初始资金的成员,第三方会更重地惩罚获得较多初始资金的成员。当初始资金是随机分配而非通过个人努力获得时,该效应更强。在神经层面上,发现初始资金的数量和来源调节了第三方评估贡献值时所诱发的FRN和P3成分。其中FRN波幅与惩罚力度显著相关。本研究揭示了初始资金数量和来源如何调节第三方对成员贡献的评估及相关惩罚决策。     

Strategies for Oligopoly Negotiations Involving Multiple Issues

This study compared the effectiveness of cooperative, distributive, and integrative strategies in oligopoly negotiations involving multiple issues. Seventy-five female subjects from introductory psychology classes assumed the role of buyers and negotiated with three programmed strategies (sellers). Subjects could bargain with the seller of their choice and could change sellers at any time. Results indicated that subjects made most offers to and reached most agreements with the cooperative seller. Furthermore, the cooperative seller strategy tended to earn most profit per customer contact and produced most joint profit per customer contact. However, the integrative seller tended to produce most seller profit per agreement and joint profit per agreement.     

Egocentric empathy gaps between owners and buyers: misperceptions of the endowment effect

In 5 studies, the authors examined people's perceptions of the endowment effect, or the tendency to value an object more once one owns it. In the 1st 2 studies, the authors documented egocentric empathy gaps between owners and buyers regarding the endowment effect: Both owners and buyers overestimated the similarity between their own valuation of a commodity and the valuation of people in the other role. The next 2 studies showed that these empathy gaps may lead to reduced earnings in a market setting. The final study showed that egocentric empathy gaps stem partly from people's misprediction of what their own valuation would be if they were in the other role.     

Buyer beware of your shadow: how price moderates the effect of incidental similarity on buyer behavior

Using both a lab experiment and actual transaction data, we investigated whether and how incidental similarities (e.g., shared letters between buyer and seller's name) might influence buyer behavior. Particularly, while prior work suggests that consumers generally prefer incidental similarity, we use the context of Internet auctions to show that this preference reverses when prices are high. Under these conditions, buyers avoid incidentally similar sellers. We speculate that this effect is tied to individuals' motive to self‐protect. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.