Jack L. Knetsch, J. A. Sinden; The Persistence of Evaluation Disparities*, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 102, Issue 3, 1 August 1987, Pages 69

Aside from possible income effects, measures of the maximum amounts people will pay to avoid a loss and the minimum compensation necessary for them to accept it are generally assumed to be equivalent. Unexpectedly wide variations between these sums, however, have been noted in survey responses to hypothetical options. This paper reports the results of a series of experiments that confronted people with actual money payments and cash compensations. The results indicate that the compensation measure of value seems to exceed significantly the willingness to pay measure, which would appear to call into some question various rules of entitlement, damage assessments, and interpretations of indifference curves.

Contrary to theoretical expectations, measures of willingness-to-accept greatly exceed measures of willingness-to-pay. This paper reports several experiments that demonstrate that this "endowment effect" persists even in market settings with opportunities to learn. Consumption objects (e.g., coffee mugs) are randomly given to half the subjects in an experiment. Markets for the mugs are then conducted. The Coase theorem predicts that about half the mugs will trade, but observed volume is always significantly less. When markets for "induced-value" tokens are conducted, the predicted volume is observed, suggesting that transactions costs cannot explain the undertrading for consumption goods.