Focusing on what you own: Biased information uptake due to ownership

The endowment effect has been debated for over 30 years. Recent research suggests that differential focus of attention might play a role in shaping preferences. In two studies we investigated the role of biased attention in the emergence of endowment effects. We thereby derive predictions from an extended version of evidence accumulation models by additionally assuming a bias in attentional allocation based on one's endowment status. We test these predictions against an alternative account in which the endowment effect is the result of initial anchoring and adjustment differences (Sequential Value Matching model; Johnson & Busemeyer, 2005). In both studies we add deliberation time constraints to a standard Willingness-to-Accept/Willingness-to-Pay paradigm and consistently find that the endowment effect grows as deliberation time increases. In Study 2 we additionally use eye tracking and find that buyers focus more on value decreasing attributes than sellers (and vice versa for value increasing attributes). This shift in attention plays a pivotal role in the construction of value and partially mediates the endowment effect.

[1]  H. E. Cook,et al.  On the valuation of goods and selection of the best design alternative , 2001 .

[2]  Alessandra Rufa,et al.  Overconfident Behavior In Informational Cascades: An Eye-Tracking Study , 2009 .

[3]  M. Roca,et al.  The effects of endowment on the demand for probabilistic information , 2009 .

[4]  Nigel Harvey,et al.  Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making , 2004 .

[5]  J. Knetsch,et al.  Willingness to Pay and Compensation Demanded: Experimental Evidence of an Unexpected Disparity in Measures of Value , 1984 .

[6]  Charles R. Plott,et al.  The Willingness to Pay/Willingness to Accept Gap, The "Endowment Effect" and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations , 2002 .

[7]  Deborah A. Small,et al.  Heart Strings and Purse Strings , 2004, Psychological science.

[8]  R. Coase,et al.  The Problem of Social Cost , 1960, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[9]  A. Rangel,et al.  Biasing simple choices by manipulating relative visual attention , 2008, Judgment and Decision Making.

[10]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models , 2008, Behavior research methods.

[11]  M. Degroot,et al.  Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. , 1964, Behavioral science.

[12]  M. Birnbaum,et al.  Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Buying and Selling Prices of Investments: Configural Weight Model of Interactions Predicts Violations of Joint Independence Judges Evaluated Buying and Selling Prices of Hypothetical Investments, Based on the Previous Price of Each Investment and , 2022 .

[13]  E. Dijk,et al.  Trading wine: On the endowment effect, loss aversion, and the comparability of consumer goods , 1998 .

[14]  R. Thaler.  Toward a positive theory of consumer choice , 1980 .

[15]  W. Rogers.  Regression standard errors in clustered samples , 1994 .

[16]  James K. Beggan.  On the social nature of nonsocial perception: The mere ownership effect. , 1992 .

[17]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Attentional mechanisms in the generation of sympathy , 2009, Judgment and Decision Making.

[18]  Eldar Shafir,et al.  Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others , 1993, Memory & cognition.

[19]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[20]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[21]  Jerome R. Busemeyer,et al.  Linking together different measures of preference: A dynamic model of matching derived from decision field theory , 1992 .

[22]  Ulf Bockenholt,et al.  Choice by Value Encoding and Value Construction: Processes of Loss Aversion , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[23]  Andreas Glöckner,et al.  Yes, they can! Appropriate weighting of small probabilities as a function of information acquisition. , 2011, Acta psychologica.

[24]  Michael Schulte-Mecklenbeck,et al.  The role of process data in the development and testing of process models of judgment and decision making , 2011 .

[25]  Joseph G. Johnson,et al.  Expertise-based differences in search and option-generation strategies. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[26]  M. Birnbaum,et al.  Violations of Branch Independence in Judgments of the Value of Gambles , 1997 .

[27]  Daniel C. Richardson,et al.  Representation, space and Hollywood Squares: looking at things that aren't there anymore , 2000, Cognition.

[28]  Morton B. Brown,et al.  Robust Tests for the Equality of Variances , 1974 .

[29]  J. Townsend,et al.  Decision field theory: a dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. , 1993, Psychological review.

[30]  Carey K. Morewedge,et al.  Bad riddance or good rubbish? Ownership and not loss aversion causes the endowment effect. , 2009 .

[31]  S. Fiedler,et al.  Processing Differences between Descriptions and Experience: A Comparative Analysis Using Eye-Tracking and Physiological Measures , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[32]  Jerome R. Busemeyer,et al.  Computational Models of Decision Making , 2003 .

[33]  Andreas Glöckner,et al.  Network approaches for expert decisions in sports. , 2012, Human movement science.

[34]  Martin Weber,et al.  Willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept for risky and ambiguous lotteries , 1995 .

[35]  Ben Greiner,et al.  An Online Recruitment System for Economic Experiments , 2004 .

[36]  Robin Gregory,et al.  The role of affect in the WTA/WTP disparity , 2003 .

[37]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias , 1991 .

[38]  M. Birnbaum,et al.  Source Credibility in Social Judgment : Bias , Expertise , and the Judge ' s Point of View , 1979 .

[39]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem , 1990, Journal of Political Economy.

[40]  D. Goldstein,et al.  Word count: 3998 Corresponding author: , 2022 .

[41]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  The Effect of Ownership History on the Valuation of Objects , 1998 .

[42]  Wendi L. Adair,et al.  For Whom Is Parting With Possessions More Painful? , 2010, Psychological science.

[43]  A. Rangel,et al.  Multialternative drift-diffusion model predicts the relationship between visual fixations and choice in value-based decisions , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[44]  C. Plott,et al.  Exchange Asymmetries Incorrectly Interpreted as Evidence of Endowment Effect Theory and Prospect Theory? , 2007 .

[45]  Michael H. Birnbaum,et al.  Scale convergence and utility measurement , 1992 .

[46]  M A Just,et al.  A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehension. , 1980, Psychological review.

[47]  Steven J. Sherman,et al.  Cancellation and focus: the role of shared and unique features in the choice process , 1995 .

[48]  Joseph G. Johnson,et al.  Applying the decision moving window to risky choice: Comparison of eye-tracking and mouse-tracing methods , 2011, Judgment and Decision Making.

[49]  T. Brown.  Loss aversion without the endowment effect, and other explanations for the WTA-WTP disparity , 2005 .

[50]  K. McConnell,et al.  A Review of Wta/Wtp Studies , 2000 .

[51]  A. Glöckner,et al.  Do People Make Decisions Under Risk Based on Ignorance? An Empirical Test of the Priority Heuristic Against Cumulative Prospect Theory , 2008 .

[52]  Himanshu Mishra,et al.  The Endowment Effect: Rose-Tinted and Dark-Tinted Glasses , 2005 .

[53]  Andreas Glöckner,et al.  An eye‐tracking study on information processing in risky decisions: Evidence for compensatory strategies based on automatic processes , 2011 .

[54]  R. Korobkin.  The Endowment Effect and Legal Analysis , 2002 .

[55]  Joseph G. Johnson,et al.  A dynamic, stochastic, computational model of preference reversal phenomena. , 2005, Psychological review.

[56]  Michael Schulte-Mecklenbeck,et al.  A Handbook of Process Tracing Methods for Decision Research. A Critical Review and User's Guide , 2011 .

[57]  Edward K. Vogel,et al.  The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions , 1997, Nature.

[58]  D. Ariely,et al.  Focusing on the Forgone: How Value Can Appear So Different to Buyers and Sellers , 2000 .

[59]  Antonio Rangel,et al.  NEUROECONOMIC MODELS OF ECONOMIC DECISION MAKING^ The Impact of Computation Time and Experience on Decision Values , 2008 .

[60]  A. Tversky,et al.  Subjective Probability: A Judgment of Representativeness , 1972 .

[61]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Aspects of Endowment: A Query Theory of Value Construction , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[62]  S. Shimojo,et al.  Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference , 2003, Nature Neuroscience.