 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
 Start |
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Low |
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. |
|
| Start |
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Low |
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
| Further information and related task forces: |
| |
|
|
|
|
Logic |
|
|
|
[edit] opposing evidence
I added opposing evidence to the endowment effect following a research essay into the phenomenon. It is fair to say that it does not receive anywhere near universal acceptance support among economists.
- Not universally accepted--Isn't that fair to say about, well, everything in social science though? Exactly how much nonacceptance are we talking here, a lot or a little? The majority of experimentalists, at least, certainly accept the existence of the effect itself--indeed, it is routinely described as one of the most robust empirical findings in behavioral economics--the remaining "controversy," if you like, is the question of which theoretical framework best accounts for the data. That's very different from questioning whether there is an effect at all.
- I'm currently working on a brief cross-disciplinary paper on endowment effect, although my own academic background is in psychology, so when I finish it I'll try to expand on this article a bit. In particular I'll review collaborative experimental work between economics and psychologists. I'll certainly preserve the section on its status among neoclassical economists--in fact, I'd like to see that expanded a bit if you wouldn't mind. It all seems rather vague and dodgy (e.g., it mentions a "more robust study" but neglects to explain a single detail about what makes it more robust). The blurb at the end about substitution effects is especially unhelpful. No explanation, no citation, not even a wiki link? Come on... Jake987722 (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Duke Experiment
I have no clue why there is an entire section dedicated to a hypothetical study conducted and never published in a peer reviewed journal. Kahneman, in part, won a Nobel prize for his research into this and he barely merits a mention here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.212.56 (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Substitution Effects
I think the last paragraph as of 12-18-11, saying that the endowment effect might be just a consequence of standard substitution effects, is not correct. The endowment effect is about an agent's choice depending on the way a question is worded, a framing effect, and not on the agent's actual choices. For example, in Knetch's original experiment, in both treatments objectively participants are choosing between two items. It is only the wording of this choice that varies among problems.
I will delete this paragraph if I can figure out how.
