Cited by 5,019Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies

Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias

Kahneman, Daniel, Knetsch, Jack L, Thaler, Richard H·1991·Journal of Economic Perspectives

Abstract

A wine-loving economist we know purchased some nice Bordeaux wines years ago at low prices. The wines have greatly appreciated in value, so that a bottle that cost only $10 when purchased would now fetch $200 at auction. This economist now drinks some of this wine occasionally, but would neither be willing to sell the wine at the auction price nor buy an additional bottle at that price. Thaler (1980) called this pattern—the fact that people often demand much more to give up an object than they would be willing to pay to acquire it—the endowment effect. The example also illustrates what Samuelson and Zeckhauser (1988) call a status quo bias, a preference for the current state that biases the economist against both buying and selling his wine. These anomalies are a manifestation of an asymmetry of value that Kahneman and Tversky (1984) call loss aversion—the disutility of giving up an object is greater that the utility associated with acquiring it. This column documents the evidence supporting endowment effects and status quo biases, and discusses their relation to loss aversion.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1257/jep.5.1.193

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Prospect theory teaches that as stakes increase, aversion to loss increases exponentially, considerably more than equivalent attraction to gain.

    “Prospect theory (Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler, 1991) teaches that as stakes increase, aversion to loss increases exponentially, considerably more than equivalent attraction to gain.”

    From Why grades engender performance-avoidance goals: The mediating role of autonomous motivation. (2011) · cites this paper as Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler, 1991

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 20 · Cited by 5,019

Authors
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Professor of Economics and Natural Resources Management, Simon Eraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
  • Cornell University (US)
Venue
Journal of Economic Perspectives
Published
1991-02-01
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
193-206
ISSN
0895-3309 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2165893637
Cited by
5,019
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 173 · 2025: 249 · 2024: 267 · 2023: 283 · 2022: 322 · 2021: 334 · 2020: 261 · 2019: 348 · 2018: 289 · 2017: 260 · 2016: 227 · 2015: 208 · 2014: 226 · 2013: 212 · 2012: 157
FWCI
6.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Economic Perspectives (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Financial Markets and Investment Strategies
Keywords
endowment effect, loss aversion, status quo bias, behavioral economics, willingness to pay, willingness to accept

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.

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