2011/04/01 by Charles R. Plott, Kathryn Zeiler · 1 citation
Decision Sciences · Economics, Econometrics and Finance · #Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics #Economic and Environmental Valuation #Housing Market and Economics #Lottery #Endowment effect #Economics #Willingness to pay #Context (archaeology) #Endowment #Willingness to accept #Outcome (game theory) #Microeconomics #Econometrics #Positive economics #Actuarial science #Law #Political science
paper · doi:10.1257/aer.101.2.1012
openalex publication_date 2011/04/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/04
Isoni, Loomes, and Sugden (2011) assert that Plott and Zeiler (2005) reported inaccurate results. Placing ILS's selective quotes into context demonstrates otherwise. Additionally, examining the data closely yields three conclusions. First, all mug data reject endowment effect theory. Second, lottery gaps are associated with unstable attitudes toward uncertainty, a finding consistent with PZ's (2005) lottery data description, explicit warnings about procedure limitations and the data supplement, which reports the lottery data and cautions. Third, lottery outcome beliefs are influenced by whether WTP or WTA is reported, suggesting that changing beliefs, as opposed to the shape of preferences, produce lottery gaps. (JEL C91)