IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ecinqu/v37y1999i4p637-46.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Test of Competing Explanations of Compensation Demanded

Author

Listed:
  • Horowitz, John K
  • McConnell, K E
  • Quiggin, John

Abstract

We find that prospect theory behaviour is significantly more prevalent than utility theory behavior in experiments involving multiple, real items. In the experiments, subjects were endowed with three items and asked the minimum payments they required to be willing to return one, two, or three of them. Our key observation is that prospect theory implies concavity of compensation demanded, whereas utility theory implies convexity. We examine whether the compensation demanded is convex or concave in the number of items returned. Copyright 1999 by Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Horowitz, John K & McConnell, K E & Quiggin, John, 1999. "A Test of Competing Explanations of Compensation Demanded," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 37(4), pages 637-646, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ecinqu:v:37:y:1999:i:4:p:637-46
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Amos Schurr & Ilana Ritov, 2014. "The Effect of Giving It All Up on Valuation: A New Look at the Endowment Effect," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(3), pages 628-637, March.
    2. Horowitz, John K. & McConnell, K. E., 2000. "Values elicited from open-ended real experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 221-237, March.
    3. JOHN HOROWITZ & J. LIST & K. E. McCONNELL, 2007. "A Test of Diminishing Marginal Value," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 74(296), pages 650-663, November.
    4. Loomis, John & Peterson, George & Champ, Patricia & Brown, Thomas & Lucero, Beatrice, 1998. "Paired comparison estimates of willingness to accept versus contingent valuation estimates of willingness to pay," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 501-515, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:ecinqu:v:37:y:1999:i:4:p:637-46. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/weaaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.