Kathryn Zeiler

TL;DR: Isoni et al. as discussed by the authors used mug valuations to test endowment effect theory and showed that the gap for commodities can be turned on and off by implementing procedures designed to control for subject misconceptions about the value elicitation procedures.

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors conjecture that observed asymmetries can be explained by procedure-driven theories grounded in classical preference theory, and test this alternative explanation, they alter the procedures to preserve the predictions of endowment effect theory.

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors experimentally test an alternative explanation, namely, that asymmetries are explained by classical preference theories finding influence through the experimental procedures typically used, and the results support explanations based in classical preference theory and reject endowment effect theory.

TL;DR: Using Texas Department of Insurance data on paid malpractice claims against physicians that closed in 1990–2003, this work provides the first systematic evidence on levels of coverage purchased by physicians with paid liability claims and how those levels affect out‐of‐pocket payments and patient compensation.

TL;DR: In this article, the authors explore the possibility that subject misconceptions, as opposed to a particular theory of preferences referred to as the "endowment effect," account for reported gaps between willingness to pay ("WTP") and willingness to accept ("WTA") and conclude that further evidence is required before convincing interpretations of any observed gap can be advanced.