The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 13 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies?
Open accessAbstract
This study examines individual behavior in two well-functioning marketplaces to investigate whether market experience eliminates the endowment effect. Field evidence from both markets suggests that individual behavior converges to the neoclassical prediction as market experience increases. In an experimental test of whether these observations are due to treatment (market experience) or selection (e.g., static preferences), I find that market experience plays a significant role in eliminating the endowment effect. I also find that these results are robust to institutional change and extend beyond the two marketplaces studied. Overall, this study provides strong evidence that market experience eliminates an important market anomaly.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Using field experiments in sportscard, pin, auction, and lab markets, List finds a pooled endowment effect but shows trading rates converge toward the neoclassical prediction as market experience increases. Panel and selection analyses suggest market experience attenuates the endowment effect rather than merely reflecting static selection.
Key findings
- In the Orlando sportscard show, pooled trading was 32.8% (23/70) and 34.6% (27/78), Fisher p < .001; dealers traded at 45.7% and 43.6% (p = .194), while nondealers traded at 20.0% and 25.6% (p < .001). Experienced nondealers traded at 46.7% (p = .32), versus 6.8% for inexperienced nondealers (p < .001).
- In the Epcot pin market, pooled trading was 25.0% and 32.5% (p < .001); experienced consumers (≥7 monthly trades) traded at 40.0% (p = .26), while inexperienced consumers traded at 25.0% (p < .001). Using a ≥5-trade cutoff, experienced consumers traded at 46.7% (p = .30) and inexperienced at 18.0% (p < .001).
- In the follow-up sportscard experiment (n = 53 nondealers), pooled trading was 40.0% and 35.7% (p < .08); experienced consumers traded at 45.5% and 60.0% (p = .99), while inexperienced consumers traded at 35.7% and 22.2% (p < .02). Chamberlain panel models controlling for individual heterogeneity found trading experience significantly related to trade probability, and bivariate probit selection estimates suggested little evidence that selection bias was a major problem.
- In the Tucson auction, dealers’ mean WTA ($8.15) was about 1.30 times mean WTP ($6.27), not statistically different (t = 0.87); nondealers’ mean WTA ($18.53) was about 5.6 times mean WTP ($3.32), statistically different (t = 4.13). In the lab, initial trading was 11.4% (4/35) and 12% (4/33), rising later to 27% (9/33) and 25.7% (9/35), with Fisher p < .05 and p < .06.
Methods
- Four field experiments used random allocation trading designs with unique goods: Orlando sportscard show (148 subjects: 74 dealers, 74 nondealers), Epcot pin market (80 consumers), follow-up Orlando sportscard show (53 nondealers; 19 dealers also reported), and Tucson sportscard auction (120 decisions: 30 WTA and 30 WTP each for dealers and nondealers). A lab ABCD/DCBA design was run over two four-week periods at the University of Arizona.
- Main analyses included Fisher’s exact tests, logit/probit trade models, Chamberlain panel logit models with individual fixed effects, bivariate probit sample-selection models, and large-sample t-tests for auction WTA/WTP comparisons.
Limitations
- The paper states that the follow-up experiment could suffer sample-selection bias, though bivariate probit estimates suggest little evidence it is a major problem. It also states the auction WTA/WTP comparison is rough because it compares value statements along different indifference curves, discards two nondealer WTA outliers ($1000 and $500), and notes the point estimates do not fully support neoclassical theory.
- The paper states that the gender/endowment-effect relationship needs future research before firm conclusions.
- Evident from the text: the field designs rely on natural variation in experience and endogenous selection into trading, some subsamples are small (e.g., 20 experienced pin consumers, 21 experienced follow-up consumers), and the lab still finds a significant endowment effect after four rounds, indicating learning is slow.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
37 Own result · 20 Own interpretation · 10 Not checked yet · 10 Own method · 7 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Alternatively, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected at conventional signi cance levels in the dealer treatments ( p 5 .19).”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > 47 DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE ANOMALIES?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The number of trades made in a typical month is a valid measure of market experience.
- Rests on an assumption: The sportscard and pin marketplaces studied are well-functioning marketplaces.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A Fisher's exact test shows that for nondealers the null hypothesis of no endowment effect should be rejected at the p , .001level.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > 47 DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE ANOMALIES?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The number of trades made in a typical month is a valid measure of market experience.
- Rests on an assumption: The sportscard and pin marketplaces studied are well-functioning marketplaces.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Parameter estimates again suggest that the propensity to trade and trading experience are positively related at conventional signi cance levels.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > IV. A. Experimental Results III
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The number of trades made in a typical month is a valid measure of market experience.
- Rests on an assumption: The sportscard and pin marketplaces studied are well-functioning marketplaces.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Note that the dealer trading experience coefcient is statistically different from the nondealer coef cient estimate at the p , .09level.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > 50
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The number of trades made in a typical month is a valid measure of market experience.
- Rests on an assumption: The sportscard and pin marketplaces studied are well-functioning marketplaces.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“During the exit interview, more than 95 percent (142 of 148) of the subjects stated that they planned to consume the piece of memorabilia”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS
plainn = 148- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Subjects' stated plans to consume the memorabilia indicate that they will not resell or trade the good immediately after the experiment.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“as Table V illustrates, an overall endowment effect exists at the p , .001level”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > III. A. Experimental Results II
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The sportscard and pin marketplaces studied are well-functioning marketplaces.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“across all consumer types, marketlike experience and the magnitude of the endowment effect are inversely related.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > I. INTRODUCTION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The number of trades made in a typical month is a valid measure of market experience.
- Rests on an assumption: The sportscard and pin marketplaces studied are well-functioning marketplaces.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Central tendencies of the variables reveal that the average subject participating in the follow-up experiment tended to be a more active trader than the average subject in the rst sportscard experiment (6.84 versus 5.66).”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > IV. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN III
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The number of trades made in a typical month is a valid measure of market experience.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“an exit interview revealed that a large majority of subjects (52 of 53) planned to keep the unique Negro League piece of memorabilia.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > IV. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN III
plainn = 53- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Subjects' stated plans to consume the memorabilia indicate that they will not resell or trade the good immediately after the experiment.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Via both unconditional and conditional statistical analyses, which use panel data regression techniques to control for individual static preferences, I nd that market experience signi cantly attenuates the endowment effect.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > I. INTRODUCTION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The number of trades made in a typical month is a valid measure of market experience.
- Rests on an assumption: The sportscard and pin marketplaces studied are well-functioning marketplaces.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 35
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
- Probably not a substantial claim. 15
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the 53 subjects who participated in both experiments stated that they typically traded 5.70 times per month in Experiment I-signi cantly fewer trades than the 6.84 they reported in the follow-up experiment.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > IV. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN III
plaincorrelationaln = 53- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The number of trades made in a typical month is a valid measure of market experience.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“whereas 43.6 percent and 45.7 percent of dealers chose to execute a trade, only 20 -25 percent of nondealers chose to trade.”
- Also stated in: § 47 DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE ANOMALIES? · plain
“dealers tend to trade more than nondealers, regardless of which good they were initially endowed.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > 47 DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE ANOMALIES?
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The number of trades made in a typical month is a valid measure of market experience.
- Rests on an assumption: The sportscard and pin marketplaces studied are well-functioning marketplaces.
- Also stated in: § 47 DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE ANOMALIES? · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“an endowment effect is evident for inexperienced consumers, but not for experienced consumers: inexperienced traders (those who trade fewer than 7 times in a typical month) executed a trade at a rate of 28 percent (9 of 32), whereas 11 of 21 (52.3 percent) experienced consumers chose to trade.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > IV. A. Experimental Results III
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The number of trades made in a typical month is a valid measure of market experience.
- Rests on an assumption: The sportscard and pin marketplaces studied are well-functioning marketplaces.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The actual percentages of subjects who chose to trade are 32.8 percent (23 of 70) and 34.6 percent (27 of 78), suggesting that WTA .WTP.”
- Also stated in: § 47 DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE ANOMALIES? · boosted
“The result of the exact test presented in row 1, column 2 of Table II, strongly suggests that the null hypothesis should be rejected ( p , .001) for the pooled sample, implying that an endowment effect exists.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > IIA. Experimental Results I
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The sportscard and pin marketplaces studied are well-functioning marketplaces.
- Also stated in: § 47 DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE ANOMALIES? · boosted
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These proportions suggest that nondealers were nearly 3.5 times more likely to select the good which they were endowed, whereas dealers were only 1.25 times more likely to choose their endowed good.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > 47 DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE ANOMALIES?
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The number of trades made in a typical month is a valid measure of market experience.
- Rests on an assumption: The sportscard and pin marketplaces studied are well-functioning marketplaces.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the effect of trading experience for dealers in the monotonic model, 0.03, is considerably weaker and not signi cant at conventional levels (t ' 1.5).”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > 50
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The number of trades made in a typical month is a valid measure of market experience.
- Rests on an assumption: The sportscard and pin marketplaces studied are well-functioning marketplaces.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Regression estimates also suggest that women tend to trade less than men, but the difference is only marginally signi cant.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > III. A. Experimental Results II
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The number of trades made in a typical month is a valid measure of market experience.
- Rests on an assumption: The sportscard and pin marketplaces studied are well-functioning marketplaces.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of those 42 subjects, data in rows 1 and 2 of Table IX indicate that 21, 13, and 8 reported an increase, decrease, and no change in their monthly trading rate compared with the previous year.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE ANOMALIES?
hedgedn = 42- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although signi cant evidence of an endowment effect remains even after four rounds of trading experience, I nd via a Fisher's exact test that for treatment A (D) data the null hypothesis of no treatment effect is rejected at the p , .05 ( p , .06) level using a one-sided alternative.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > 65 DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE ANOMALIES?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For brevity, I note that simulation of such a system yields insights consonant with Akerlof and Yellen [1985]: the inertia is synonymous with”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE ANOMALIES?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Akerlof and Yellen [1985]
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- The authors state this as an assumption: In the simulation, there are two types of equally numbered consumers, type A and type B.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Within both consumer types, a proportion F of consumers is unsophisticated/inexperienced, and the remaining consumers are sophisticated/experienced.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Inexperienced consumers have downward inertial consumption of one of the goods (an extreme endowment effect), while experienced consumers have no such characteristic inherent in their preference structure.
- The authors state this as an assumption: All consumers maximize Cobb-Douglas utility functions of the form U = G1^φ G2^(1-φ).
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even though r is signi cant at conventional levels ( p , .01), the sample selection bivariate probit estimates suggest that little evidence exists to indicate that selection bias is a major problem.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE ANOMALIES?
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Central tendencies of the variables reveal that dealers are much more active in trading cards and sports memorabilia, and have had more years of experience in the sportscard and memorabilia market.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS
plaincorrelationaln = 148- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The number of trades made in a typical month is a valid measure of market experience.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both of these observations extend quite well to statements of value in auctions, where offers and bids are signi cantly different for naive consumers, but statistically indistinguishable for experienced consumers.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > I. INTRODUCTION
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The number of trades made in a typical month is a valid measure of market experience.
- Rests on an assumption: The sportscard and pin marketplaces studied are well-functioning marketplaces.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For dealers, the mean WTA ($8.15) is approximately 1.30 times larger than the mean WTP ($6.27).While this magnitude may appear signi cant, one needs to consider that a large-sample t-test cannot reject the null hypothesis that the mean WTP and WTA are equivalent at conventional signi cance levels (t 5 0.87).”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > V. B. Experimental Results and Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Equilibrium utility levels are second-order different for experienced and inexperienced consumers within each group, but the overall welfare effects represent rst-order movements along the economy's utility frontier.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE ANOMALIES?
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: In the simulation, there are two types of equally numbered consumers, type A and type B.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Within both consumer types, a proportion F of consumers is unsophisticated/inexperienced, and the remaining consumers are sophisticated/experienced.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Inexperienced consumers have downward inertial consumption of one of the goods (an extreme endowment effect), while experienced consumers have no such characteristic inherent in their preference structure.
- The authors state this as an assumption: All consumers maximize Cobb-Douglas utility functions of the form U = G1^φ G2^(1-φ).
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Results are strengthened when higher order terms are included.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE ANOMALIES?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the general results are consistent across model type and imply that experience and trading rates are associated.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE ANOMALIES?
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Inclusion of all four rows of data to form a 4 3 3 contingency matrix makes little inferential difference-the calculated x 2 (six degrees of freedom) equals 24.03.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE ANOMALIES?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet, when trading rates from group 1 treatment A (D) are compared with trading rates in group 2 treatment A (D), I nd trading rates that are consistently higher in the later trading sessions-27 percent (9/33) of group 2 subjects traded their good in treatment A, which compares favorably with the 11.4 percent in group 1.Furthermore, while only 12 percent of group 1 subjects traded in treatment D, 2”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > 65 DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE ANOMALIES?
plaincorrelationaln = 2 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For nondealers, mean WTA ($18.53) is approximately 5.6 times larger than mean WTP ($3.32), a difference that is signi cant using a large-sample t-test (t 5 4.13).”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > V. B. Experimental Results and Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Yet, similar to Akerlof and Yellen, in an economy with initial distortions the presence of inexperienced consumers can lead to rst-order changes in social welfare as well as rst-order changes in income distribution.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE ANOMALIES?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Akerlof and Yellen
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: In the simulation, there are two types of equally numbered consumers, type A and type B.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Within both consumer types, a proportion F of consumers is unsophisticated/inexperienced, and the remaining consumers are sophisticated/experienced.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Inexperienced consumers have downward inertial consumption of one of the goods (an extreme endowment effect), while experienced consumers have no such characteristic inherent in their preference structure.
- The authors state this as an assumption: All consumers maximize Cobb-Douglas utility functions of the form U = G1^φ G2^(1-φ).
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The raw data show that over the course of the year, many subjects experienced a growth in their personal number of trades: 27 subjects (51 percent) increased their monthly trading rate, whereas 18 (34 percent) and 8 (15 percent) subjects decreased or had at trading rates compared with the previous year.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE ANOMALIES?
plainn = 27- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The endowment effect can again be rejected in these data, as ten of the nineteen dealers (52.6 percent) chose to trade their endowed good.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > V. FURTHER EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, both statements are to some extent correct, as the 53 subjects who participated in both experiments stated that they typically traded 5.70 times per month in Experiment I-signi cantly fewer trades than the 6.84 they reported in the follow-up experiment.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > IV. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN III
plainconditionaln = 53- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The number of trades made in a typical month is a valid measure of market experience.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Before proceeding, I should note that these results are robust to inclusion of higher order learning terms.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > 50
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This result may suggest that some dealers have had substantial opportunity to interact in a market setting, rendering the marginal impact of another trade less important.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > 50
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The number of trades made in a typical month is a valid measure of market experience.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the regression results presented in Table VI, which include expansions to the cubic, support these conclusions.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > III. A. Experimental Results II
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The number of trades made in a typical month is a valid measure of market experience.
- Rests on an assumption: The sportscard and pin marketplaces studied are well-functioning marketplaces.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No subjects participated in more than one treatment.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“This evidence, which is consistent with past experimental studies, is at odds with conventional economic theory, which assumes that indifference curves are completely reversible when transactions costs are zero [Knetsch 1989].”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > 47 DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE ANOMALIES?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Knetsch 1989
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“since I ask subjects to (implicitly) rank the two goods, by de nition I am controlling for all Hicksian income and substitution effects.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the pin market is different from the sports memorabilia market in that there are very few pin dealers: the extent of being a”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > 51 DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE ANOMALIES?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the uniqueness of the two goods guaranteed that the subject had not previously dealt with either piece of memorabilia.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since the empirical results are insensitive to inclusion of higher order experience terms, I include estimates from only linear models.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > IV. A. Experimental Results III
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Results in Table VII are consistent with data from both the rst sportscard eld experiment and the pin eld study.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > IV. A. Experimental Results III
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The number of trades made in a typical month is a valid measure of market experience.
- Rests on an assumption: The sportscard and pin marketplaces studied are well-functioning marketplaces.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Since subjects are allocated to one of the two treatments randomly”
- Also stated in: § II. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN I · plain
“I follow Knetsch [1989] and Kahneman, Knetsch, and Thaler [1990] and use a straightforward random allocation de-43”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE ANOMALIES?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Knetsch [1989]
- Not checked yetcites Kahneman, Knetsch, and Thaler [1990]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § II. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN I · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since subjects are allocated to one of the two treatments randomly, fewer than 50 percent of the subjects should swap their good if an endowment effect exists.Alternatively, if an endowment effect does not exist, approximately 50 percent of the subjects should trade their good.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE ANOMALIES?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The current experimental design matches real-world settings which economic theory attempts to explain: traders endogenously select into the market and they are likely to have previous experience trading related goods.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE ANOMALIES?
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Results are equally as convincing in Kahneman, Knetsch, and Thaler [1990], where eleven subjects should have traded their Cornell University coffee mugs, but only three trades were observed over four repetitions.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE ANOMALIES?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kahneman, Knetsch, and Thaler [1990]
plainn = 11- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This result is consistent with the notion that unobservables shape the endowment effect and that individuals have static preferences toward trading.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE ANOMALIES?
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results support the ndings above and reinforce the notion that useful cognitive capital builds up slowly, over days or years, rather than in the short run of an experiment.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > 65 DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE ANOMALIES?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“I also nd that these results are robust to institutional change and extend beyond the two marketplaces studied.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The number of trades made in a typical month is a valid measure of market experience.
- Rests on an assumption: The sportscard and pin marketplaces studied are well-functioning marketplaces.
In the paper
“In Knetsch [1989] the evidence in favor of the endowment effect is sharp: 89 percent of those originally endowed with a mug chose to keep the mug, and 90 percent of those endowed with a chocolate bar decided to keep the chocolate bar.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE ANOMALIES?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Knetsch [1989]
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the endowment effect is a fundamental and stable component of agents' underlying preferences, then market experience and the endowment effect should be uncorrelated.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > II. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN I
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Finally, studying trade histories for professional oor traders, Locke and Mann [2000] present evidence that suggests certain classes of”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > 65 DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE ANOMALIES?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Locke and Mann [2000]
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But, if for experienced litigants endowment effects disappear, then the basic independence assumption is restored and the basis for many normative arguments (Coase theorem) remains intact.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > 69 DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE ANOMALIES?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, within both institutionsobserved trading rates and explicit value revelation-I nd strong evidence that individual behavior converges to the neoclassical prediction as trading experience intensi es.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > VIII. CONCLUSIONS
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The number of trades made in a typical month is a valid measure of market experience.
“Trading experience represents the number of trades made in a typical month.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The sportscard and pin marketplaces studied are well-functioning marketplaces.
“This study examines individual behavior in two well-functioning marketplaces to investigate whether market experience eliminates the endowment effect.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Subjects' stated plans to consume the memorabilia indicate that they will not resell or trade the good immediately after the experiment.
“During the exit interview, more than 95 percent (142 of 148) of the subjects stated that they planned to consume the piece of memorabilia”
“an exit interview revealed that a large majority of subjects (52 of 53) planned to keep the unique Negro League piece of memorabilia.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In the simulation, there are two types of equally numbered consumers, type A and type B.
“pure exchange economy with two types of equally numbered consumers populating the economy: type A and type B.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Within both consumer types, a proportion F of consumers is unsophisticated/inexperienced, and the remaining consumers are sophisticated/experienced.
“Within both consumer types, a proportion F of consumers is unsophisticated, or inexperienced, while the remaining consumers are sophisticated, or experienced.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Inexperienced consumers have downward inertial consumption of one of the goods (an extreme endowment effect), while experienced consumers have no such characteristic inherent in their preference structure.
“The inexperienced consumers have downward inertial consumption of one of the goods (e.g., an extreme case of an endowment effect), while the experienced consumers have no such characteristic inherent in their preference structure, perhaps due to learning.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
All consumers maximize Cobb-Douglas utility functions of the form U = G1^φ G2^(1-φ).
“Further assume that all consumers maximize Cobb-Douglas utility functions of the form: U 5 G 1 f j G 2 1 2f j , where j denotes consumer type.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“List [2003] has shown that this effect disappears when agents have market experience.”
From Personality Psychology and Economics (2011) · cites this paper as List [2003]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“Indeed, professional sports card dealers (45), condominium investors (rather than owners) (31), and experienced cab drivers (32) show less apparent response to loss than less experienced agents.”
From Thinking like a trader selectively reduces individuals' loss aversion (2009) · cites this paper as [45]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > IIA. Experimental Results I
“Pin market Sportscard market II Dealers mean (std.dev.)Nondealers mean (std.dev.)Consumers mean (std.dev.)Nondealers mean (std.dev.) Trading experience 14.82 5.66 6.98 6.84”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > IV. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN III
“b.Experienced consumers are those consumers who trade 7 (or 5) or more times per month (6.55 is the mean level of monthly trades).”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > 65 DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE ANOMALIES?
“only 11.4 percent (4/35) and 12 percent (4/33) of subjects traded their endowed good in treatments A and D.”
§ DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE MARKET ANOMALIES?* > 65 DOES MARKET EXPERIENCE ELIMINATE ANOMALIES?
“while only 12 percent of group 1 subjects traded in treatment D, 25.7 percent (9/35) of group 2 subjects traded in treatment D.”
Citations
Cites
The Quarterly Journal of Economics
Kuznets, S. (2024) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781003549741-8 · Cited by 7,177
Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/2937956 · Cited by 6,432
Toward a positive theory of consumer choice
Thaler, R. H. (1980) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/0167-2681(80)90051-7 · Cited by 5,796
Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/261737 · Cited by 3,194
Reputation and imperfect information
Kreps, D. M., & Wilson, R. B. (1982) · Journal of Economic Theory · doi:10.1016/0022-0531(82)90030-8 · Cited by 3,043
Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem
Kahneman, D. J., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (2000) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139175197.009 · Cited by 2,870
Analysis of Covariance with Qualitative Data
Chamberlain, G. (1980) · The Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.2307/2297110 · Cited by 2,659
(2009) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.99.4.i · Cited by 2,304
Loss Aversion and Seller Behavior: Evidence from the Housing Market
Genesove, D., & Mayer, C. (2001) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355301753265561 · Cited by 1,628
The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework
Camerer, C. F., Hogarth, R. M., Budescu, D. V., & Eckel, C. C. (1999) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-017-1406-8_2 · Cited by 1,545
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Akerlof George A, 1985, American Economic Review, 720
- Coursey Don, 1987, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 690
- Knetsch Jack L, 1989, American Economic Review, 1277
- List John A, 2001, American Economic Review, 1507
- List John A, 1998, American Economic Review, 1355
- Thaler Richard, 1980, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 60
- Tversky Amos, 1991, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1061
- van de Ven Wynand, 1981, Journal of Econometrics, 252
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences
Koszegi, B., & Rabin, M. (2006) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/121.4.1133 · Cited by 2,728
Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field
DellaVigna, S. (2009) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.47.2.315 · Cited by 2,412
Thirty Years of Prospect Theory in Economics: A Review and Assessment
Barberis, N. (2013) · The Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.27.1.173 · Cited by 1,638
Personality Psychology and Economics
Almlund, M., Duckworth, A. L., Heckman, J. J., & Kautz, T. (2011) · Handbook of the economics of education · doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-53444-6.00001-8 · Cited by 1,412
Are Risk Aversion and Impatience Related to Cognitive Ability?
Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., & Sunde, U. (2010) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.100.3.1238 · Cited by 1,332
Up Close and Personal: Investor Sophistication and the Disposition Effect
Dhar, R., & Zhu, N. (2006) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1040.0473 · Cited by 840
Do Investor Sophistication and Trading Experience Eliminate Behavioral Biases in Financial Markets?
Feng, L., & Seasholes, M. S. (2005) · Review of Finance · doi:10.1007/s10679-005-2262-0 · Cited by 790
The behavioralist as tax collector: Using natural field experiments to enhance tax compliance
Hallsworth, M., List, J. A., Metcalfe, R. D., & Vlaev, I. (2017) · Journal of Public Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2017.02.003 · Cited by 764
Self-citationGender and Competition at a Young Age
Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2004) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/0002828041301821 · Cited by 756
Do Professional Traders Exhibit Myopic Loss Aversion? An Experimental Analysis
HAIGH, M. S., & LIST, J. A. (2005) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00737.x · Cited by 754
Self-citationBridging the Energy Efficiency Gap: Policy Insights from Economic Theory and Empirical Evidence
Gillingham, K. T., & Palmer, K. (2014) · Review of Environmental Economics and Policy · doi:10.1093/reep/ret021 · Cited by 701
Risk Aversion in the Laboratory
Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2008) · Research in experimental economics · doi:10.1016/s0193-2306(08)00003-3 · Cited by 672
Neoclassical Theory Versus Prospect Theory: Evidence from the Marketplace
List, J. A. (2004) · Econometrica · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2004.00502.x · Cited by 653
Self-citationChen, G., Kim, K. A., Nofsinger, J. R., & Rui, O. M. (2007) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.561 · Cited by 663
Isoni, A., Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (2011) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.101.2.991 · Cited by 615
Experienced Utility as a Standard of Policy Evaluation
Kahneman, D. J., & Sugden, R. (2005) · Environmental and Resource Economics · doi:10.1007/s10640-005-6032-4 · Cited by 608
Liu, E. M. (2012) · The Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1162/rest_a_00295 · Cited by 607
Do older investors make better investment decisions?
Korniotis, G. M., & Kumar, A. (2011) · Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1162/rest_a_00053 · Cited by 565
Knowledge is (Less) Power: Experimental Evidence from Residential Energy Use
Jessoe, K., & Rapson, D. S. (2014) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.104.4.1417 · Cited by 550
Personality Psychology and Economics
Almlund, M., Duckworth, A. L., Heckman, J., & Kautz, T. (2011) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w16822 · Cited by 540
Seru, A., Shumway, T., & Stoffman, N. (2009) · Review of Financial Studies · doi:10.1093/rfs/hhp060 · Cited by 515
Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices
Gächter, S., Johnson, E. J., & Herrmann, A. P. (2021) · Theory and Decision · doi:10.1007/s11238-021-09839-8 · Cited by 533
The Missing Motivation in Macroeconomics
Akerlof, G. A. (2007) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.97.1.5 · Cited by 505
Is Tiger Woods Loss Averse? Persistent Bias in the Face of Experience, Competition, and High Stakes
Pope, D. G., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2011) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.101.1.129 · Cited by 501
Aspects of endowment: A query theory of value construction.
Johnson, E. J., Häubl, G., & Keinan, A. (2007) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.461 · Cited by 472
Thinking like a trader selectively reduces individuals' loss aversion
Sokol-Hessner, P., Hsu, M., Curley, N. G., Delgado, M. R., Camerer, C. F., & Phelps, E. A. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0806761106 · Cited by 452
Inexperienced Investors and Bubbles
Greenwood, R. M., & Nagel, S. (2008) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2008.08.004 · Cited by 445
The Nature and Extent of Discrimination in the Marketplace: Evidence from the Field
List, J. A. (2004) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355304772839524 · Cited by 447
Self-citationShu, S. B., & Peck, J. (2011) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.01.002 · Cited by 418
Expected utility theory and prospect theory: one wedding and a decent funeral
Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2008) · Experimental Economics · doi:10.1007/s10683-008-9203-7 · Cited by 431
The effect of reference point prices on mergers and acquisitions
Baker, M. P., Pan, X., & Wurgler, J. A. (2012) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2012.04.010 · Cited by 415
The Road not Taken: How Psychology was Removed from Economics, and How it Might be Brought Back
Bruni, L., & Sugden, R. (2007) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0297.2007.02005.x · Cited by 393
The Behavioralist Visits the Factory: Increasing Productivity Using Simple Framing Manipulations
Hossain, T., & List, J. A. (2012) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1120.1544 · Cited by 398
Self-citationEvolution of Consumption: A Psychological Ownership Framework
Morewedge, C. K., Monga, A., Palmatier, R. W., Shu, S. B., & Small, D. A. (2020) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/0022242920957007 · Cited by 382
Experimental auctions methods and applications in economic and marketing research
Lusk, J. L., & Shogren, J. F. (2007) · Cited by 352
Explanations of the endowment effect: an integrative review
Morewedge, C. K., & Giblin, C. E. (2015) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2015.04.004 · Cited by 371
From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better than No Number?
Kling, C. L., Phaneuf, D. J., & Zhao, J. (2012) · The Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.26.4.3 · Cited by 343
Ericson, K. M. M., & Fuster, A. (2011) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjr034 · Cited by 354
Loss Aversion Is an Affective Forecasting Error
Kermer, D. A., Driver‐Linn, E., Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2006) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01760.x · Cited by 354
Heuristic Thinking and Limited Attention in the Car Market
Lacetera, N., Pope, D. G., & Sydnor, J. R. (2012) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.102.5.2206 · Cited by 344
Digital Goods Are Valued Less Than Physical Goods
Atasoy, Ö., & Morewedge, C. K. (2017) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucx102 · Cited by 354
Reference-Dependent Preferences: Evidence from Marathon Runners
Allen, E. J., Dechow, P., Pope, D. G., & Wu, G. (2016) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2015.2417 · Cited by 344
Looking for Someone to Blame: Delegation, Cognitive Dissonance, and the Disposition Effect
Chang, T., Solomon, D. H., & Westerfield, M. M. (2015) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/jofi.12311 · Cited by 335
The Uncertainty Effect: When a Risky Prospect Is Valued Less Than Its Worst Possible Outcome
Uri Gneezy, B., List, J. A., & Wu, G. (2006) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/121.4.1283 · Cited by 322
Self-citationRisk preferences and pesticide use by cotton farmers in China
Liu, E. M., & Huang, J. (2013) · Journal of Development Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2012.12.005 · Cited by 325
Enhancing the Efficacy of Teacher Incentives through Loss Aversion: A Field Experiment
Fryer, R. G., Levitt, S. D., List, J. A., & Sadoff, S. (2012) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w18237 · Cited by 321
Self-citationInformation Cascades: Evidence from a Field Experiment with Financial Market Professionals
Alevy, J. E., Haigh, M. S., & List, J. A. (2007) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.2007.01204.x · Cited by 310
Self-citationCamerer, C. F. (2015) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195328325.003.0016 · Cited by 312
Individual Irrationality and Aggregate Outcomes
Fehr, E., & Tyran, J. (2005) · The Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/089533005775196651 · Cited by 285
Viewpoint: On the generalizability of lab behaviour to the field
Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2007) · Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économique · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.00412.x · Cited by 294
Self-citationMisconceptions and Game Form Recognition: Challenges to Theories of Revealed Preference and Framing
Cason, T. N., & Plott, C. R. (2014) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/677254 · Cited by 272
The Cognitive Revolution and the Political Psychology of Elite Decision Making
Hafner-Burton, E. M., Hughes, D. A., & Victor, D. G. (2012) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s1537592713001084 · Cited by 276
Newell, R. G., Sanchirico, J. N., & Kerr, S. (2004) · Journal of Environmental Economics and Management · doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2004.06.005 · Cited by 266
Do individual investors learn from their trading experience?
Nicolosi, G., Peng, L., & Zhu, N. (2008) · Journal of Financial Markets · doi:10.1016/j.finmar.2008.07.001 · Cited by 265
Modeling the Psychology of Consumer and Firm Behavior with Behavioral Economics
Ho, T., Lim, N., & Camerer, C. F. (2006) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmkr.43.3.307 · Cited by 263
Sheffer, L., Loewen, P. J., Soroka, S., Walgrave, S., & Sheafer, T. (2017) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055417000569 · Cited by 261
Reducing gain–loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change
Bateman, I. J., Day, B., Jones, A., & Jude, S. (2009) · Journal of Environmental Economics and Management · doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2008.05.003 · Cited by 256
Plott, C. R., & Zeiler, K. (2007) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.97.4.1449 · Cited by 248
Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field
DellaVigna, S. (2007) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w13420 · Cited by 246
Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies
Day, B., Bateman, I. J., Carson, R. T., Dupont, D., Louviere, J. J., Morimoto, S., Scarpa, R., & Wang, P. (2011) · Journal of Environmental Economics and Management · doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2011.09.001 · Cited by 252
Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1153640 · Cited by 251
Self-citationWhy you Can’t Find a Taxi in the Rain and Other Labor Supply Lessons from Cab Drivers*
Farber, H. S. (2015) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjv026 · Cited by 234
How do people update? The effects of local weather fluctuations on beliefs about global warming
Deryugina, T. (2012) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0615-1 · Cited by 215
Kaustia, M., Alho, E., & Puttonen, V. (2008) · Financial Management · doi:10.1111/j.1755-053x.2008.00018.x · Cited by 231
Berger, J. A., & Pope, D. G. (2011) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1110.1328 · Cited by 225
Avi Goldfarb, B., & Xiao, M. (2011) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.101.7.3130 · Cited by 212
Behavioral supply management: a taxonomy of judgment and decision‐making biases
Carter, C. R., Kaufmann, L., & Michel, A. (2007) · International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management · doi:10.1108/09600030710825694 · Cited by 221
Are Retail Traders Compensated for Providing Liquidity?
Barrot, J.-N., Kaniel, R., & Sraer, D. A. (2014) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2016.01.005 · Cited by 212
Bateman, I. J., Burgess, D. E., Hutchinson, G., & Matthews, D. I. (2007) · Journal of Environmental Economics and Management · doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2007.08.003 · Cited by 211
Testing competing models of loss aversion: an adversarial collaboration
Bateman, I., Kahneman, D., Munro, A., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (2005) · Journal of Public Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.06.013 · Cited by 208
Non est Disputandum de Generalizability? A Glimpse into The External Validity Trial
List, J. A. (2020) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w27535 · Cited by 203
Self-citationDeveloping country consumers’ acceptance of biofortified foods: a synthesis
Birol, E., Meenakshi, J. V., Oparinde, A., Pérez, S., & Tomlins, K. (2015) · Food Security · doi:10.1007/s12571-015-0464-7 · Cited by 189
Learning in the Credit Card Market
Agarwal, S. D., Driscoll, J. C., Gabaix, X., & Laibson, D. (2008) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w13822 · Cited by 186
Bokhari, S., & Geltner, D. (2011) · Real Estate Economics · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6229.2011.00308.x · Cited by 192
Sinking, Swimming, or Learning to Swim in Medicare Part D
Ketcham, J. D., Lucarelli, C., Miravete, E. J., & Roebuck, M. C. (2012) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.102.6.2639 · Cited by 182
Ericson, K. M. M., & Fuster, A. (2014) · Annual Review of Economics · doi:10.1146/annurev-economics-080213-041320 · Cited by 189
Why labour market experiments?
Falk, A., & Fehr, E. (2003) · Labour Economics · doi:10.1016/s0927-5371(03)00050-2 · Cited by 177
What Do Laboratory Experiments Tell Us About the Real World
Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2006) · Cited by 176
Self-citationThe first time is the hardest: A test of ordering effects in choice experiments
Carlsson, F., Mørkbak, M. R., & Olsen, S. B. (2012) · Journal of Choice Modelling · doi:10.1016/s1755-5345(13)70051-4 · Cited by 180
On the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment: New experimental evidence regarding Linda
Charness, G. B., Karni, E., & Levin, D. (2009) · Games and Economic Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.geb.2009.09.003 · Cited by 174
Can Prospect Theory Explain the Disposition Effect? A New Perspective on Reference Points
Meng, J., & Weng, X. (2017) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2016.2711 · Cited by 177
An Endowment Effect for Risk: Experimental Tests of Stochastic Reference Points
Sprenger, C. D. (2015) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/683836 · Cited by 178
A Reference Price Theory of the Endowment Effect
Weaver, R., & Frederick, S. (2012) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmr.09.0103 · Cited by 176
Preference Anomalies, Preference Elicitation and the Discovered Preference Hypothesis
Braga, J., & Starmer, C. (2005) · Environmental and Resource Economics · doi:10.1007/s10640-005-6028-0 · Cited by 167
Adamowicz, W. (2004) · Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8489.2004.00258.x · Cited by 172
Neural Antecedents of the Endowment Effect
Knutson, B. D., Wimmer, G. E., Rick, S. I., Hollon, N. G., Prelec, D., & Loewenstein, G. F. (2008) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2008.05.018 · Cited by 162
Neoclassical Theory Versus Prospect Theory: Evidence from the Marketplace
List, J. A. (2003) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w9736 · Cited by 161
Self-citationInstitutional Investors, Past Performance, and Dynamic Loss Aversion
O’Connell, P. G. J., & Teo, M. (2009) · Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis · doi:10.1017/s0022109009090048 · Cited by 168
Behavioral Economics as Applied to Firms: A PrimerPreprint
Armstrong, M., & Huck, S. (2010) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1553645 · Cited by 158
Financial Advice and Individual Investor Portfolio Performance
Kramer, M. M. (2012) · Financial Management · doi:10.1111/j.1755-053x.2012.01185.x · Cited by 158
Field Experiments: A Bridge Between Lab and Naturally-Occurring Data
List, J. A. (2007) · The B E Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy · doi:10.2202/1538-0637.1747 · Cited by 160
Self-citationField Experiments in Labor Economics
List, J. A., & Imran Rasul, A. (2011) · Handbook of labour economics · doi:10.1016/s0169-7218(11)00408-4 · Cited by 163
Self-citation(2006) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-1034 · Cited by 154
Prospect theory and tax evasion: a reconsideration of the Yitzhaki puzzle
Piolatto, A., & Rablen, M. D. (2016) · Theory and Decision · doi:10.1007/s11238-016-9581-9 · Cited by 155
The Effect of Early-Childhood Education on Social Preferences
Cappelen, A. W., List, J. A., Samek, A. S., & Tungodden, B. (2019) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/706858 · Cited by 160
Self-citationMenges, R., Schroeder, C., & Traub, S. (2005) · Environmental and Resource Economics · doi:10.1007/s10640-005-3365-y · Cited by 153
Heuristic Thinking and Limited Attention in the Car Market
Lacetera, N., Pope, D. G., & Sydnor, J. (2011) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w17030 · Cited by 146
Angner, E., & Loewenstein, G. F. (2012) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-51676-3.50022-1 · Cited by 150
Choice Certainty and Consistency in Repeated Choice Experiments
Brouwer, R., Dekker, T., Rolfe, J. C., & Windle, J. (2009) · Environmental and Resource Economics · doi:10.1007/s10640-009-9337-x · Cited by 144
Nicolson, M., Huebner, G. M., & Shipworth, D. (2016) · Energy Research & Social Science · doi:10.1016/j.erss.2016.12.001 · Cited by 150
Metadata
- Authors
- List, J. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- Corresponding author
- List, J. A.
- ORCID
- List, J. A.
- Venue
- The Quarterly Journal of Economics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2003-02-01
- Volume
- 118
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 41-71
- ISSN
- 0033-5533 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-4650
- OpenAlex
- W2030360026
- Semantic Scholar
- fda91732f617da0188c37835c2446cb2d7de1b24
- Cited by
- 1,183
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 72 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 66 · 2018: 56 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 70 · 2015: 83 · 2014: 65 · 2013: 63 · 2012: 68
- FWCI
- 104.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- s3.amazonaws.com
- Locations
- The Quarterly Journal of Economics (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic Theory and Institutions
- Keywords
- market experience, endowment effect, market anomalies, individual behavior, institutional change, marketplaces, behavioral economics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
