Thinking, Fast and Slow · chapter 26 · id thinking-fast-and-slow-c26-04-people-demand-roughly-twice-as

“People demand roughly twice as much to give up an object they own as they would pay to acquire it (the endowment effect), driven by loss aversion.”

needs contextconfidence: medium✓ ZHP-verified + red-teamed

Receipts

Kahneman, Knetsch & Thaler (1990), Journal of Political Economy 98(6)DOI registry: valid

Participants randomly given mugs demanded roughly 2x the price to sell them compared to what non-owners would pay. Interpreted as loss aversion creating a WTA/WTP gap.

Plott & Zeiler (2005), American Economic Review 95(3)DOI registry: valid

When experimental procedures eliminated subject misconceptions (proper training, practice rounds, anonymity), the endowment effect disappeared. Argued the original results were procedural artifacts, not loss aversion.

Morewedge & Giblin (2015), Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19(6)DOI registry: valid

Multiple explanations for the endowment effect beyond loss aversion: ownership-based valuation, strategic misrepresentation, psychological attachment. Loss aversion is one factor but not the sole or primary explanation.

This claim is a stable, citable object. If you can falsify a verdict, tell us — corrections are loud here.