Psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky conducted the following
experiments by asking a sample of people the following questions:
Scenario A: “Imagine that you have decided to see a play and paid the admission price
of $10 per ticket. As you enter the theater you discover that you have lost the ticket. The
seat was not marked and the ticket cannot be recovered. Would you pay $10 for another
ticket?”
Scenario B: “Imagine that you have decided to see a play where admission is $10 per
ticket. As you enter the theater you discover that you have lost a $10 bill. Would you
still pay $10 for a ticket for the play?”
As long as additional tickets are available, there’s no meaningful difference between
losing $10 in cash before buying a ticket, and losing the $10 ticket after buying it. In
both cases, you are out $10. Yet, far more subjects (88 percent) in Scenario B say they
would pay $10 for another ticket and see the play while in Scenario A, only 46 percent
of the subjects say they would be willing to spend another $10 to see the play.
Which of the following is the best explanation for the results of the experiment?
A) The endowment effect applies in Scenario A since people already own the ticket and
therefore it is more valuable but this is not so in Scenario B.
B) In Scenario B, people had not anticipated spending an additional $10 so in effect the
price of the ticket is $20 and not $10 whereas in Scenario A, the price of the ticket is
still $10.
C) In Scenario A, people make an immediate connection between the lost ticket and the
play and feel poorer by incorrectly assigning a greater value to the value of the ticket
whereas in ScenarioB, they do not make the connection between the lost $10 bill and
the play.
D) The net benefit derived from watching the play is lower in Scenario A where the
effective cost is $20 compared to the net benefit in Scenario B.
Article Summary
In an August 2013 speech from the Lincoln Memorial, President Obama was expected