源于“反常”终于“常理”的禀赋效应

如果忽略收入影响和交易成本, 愿意为一样物品支付的价格应等于愿意出售的价格。而塞勒教授却发现, 现实生活中有一些“反常”现象, 个体会对自己所拥有的物品赋予更高的价值, 造成“愿意支付价格”和“愿意出售价格”的不一致。塞勒利用预期理论中的损失厌恶对这些反常现象进行解释, 并将该现象称为禀赋效应(endowment effect)。此后, 众多研究者从不同角度对该效应进行了探索和论证。文章详细梳理了禀赋效应的多种解释机制, 包括损失厌恶、心理所有权理论、偏差的认知过程以及进化的观点等, 论证了禀赋效应符合“常理”的原因, 同时也探讨了禀赋效应在商业销售策略和政府拆迁政策等方面的应用前景。     

禀赋效应的心理机制及其影响因素

禀赋效应是指个体在拥有某物品时对该物品的估价高于没有拥有该物品时的估价的现象。这一现象在行为经济学中普遍存在。禀赋效应的研究范式包括经典研究范式与物物交换范式。禀赋效应的心理机制主要包括损失规避与查询理论。禀赋效应的影响因素主要包括认知角度、动机、情绪、交易物品的特征、研究设计的选择等。未来的研究需要从禀赋效应的适用条件、产生根源、研究范式的改进等方面进一步探讨。     

The relationship between endowment and ownership effects in memory across cultures

An object one owns is typically more highly valued than an equivalent object owned by another person. This endowment effect has been attributed to the aversion of loss of one’s possessions (through selling), or the added value of an item due to self-association (through owning). To date, investigation of these mechanisms has been hampered by the between-subjects methodology traditionally employed to measure endowment. Over two experiments, we report a novel within-subjects method for measuring an endowment bias. In these studies, Western participants showed enhanced valuation of owned items, whereas East-Asian participants did not. This endowment bias also correlated with the ownership effect in memory (a measure of self-referential processing) in Western, but not East-Asian participants. Our results suggest that the endowment effect is partly predicated on the same factors that influence the ownership effect and that this commonality is likely linked to conceptions of ownership specifically, and self-concept more generally.     

基于预期理论的风险决策的神经机制

预期理论基于对期望效用理论的批判与发展,提出了价值函数与权重函数,对以往风险决策研究中所发现的现象进行了很好的预测与解释。预期理论的核心概念包括参照依赖、损失规避与权重函数。基于预期理论的一些决策偏差包括框架效应、禀赋效应和默认偏差也部分揭示了与人们风险决策有关的脑区。近年来,通过采用功能性核磁共振等脑成像手段对预期理论的一些核心成分进行的研究表明,涉及到人们风险决策的脑区主要有前额叶、纹状体、脑岛与杏仁核。未来的研究可以从预期理论的产生根源、个体发展以及遗传基因等角度进行进一步的探讨。     

行为经济学中的损失规避

损失规避是指,人们总是强烈倾向于规避损失：一定数额的损失所引起的心理感受,其强烈程度约相当于两倍数额的获益感受。这种强烈的心理与行为倾向广泛存在于风险与非风险领域,在该两个领域中损失规避的研究范式也不同。损失规避常见于经济和消费等领域,可用于解释行为决策中有悖于规范化理论的诸多现象,如禀赋效应、现状偏差、股权溢价之迷和赢者的诅咒等。然而,损失规避的机制研究还存在许多尚未解决的问题,如损失规避的本质以及适用条件。今后的研究不仅要注重认知角度和情感依恋,还要结合认知过程来研究损失规避的性质和内在机制,以期帮助人们认识、预测及干预由损失规避造成的经济损失和非理性决策。     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The ability to process emotional information predicts loss aversion

On the basis of previous research it was hypothesized that alexithymia is associated with a higher tolerance for losses. This hypothesis is extended to explore whether the putative link between loss aversion and alexithymia remains once traits associated with risk taking (sensation seeking) and broad based personality traits (the Big 5) are controlled. Participants (N = 260) completed indices of alexithymia, sensation seeking and the Big 5 and both a riskless (endowment effect) and risky (lottery task) measure of loss aversion. It was found that the higher the alexithymia score the lower the loss aversion for both riskless and risky decisions even when sex, sensation seeking and the Big 5 are taken into account. The implications for this finding are discussed in the light of a neurological explanation of the relationship between alexithymia and loss aversion.     

Similarity and reluctance to trade

Previous research has shown that after decision makers are endowed with an object, they are reluctant to trade it for an alternative item. This endowment effect can be explained by loss aversion, the tendency to weight losses more heavily than gains. Consequently, there is no reluctance to trade when no true loss is involved. Four studies investigated whether reluctance to trade declines when the trade involves less of a loss—specifically, when one item is traded for another very similar item. Three experiments did not reveal a relation between willingness to trade and the similarity between the two items being traded. A fourth experiment, however, indicated that subjects were quite willing to trade for an identical item, less willing to trade for a similar item, and even less willing to trade for a dissimilar item. Thus, reluctance to trade decreased as the similarity between the endowment and the alternative increased. This result suggests that loss aversion is a function not only of the item being lost but also of the trade itself—that is, of the relation between the two items being traded. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Bringing (Contingent) Loss Aversion Down to Earth — A Comment on Gal & Rucker's Rejection of “Losses Loom Larger Than Gains”

Although we disagree with some of Gal and Rucker's (2018 – this issue) specific evidence and with their overstated conclusion regarding loss aversion, their overarching message makes a worthwhile contribution. In particular, loss aversion is less robust and universal than has been assumed while its most prominent empirical support — the endowment effect and the status quo bias — is susceptible to multiple alternative explanations. Instead of accepting loss aversion as true unless proven otherwise, we should treat it like other decision properties and psychological accounts that are contingent on various moderators and call for an analysis of psychological mechanisms. In this commentary, we suggest that gatekeepers, such as reviewers, tend to favor loss aversion and other widely accepted tendencies, while demanding a much higher support‐threshold for alternative or newer accounts. Although building on prior theories and concepts is of course important, the bias in favor of incumbent assumptions can impede scientific progress, bar new ideas from the literature, and reinforce well‐established but contingent notions that may apply under some conditions but not others.     

个体权力高低对其损失规避的影响

摘 要 以中国大学生为被试,采用问卷的方式,探讨权力对损失规避倾向的影响。实验一发现,与低权力被试相比,高权力被试具有较少的损失规避。实验二进一步考察权力影响损失规避的原因机制,结果发现,权力对收益的价值估计没有影响,但降低了个体对损失的价值估计,从而导致损失规避的减少。结果表明,权力除了激活个体对收益的趋近,还可能抑制个体对损失的感知,权力也是影响决策的因素之一。 关键词 权力 损失规避 估计价值     

The behavioural components of risk aversion

There have been few theoretical investigations of risk attitude within Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT). Unlike expected utility theory, in CPT risk attitude is affected by loss aversion and decision weight distortions as well as utility curvature for both gains and losses. We introduce two variants of the risk premium—the total risk premium relative to expected value, and the behavioural risk premium relative to the imputed behavioural expected value. Approximate solutions for each using Pratt's [(1964). Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica, 32, 122-136] methodology show that the CPT risk premium is composed of two components: the first, analogous to the Pratt-Arrow coefficient of risk aversion, governs the contribution of the curvature of the value function to risk aversion; the second governs the first-order contribution of loss aversion. Both of these terms are made more complex by the introduction of decision weights. We analyse the contribution of each component and provide sufficient conditions to ensure risk aversion in CPT.     

Mementos and the endowment effect

This research provides evidence for a new moderator of the endowment effect: having a memento of the endowed object. Three studies adapting classic endowment effect paradigms and using a variety of endowment objects and mementos demonstrate that having a memento of an endowment increases willingness to trade the endowment and decreases selling prices for the endowment. We provide evidence that mementos attenuate the endowment effect regardless of whether the memento is a separate small gain when facing the loss of the endowment or a small part of the original endowment that is kept. Examining mementos in context of the endowment effect not only provides insight into the psychology underlying the reluctance to part with one's endowment but also other consumer disposition behaviors.     

The impact of locus of control and priming on the endowment effect

This paper demonstrates the effects of different priming conditions on the endowment effect with respect to seller and buyer roles for individuals with different loci of control. Individuals with an external locus of control process information less rationally, and they are more susceptible to external influences. In addition, the literature reports that when individuals are making a purchasing decision, they tend to perceive the value of the product as being higher because of its utility aspect because decision makers search for reasons and arguments to justify their choices (Shafir 1993; Tversky & Griffin, 1991). Therefore, this study investigates the effects of different priming conditions (utilitarian priming vs. hedonic priming) on the endowment effect according to each type of locus of control (internal vs. external). The results showed that the endowment effect was larger when externals were exposed to utilitarian priming as opposed to hedonic priming. Finally, the implications of these findings and suggestions for future research are discussed.     

The Implications of Prospect Theory for Human Nature and Values

Central to prospect theory are far-reaching claims about what people fear and what gratifies them. Subjective well-being is a topic that social science has been reluctant to discuss in recent years, but it is central to much of our lives. A loss inflicts more harm than a comparable gain produces pleasure; this fact and the related endowment effect are important parts of our psychological makeup. The importance of change rather than absolute value position, and the related significance of the reference point and how it can be altered, can be seen as integral to human nature.     

The Impact of Culture on Loss Aversion

Based on the literature on the relationship between culture, emotion, and loss aversion, we derive that culture can influence the degree of loss aversion. To test our hypotheses, we conduct a standardized survey in 53 countries worldwide that includes the questions from the Hofstede survey on cultural dimensions as well as lottery questions on loss aversion. The results show that individualism, power distance, and masculinity increase loss aversion as predicted, whereas the impact of uncertainty avoidance is less significant. Moreover, we also find a relation between the distribution of major religions in a country and loss aversion. In comparison, the connection of loss aversion to macroeconomic variables seems to be much smaller. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Role of social value orientation in the endowment effect

The purpose of the present research was to explore the role of social value orientation in the endowment effect. The study gathered 190 participants from university students in Taiwan: 74 of these were classified as individualists, 44 as competitors and 56 as prosocials, with 16 being unclassified. Results from an experimental study indicated that the individualists' and competitors' average selling prices were significantly higher than the average buying prices for a commodity; thus the endowment effect was observed in these two orientations. The endowment effect was not observed in those having a prosocial orientation, however.     

The effect of accountability on loss aversion

This paper investigates the effect of accountability—the expectation on the side of the decision maker of having to justify his/her decisions to somebody else—on loss aversion. Loss aversion is commonly thought to be the strongest component of risk aversion. Accountability is found to reduce the bias of loss aversion. This effect is explained by the higher cognitive effort induced by accountability, which triggers a rational check on emotional reactions at the base of loss aversion, leading to a reduction of the latter. Connections to dual-processing models are discussed.