presumably if you’re indifferent, you’ll stick with a salient default (why bother; you risk feeling foolish and more regret, etc).
I think this is assuming the phenomenon you want to explain. If we agree that there are benefits to not trading in general (e.g. less regret/foolishness if it goes wrong), then we should expect that the benefits will outweigh the benefits of trading not just when you’re precisely indifferent, but also when you have small preferences between them (it would be bizarre if people’s choices were highly discontinuous in that way). So then you don’t need to appeal to incomparability at all.
So then the salient question becomes: why would not trading be a “salient default” at all? If you think about it just in terms of actions, there are many cases where it’s just as easy as trading (e.g. IIRC the endowment effect still applies even when you’re not physically in possession of either good yet, and so where trading vs not would just be the difference between saying “yes” and “no”). But at least conceptually trading feels like an action and not trading feels like inaction.
So then the question I’m curious about becomes “does the endowment effect apply when the default option is to trade, i.e. when trading feels like inaction and not trading feels like action?” E.g. when the experimenter says “I’m going to trade unless you object”. That would help distinguish between “people get attached to things they already have” vs “people just go with whatever option is most salient in their mind”, i.e. if it’s really about the endowment or just inaction bias.
Yeah, I think it’s a good question how much of a role some sort of salient default is doing. In general (“status quo bias”) people do have a preference for default choices, and this is of course generally reasonable since “X is the default option” is generally evidence that most people prefer X. (If they didn’t, the people setting the defaults should change it!). So that phenomenon clearly exists, and seems like it’d help explain the effect.
I don’t know much empirical literature off-hand looking at variants like you’re thinking of, but I imagine some similar things exist. People who trade more regularly definitely exhibit the endowment effect less. Likewise, if you manipulate whether you tell the person they’re receiving a “gift” vs less-intentionally winding up with a mug, that affects how many people trade. So that fits with your picture.
In general, I don’t think the explanations here are really competing. There obviously are all sorts of factors that go into the endowment effect—it’s clearly not some fundamental feature of decision making (especially when you notice all the modulators of it that have been found), but rather something that comes out of particular contexts. Even with salience and default effects driving some of it, incomparability will exacerbate it—certainly in the valuation paradigm, for the reasons I mentioned in the post, and even if the exchange paradigm because it will widen the set of people for whom other features (like defaults, aversion to trade, etc.) kick in to prevent them from trading.
I think this is assuming the phenomenon you want to explain. If we agree that there are benefits to not trading in general (e.g. less regret/foolishness if it goes wrong), then we should expect that the benefits will outweigh the benefits of trading not just when you’re precisely indifferent, but also when you have small preferences between them (it would be bizarre if people’s choices were highly discontinuous in that way). So then you don’t need to appeal to incomparability at all.
So then the salient question becomes: why would not trading be a “salient default” at all? If you think about it just in terms of actions, there are many cases where it’s just as easy as trading (e.g. IIRC the endowment effect still applies even when you’re not physically in possession of either good yet, and so where trading vs not would just be the difference between saying “yes” and “no”). But at least conceptually trading feels like an action and not trading feels like inaction.
So then the question I’m curious about becomes “does the endowment effect apply when the default option is to trade, i.e. when trading feels like inaction and not trading feels like action?” E.g. when the experimenter says “I’m going to trade unless you object”. That would help distinguish between “people get attached to things they already have” vs “people just go with whatever option is most salient in their mind”, i.e. if it’s really about the endowment or just inaction bias.
Yeah, I think it’s a good question how much of a role some sort of salient default is doing. In general (“status quo bias”) people do have a preference for default choices, and this is of course generally reasonable since “X is the default option” is generally evidence that most people prefer X. (If they didn’t, the people setting the defaults should change it!). So that phenomenon clearly exists, and seems like it’d help explain the effect.
I don’t know much empirical literature off-hand looking at variants like you’re thinking of, but I imagine some similar things exist. People who trade more regularly definitely exhibit the endowment effect less. Likewise, if you manipulate whether you tell the person they’re receiving a “gift” vs less-intentionally winding up with a mug, that affects how many people trade. So that fits with your picture.
In general, I don’t think the explanations here are really competing. There obviously are all sorts of factors that go into the endowment effect—it’s clearly not some fundamental feature of decision making (especially when you notice all the modulators of it that have been found), but rather something that comes out of particular contexts. Even with salience and default effects driving some of it, incomparability will exacerbate it—certainly in the valuation paradigm, for the reasons I mentioned in the post, and even if the exchange paradigm because it will widen the set of people for whom other features (like defaults, aversion to trade, etc.) kick in to prevent them from trading.