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
Items 901–1,000 of 1,000
The Property Market in Beijing: Endowment Effect and Sales Strategy
Gong, C. M. (2017) · Journal of Real Estate Practice and Education · doi:10.1080/10835547.2017.12091771 · Cited by 1
DellaVigna, S. (2011) · Voprosy Ekonomiki · doi:10.32609/0042-8736-2011-4-47-77 · Cited by 1
Monetary Valuation of the Environment
Buchholz, W., & Rübbelke, D. (2019) · Springer texts in business and economics · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-16268-9_3 · Cited by 1
New studies on modern Economic Theory of the West
Худокормов, А. Г., Нелюбина, А. С., Safina, M., Сергеевна, А. Е., & Temirbulatova, K. (2018) · Scientific Research of Faculty of Economics Electronic Journal · doi:10.38050/2078-3809-2018-10-1-7-73 · Cited by 1
The Evolutionary Force of Behavioral Economics in Law
Levmore, S. (2021) · Review of Law & Economics · doi:10.1515/rle-2021-0054 · Cited by 1
Invisible Hand, invisible morals: An experiment
Nicholas, A. (2022) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2022.03.004 · Cited by 1
Hofmann, O. (2021) · International law and economics · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-62525-2_7 · Cited by 1
Teall, J. L. (2018) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-811116-1.00010-6 · Cited by 1
From the field to the lab: Professionals and bidding aggression
Heinrich, T., & Walker, M. J. (2022) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781800372337.00019 · Cited by 1
Altruism as a Missing Concept in Economic Rationality: The Need for Multi-Disciplinary Perspective
Potocki, T. (2015) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-06794-6_7 · Cited by 1
A computational theory of willingness to exchangePreprint
Lunn, P., & Lunn, M. (2014) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 1
Learning by Bidding: Evidence from a Large-Scale Natural ExperimentPreprint
Hanousek, J., & Evžen Kočenda, A. (2005) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.849185 · Cited by 1
Laroche, C. (2011) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1888758 · Cited by 1
Billiards and brains: Cognitive ability and behaviour in a p-beauty contest
Burnham, T. C., Cesarini, D. A., & Wallace, B. (2007) · Econstor (Econstor) · Cited by 1
UNDER-DIVERSIFICATION AND THE ROLE OF BEST REPLY TO PATTERNPreprint
Ben‐Zion, U., Erev, I., Haruvy, E. E., & Shavit, T. (2007) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 1
Attachment or Ownership: Reference Point Shifts and an Experimental Test of AttachmentPreprint
Nakada, M. (2012) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 1
Optimism without Illusion: The Impact of Experience on ExpectationsPreprint
Kaniel, R., Massey, C., & Robinson, D. T. (2008) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1302924 · Cited by 1
Davidson, E., & Roe, B. E. (2009) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1465188 · Cited by 1
Lindsay, L. (2011) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · doi:10.5167/uzh-51509 · Cited by 1
Discount Factors Ex Post and Ex Ante, and Discounted Utility Anomalies IIPreprint
Boyarchenko, S., & Levendorskiı̌, S. (2009) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1326708 · Cited by 1
Munro, A. (2007) · Munich Personal RePEc Archive (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich) · Cited by 1
Quality of Life as an Explanation of the Divergence between Ranchers' WTA and WTP for Public ForagePreprint
Sun, L., van Kooten, G. C., & VOSS, G. M. (2006) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.21162 · Cited by 1
Cutting your teeth: The beginning of the learning curve
Eesley, C. E., & Roberts, E. B. (2009) · Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET) · doi:10.1109/picmet.2009.5261956 · Cited by 1
Divergence between WTA and WTP Revisited: Livestock Grazing on Public RangePreprint
Sun, L., van Kooten, G. C., & VOSS, G. M. (2005) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.37014 · Cited by 1
Impact Aversion: Agency Failure and Decision Bias at High Stakes
Green, E., & Daniels, D. P. (2014) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e573552014-049 · Cited by 1
Advice and Fictive Learning: The Pricing of Assets in the LaboratoryPreprint
Alevy, J. E., & Price, M. (2012) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 1
An Optimist Gets the Job Done? Financial Advisers’ Sophistication and Stock Return ExpectationsPreprint
Markku Kaustia, A., Lehtoranta, A., & Vesa Puttonen, A. (2012) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2191497 · Cited by 1
Economic Targets and Loss‐Aversion in International Environmental Cooperation
İriş, D. (2017) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119328223.ch11 · Cited by 1
Better Together: The Effects of Experience and Knowledge on Investor BehaviorPreprint
Bazley, W. J., Korniotis, G. M., & Samanez-Larkin, G. R. (2016) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2846504 · Cited by 1
Essays on investment decisions of individual and institutional investors
Rantapuska, E. H. (2006) · Aaltodoc (Aalto University) · Cited by 1
Experience in Financial Decision-Making: Field Evidence from Malawi
Goldberg, J., & Xavier Giné, A. (2018) · World Bank, Washington, DC eBooks · doi:10.1596/1813-9450-8576 · Cited by 3
Bernauer, M., & Reisch, L. A. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3099324 · Cited by 1
Price Dynamics in General Equilibrium Experiments
Crockett, S. (2013) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118790700.ch3 · Cited by 1
Lunn, P., & Lunn, M. (2014) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 1
Over the Top? Overpricing and Advertising EffectivenessPreprint
Lukas, M., Mollica, V., Nöth, M., & Tr端ck, S. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3277443 · Cited by 1
Incentives and Economic Decisions: Evidence from Sports Data
Chikish, I. (2019) · The Research Repository @ WVU (West Virginia University) · doi:10.33915/etd.4078 · Cited by 1
Kaustia, M., Lehtoranta, A., & Puttonen, V. (2013) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2336054 · Cited by 1
Lacetera, N., Piga, C. A., & Zirulia, L. (2021) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w28456 · Cited by 1
Ziegler, A., Offerman, T., & Romagnoli, G. (2019) · AEA Randomized Controlled Trials · doi:10.1257/rct.4603-1.0 · Cited by 1
Machine Traders, Human Behavior, and Model (Mis)SpecificationPreprint
Guecioueur, A. (2020) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3708476 · Cited by 1
Bargaining and the Role of Negotiators’ CompetitivenessPreprint
Keser, C., Müller, S. S. W., Peterlé, E., & Rau, H. A. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3136379 · Cited by 1
Experimental Evidence on Semi-structured Bargaining with Private Information
Margherita Comola, Y., & Fafchamps, M. (2021) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w29265 · Cited by 1
Essays in Behavioral Economics and Environmental Policy
Sexton, S. (2012) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · Cited by 1
Propagating Experiences by Competing: Micro-Level Evidence from Real EstatePreprint
Giacoletti, M., & Parsons, C. A. (2021) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3875752 · Cited by 1
Lai, F. T. (2014) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6_121-1 · Cited by 1
Depoorter, B. W. F., & Hoeppner, S. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-7753-2_545 · Cited by 1
Ziegler, A., Offerman, T., & Romagnoli, G. (2019) · AEA Randomized Controlled Trials · doi:10.1257/rct.4603-1.3 · Cited by 1
Koralus, P. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198823766.003.0005 · Cited by 2
Seller Experience and Transaction Prices on a Blockchain-Enabled MarketplacePreprint
Liu, C., Zhang, X., & Lambrecht, A. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4736884 · Cited by 1
What's the Point? An Empirical Investigation of Reference Point FormationPreprint
Whitecliff, Z., & Howley, P. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5020056 · Cited by 1
Navigating Through Fear and Greed: The Experience-Driven Disposition EffectPreprint
Yeung, T. L., Liu, R., Wachter, J. A., Kahana, M. J., & Zhang, Y. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5290196 · Cited by 1
Mistakes, Closure and Endowment Effect in Laboratory ExperimentsPreprint
Ratan, A. (2012) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 1
Lewis, A. (2008) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511490118.001
Decision Theory Models of Information and Consideration
Lleras, J. S. (2011) · eScholarship (California Digital Library)
Frames, Information, and Risk Aversion
Louis Lévy-garboua, A., Maafi, H., Denant-Boèmont, L., & David Masclet, B. (2009)
Essays on markets with frictions : applications to the housing, labour and financial markets
Ungerer, C. T. F. (2012) · London School of Economics and Political Science Theses Online (London School of Economics and Political Science)
Kelly, B. (2008) · St Andrews Research Repository (St Andrews Research Repository)
Stocks Repurchase and Sophistication of Individual InvestorsPreprint
Magron, C., & Merli, M. (2011) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1927228
In Search of Money Illusion in CEE Stock Markets: The CAPM ApproachPreprint
Orlovaitė, E., & Racas, A. (2009) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1515042
The Role of Confidence in Truthful Revelation of Private Values
Parkhurst, G. M., & Nowell, C. (2014) · Agricultural and Resource Economics Review · doi:10.1017/s1068280500004275
Markku Kaustia, A., Lehtoranta, A., & Vesa Puttonen, A. (2013) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2209649
The Endowment Effect in a Public Goods Experiment
López, E. J., & Nelson, W. R. (2016) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47828-9_10
Four essays in consumer decision-making
Paolacci, G. (2012) · ARCA (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia)
Households Learning in the Dark: New Evidence from Retail TradersPreprint
Barrot, J.-N. (2011) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1944061
Problems with Behavioral Economics
McKenzie, R. B. (2009) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-01586-1_10
Essays in behavioral economics: Applying prospect theory to auctions
Ratan, A. (2010) · University Libraries (University of Maryland)
Lee, T. Y., & Liao, S. (2014) · Developments in marketing science: proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10873-5_12
TO CONTINUE INVESTMENT IN A COLLABORATIVE INNOVATION PROJECT: A GOOD DECISION?
Rutten, M. E. J., Dorée, A. G., & Halman, J. I. M. (2013) · University of Twente Research Information
MEASURING THE BENEFIT OF REDUCING FOOD-BORNE ILLNESS Valuing symptoms rather than pathogens
Ahmed, S. (2014) · uO Research (University of Ottawa)
Motivation & Loss Aversion in the Health Savings Account Paradigm
Holtje, M., & Wiener, R. L. (2013) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e571212013-390
Momentum Trading Through Reference Dependent PreferencesPreprint
Crockett, S. (2006) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.930082
An experimental investigation of the impact of experience on loss aversion
Lindsay, L. (2009) · Nottingham ePrints (University of Nottingham)
Essays on Endogenous Decision Points
Landry, P. (2013) · DukeSpace (Duke University)
Do auctions lower WTP estimates? An artefactual field experiment
Wu, S. (2025) · Library, Museums and Press - UDSpace (University of Delaware) · doi:10.58088/k2mw-7e80
Preference Construction in Negotiations | Loss Aversion and Quasi-Endowment |
Gimpel, H. (2005) · OPUS (Augsburg University)
Can Decision Biases Increase with the Stakes? Evidence from the Field
Green, E., & Daniels, D. P. (2014)
ABSTRACT Behavioural Labour Economics: Advances and Future Directions 1Preprint
Dohmen, T. (2014) · SSRN Electronic Journal
Is There an Information Endowment Eect
Healy, A. (2007)
Does Anonymity Affect the Willingness To Accept and Willingness To Pay Gap?*
Brown, A. L., & Cohen, G. (2012)
How People Forecast and Extrapolate Time SeriesPreprint
Liu, Y., & Du, S. (2014) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2397246
Optimal Decision Processes: On the Choice Between Environmental Valuation MethodsPreprint
Munro, A. (2007) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1001651
Discussion on Expert ReferencingPreprint
Yuen, R. W. P. (2012) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2194266
Olivier, P., & Paraschiv, C. (2009)
Los efectos económicos del Sistema Europeo de Comercio de Emisiones de Gases de Efecto Invernadero
Linares, P., & Pintos, P. (2013) · Comillas Repository (Comillas Pontifical University)
Chakrabarty, S. (2009) · OakTrust (Texas A&M University Libraries)
Neuroeconomia i empresa: quan la presa de decisions no és racional
Fiego, J. B. (2014) · Repositori digital de la UPF (Universitat Pompeu Fabra)
On the Origin of PreferencesPreprint
Jenöffy-Lochau, M. (2012) · SSRN Electronic Journal
The New Orientation of Behavioral Decision Making: Experience-based Decision Making
Teng-Fei, L. I. U., Xu, F., Ma, H., Xiang-Yang, M., & Xiu-Liang, W. (2013) · Advances in Psychological Science · doi:10.3724/sp.j.1042.2012.01068
ENDOWMENT EFFECT, STATUS QUO BIAS Y DEFAULT OPTION
Comercial, I. (2004)
Losing the environment: the endowment effect and environmental discounting
Dietz, S., & Venmans, F. (2016) · ORBi UMONS
Belton, C. A. (2016) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics
Exchange and Valuation Asymmetries in Consumer Behavior and the Revision Costs HypothesisPreprint
Huddk, M. (2015) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2636726
Hehir, B. (2005) · Nursing Standard · doi:10.7748/ns.20.7.32.s30
The Endowment Effect: What Helps Us Improve Our Perspective Taking?
Traub, A. (2016) · Digital Commons @ Connecticut College (Connecticut College)
Li, K. K. (2016) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2769505
Individual investor behavior and financial advice
Kramer, M. M. (2012) · University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology)
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
