A Test of the Theory of Reference-Dependent Preferences

Eight alternative methods of eliciting preferences between money and a consumption good are identified: two of these are standard willingness-to-accept and willingness-to-pay measures. These methods differ with respect to the reference point used and the dimension in which responses are expressed. The loss aversion hypothesis of Tversky and Kahneman's theory of reference-dependent preferences predicts systematic differences between the preferences elicited by these methods. These predictions are tested by eliciting individuals' preferences for two private consumption goods; the experimental design is incentive-compatible and controls for income and substitution effects. The theory's predictions are broadly confirmed.

[1]  John Hicks,et al.  The Four Consumer's Surpluses , 1943 .

[2]  John Hicks,et al.  A Revision of Demand Theory , 1957 .

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

[4]  M. Beesley.  The Value of Time Spent in Travelling: Some New Evidence , 1965 .

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

[6]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased? , 1979 .

[7]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk Author ( s ) : , 2007 .

[8]  John R. Stoll,et al.  Consumer's Surplus in Commodity Space , 1980 .

[9]  David S. Brookshire,et al.  An experiment on the economic value of visibility , 1980 .

[10]  P. Slovic,et al.  Preference Reversals: A Broader Perspective , 1983 .

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

[12]  M. Hammerton,et al.  THE VALUE OF SAFETY: RESULTS OF A NATIONAL SAMPLE SURVEY. IN: URBAN TRANSPORT , 1985 .

[13]  William D. Schulze,et al.  The Disparity Between Willingness to Accept and Willingness to Pay Measures of Value , 1987 .

[14]  Trudy Ann Cameron,et al.  Efficient Estimation Methods for "Closed-ended' Contingent Valuation Surveys , 1987 .

[15]  Joel Huber,et al.  An Investigation of the Rationality of Consumer Valuations of Multiple Health Risks , 1987 .

[16]  William Samuelson,et al.  Status quo bias in decision making , 1988 .

[17]  A. Tversky,et al.  Contingent weighting in judgment and choice , 1988 .

[18]  Robert Cameron Mitchell,et al.  Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method , 1989 .

[19]  J. Knetsch.  The Endowment Effect and Evidence of Nonreversible Indifference Curves. , 1989 .

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

[21]  A. Tversky,et al.  The Causes of Preference Reversal , 1990 .

[22]  A. Tversky,et al.  Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model , 1991 .

[23]  R. Thaler,et al.  Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle , 1993 .

[24]  J. Shogren,et al.  Resolving Differences in Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept , 1997 .

[25]  J. Hausman,et al.  Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number? , 1994 .

[26]  J. Andreoni.  Warm-Glow versus Cold-Prickle: The Effects of Positive and Negative Framing on Cooperation in Experiments , 1995 .

[27]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  A Bias in the Prediction of Tastes , 1995 .

[28]  Robert Sugden,et al.  Incorporating a stochastic element into decision theories , 1995 .

[29]  C. Plott,et al.  Exchange Economies and Loss Exposure: Experiments Exploring Prospect Theory and Competitive Equilibria in Market Environments , 1997 .