What Explains Observed Reluctance to Trade? A Comprehensive Literature Review

K. Zeiler
{"title":"What Explains Observed Reluctance to Trade? A Comprehensive Literature Review","authors":"K. Zeiler","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2862021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Valuation gaps and exchange asymmetries are among the most widely studied phenomena in the field of behavioral economics. The purpose of this chapter is to present the current state of the social science literature related to observed reluctance to trade. Numerous theories have been proposed and only a few might be safe to rule out based on the evidence to date. The chapter begins by describing the standard model of preferences, which generally assumes that valuation is independent of ownership status, and then catalogs early findings that seem to suggest that ownership status influences valuation. Early research tested various potential explanations for observed reluctance to trade, and the results did not point to any one theory. Despite this, the literature gravitated toward a single theory — endowment theory, which assumes that preferences are reference-dependent and that individuals are averse to losses. With endowment theory on the rise, some went to work to investigate the conditions that might trigger loss aversion and those that might reduce its effects. Since the early 1990s, a number of alternative theories have been developed and tested by both economists and psychologists including substitution theory, expectation theory, preference uncertainty, mere-ownership theory, enhancement theory, subject misconceptions, and regret avoidance. The chapter walks through each proposed theory, cataloging the evidence for and against. While some theories have garnered more support from the data than others, no single theory yet deserves the title of leading theory. In addition, the phenomenon itself has proved too unstable to warrant general claims that valuations depend on ownership (or expectations over ownership) or that individuals are generally reluctant to trade. Given the current state of the literature, to make such claims is to misrepresent the full set of results. As this chapter makes clear, much more work is required to develop a theory or set of theories worthy of designation as the leading theory.","PeriodicalId":230084,"journal":{"name":"CSN: Law (Topic)","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CSN: Law (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2862021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

Valuation gaps and exchange asymmetries are among the most widely studied phenomena in the field of behavioral economics. The purpose of this chapter is to present the current state of the social science literature related to observed reluctance to trade. Numerous theories have been proposed and only a few might be safe to rule out based on the evidence to date. The chapter begins by describing the standard model of preferences, which generally assumes that valuation is independent of ownership status, and then catalogs early findings that seem to suggest that ownership status influences valuation. Early research tested various potential explanations for observed reluctance to trade, and the results did not point to any one theory. Despite this, the literature gravitated toward a single theory — endowment theory, which assumes that preferences are reference-dependent and that individuals are averse to losses. With endowment theory on the rise, some went to work to investigate the conditions that might trigger loss aversion and those that might reduce its effects. Since the early 1990s, a number of alternative theories have been developed and tested by both economists and psychologists including substitution theory, expectation theory, preference uncertainty, mere-ownership theory, enhancement theory, subject misconceptions, and regret avoidance. The chapter walks through each proposed theory, cataloging the evidence for and against. While some theories have garnered more support from the data than others, no single theory yet deserves the title of leading theory. In addition, the phenomenon itself has proved too unstable to warrant general claims that valuations depend on ownership (or expectations over ownership) or that individuals are generally reluctant to trade. Given the current state of the literature, to make such claims is to misrepresent the full set of results. As this chapter makes clear, much more work is required to develop a theory or set of theories worthy of designation as the leading theory.
如何解释观察到的贸易不情愿?综合文献综述
价值差距和交换不对称是行为经济学领域研究最广泛的现象之一。本章的目的是呈现与观察到的贸易不情愿相关的社会科学文献的现状。人们提出了许多理论,但根据迄今为止的证据,只有少数理论可以被排除在外。本章首先描述了偏好的标准模型,该模型通常假设估值独立于所有权状态,然后编录了似乎表明所有权状态影响估值的早期发现。早期的研究对观察到的不愿交易进行了各种可能的解释,结果并没有指向任何一种理论。尽管如此,文献还是倾向于一个单一的理论——禀赋理论,该理论假设偏好是依赖于参考的,并且个人厌恶损失。随着禀赋理论的兴起,一些人开始研究可能引发损失厌恶的条件和可能降低其影响的条件。自20世纪90年代初以来,经济学家和心理学家相继提出了一系列替代理论,包括替代理论、期望理论、偏好不确定性、纯粹所有权理论、增强理论、主体误解和后悔规避。这一章详细介绍了每一个被提出的理论,对支持和反对的证据进行了分类。虽然一些理论从数据中获得了比其他理论更多的支持,但还没有一个理论配得上领先理论的称号。此外,事实证明,这种现象本身太不稳定,无法证明估值取决于所有权(或对所有权的期望)或个人通常不愿交易的普遍说法。鉴于文献的现状,做出这样的声明是对全部结果的歪曲。正如本章所阐明的那样,要发展一种或一套理论,使之成为主导理论,还需要做更多的工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信