二手车定价时存在禀赋效应吗?
|
摘要
通过对行为经济学中"禀赋效应"研究进行归纳拓展,构建了二手车定价模型,将卖方禀赋效应分离出来,并基于二手车交易网站的微观数据,实证检验了二手车定价时的禀赋效应是否存在。得到如下结论:二手车市场中卖方定价时会受到禀赋效应的影响,从而制定一个高于参照点(使用时间、行驶里程和原始价格形成的中立参照价)的价格。通过稳健性检验,认为禀赋效应的存在是普遍且稳定的,但有可能受到驾驶体验、交易物品特征等因素的影响。研究构建的定价模型对行为经济学中禀赋效应和参照点的设定具有理论和实践的参考意义。
In recent years,throughout both the online market and the offline market,the development of the used car market is very rapid,while the turnover of used cars is still very low. To a large extent,it is due to the asymmetrical transaction between buyers and sellers, which shows the"endowment effect"of the seller,that is,the seller of used cars will set a higher price relative to neutral reference price and their willingness to accept seems to be contrary to the urgency of the transaction. Endowment effect has become one of the most important topics in theoretical and practical fields,but most studies of them are based on questionnaire data or experimental data,thus there is a gap between cognition and behavior. In this paper,based on the microscopic data of used car trading website,the empirical test is done to verify whether the endowment effect of the seller exists when used car pricing,and attempts to figure out what factors might affect the existence of seller's endowment effect. Based on behavioral economics theory and literature on loss aversion and reference dependence,this paper constructs a model of used car pricing process which separates the seller 's endowment effect,to examine the robustness of the existence of the seller 's endowment effect using two microscopic sample datasets of used car trading website. The main conclusions obtained are as follows:Endowment effect will affect the seller's pricing behavior in used car market,the seller will choose a reference point when the used car is priced,that is,the neutral reference price is based on the use time,the mileage and the original price of the used car; the seller will think that the use time and mileage will have a certain degree of discount to the value of the car; the seller's endowment effect distorts the neutral reference price,so that the seller chooses to set a relative high price for used car.The existence of endowment effect is universal and stable which examined by robust test,while it may be affected by factors such as driving experience and characteristics of exchange goods. Compared with low-end car,the seller's endowment effect on the pricing of intermediate and premium cars is more obvious. The shift and displacement may have a positive effect on the seller's endowment effect,while the original price may have a negative effect. The findings of this study can help online used car website managers to develop transaction management principles and commodity marketing strategies,and offer a more operable reference price for used car's sellers,which may improve the turnover of used cars and has a beneficial impact on both buyers and sellers. The used car pricing model building in this paper might also be extended to the buyer's behavior and can be used to analyze other trading behaviors in markets as the basis for future research regarding the setting up the endowment effect model and neutral reference point in behavioral economics and other relative fields.
In recent years,throughout both the online market and the offline market,the development of the used car market is very rapid,while the turnover of used cars is still very low. To a large extent,it is due to the asymmetrical transaction between buyers and sellers, which shows the"endowment effect"of the seller,that is,the seller of used cars will set a higher price relative to neutral reference price and their willingness to accept seems to be contrary to the urgency of the transaction. Endowment effect has become one of the most important topics in theoretical and practical fields,but most studies of them are based on questionnaire data or experimental data,thus there is a gap between cognition and behavior. In this paper,based on the microscopic data of used car trading website,the empirical test is done to verify whether the endowment effect of the seller exists when used car pricing,and attempts to figure out what factors might affect the existence of seller's endowment effect. Based on behavioral economics theory and literature on loss aversion and reference dependence,this paper constructs a model of used car pricing process which separates the seller 's endowment effect,to examine the robustness of the existence of the seller 's endowment effect using two microscopic sample datasets of used car trading website. The main conclusions obtained are as follows:Endowment effect will affect the seller's pricing behavior in used car market,the seller will choose a reference point when the used car is priced,that is,the neutral reference price is based on the use time,the mileage and the original price of the used car; the seller will think that the use time and mileage will have a certain degree of discount to the value of the car; the seller's endowment effect distorts the neutral reference price,so that the seller chooses to set a relative high price for used car.The existence of endowment effect is universal and stable which examined by robust test,while it may be affected by factors such as driving experience and characteristics of exchange goods. Compared with low-end car,the seller's endowment effect on the pricing of intermediate and premium cars is more obvious. The shift and displacement may have a positive effect on the seller's endowment effect,while the original price may have a negative effect. The findings of this study can help online used car website managers to develop transaction management principles and commodity marketing strategies,and offer a more operable reference price for used car's sellers,which may improve the turnover of used cars and has a beneficial impact on both buyers and sellers. The used car pricing model building in this paper might also be extended to the buyer's behavior and can be used to analyze other trading behaviors in markets as the basis for future research regarding the setting up the endowment effect model and neutral reference point in behavioral economics and other relative fields.
引文
陈群林、袁晓琳、贾磊、肖少北、张庆林,2013,“引入中立方参照:对禀赋效应的再探讨”,《心理学报》,第3期,第345-352页。
董志强、张永璟,2016,“禀赋效应与自发社会秩序:一个行为经济理论”,《世界经济》,第10期,第174-192页。
董志强,2018,“经济理论该如何回应行为‘异象’挑战——来自桑塔费学派的看法”,《南方经济》,第2期,第12-22页。
郭文敏、杨思佳、罗俊、叶航,2017,“作为异质性偏好的禀赋效应:来自神经经济学的证据”,《南方经济》,第4期,第109-122页。
胡新艳、杨晓莹,2017,“农地流转中的禀赋效应及代际差异”,《华南农业大学学报(社会科学版)》,第1期,第12-23页。
黄劲松、孙建伟,2009,“禀赋效应对产品更换决策的影响”,《心理学报》,第8期,第737-744页。
刘腾飞、徐富明、张军伟、蒋多、陈雪玲,2010,“禀赋效应的心理机制及其影响因素”,《心理科学进展》,第4期,第646-654页。
连洪泉、董志强、张沛康,2016,“禀赋效应的行为和实验经济学研究进展”,《南方经济》,第11期,第95-112页。
罗必良,2014,“农地流转的市场逻辑——‘产权强度-禀赋效应-交易装置’的分析线索及案例研究”,《南方经济》,第5期,第1-24页。
罗必良,2016,“农地确权、交易含义与农业经营方式转型——科斯定理拓展与案例研究”,《中国农村经济》,第11期,第2-16页。
钟文晶,2013,“禀赋效应、认知幻觉与交易费用——来自广东省农地经营权流转的农户问卷”,《南方经济》,第3期,第13-22页。
Adjerid,I.,A.Acquisti,L.Brandimarte and G.Loew enstein,2013,“Sleights of Privacy:Framing,Disclosures,and the Limits of Transparency”,Symposium on Usable Privacy&Security,(9):1-15.
Apicella,C.L.,E.M.Azevedo,N.A.Christakis and J.H.Fow ler,2013,“Evolutionary Origins of the Endow ment Effect:Evidence from Hunter-Gatherers”,American Economic Review,104(6):1793-1805.
Barslund,M.,J.Rand,F.Tarp and J.Chiconela,2007,“Understanding Victimization:The Case of M ozambique”,World Development,35(7):1237-1258.
Crompton,J.L.,2016,“Implications of Prospect Theory for the Pricing of Leisure Services”,Leisure Sciences,38(4):1-23.
Genesove,D.and C.M ayer,2001,“Loss Aversion and Seller Behavior:Evidence from the Housing M arket”,Quarterly Journal of Economics,116(4):1233-1260.
Gusnard,D.A.,E.Akbudak,G.L.Shulman and M.E.Raichle,2001,“M edial Prefrontal Cortex and Selfreferential M ental Activity:Relation to a Default M ode of Brain Function”,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,98(7):4259-4264.
Horow itz,J.K.and K.E.M c Connell,2002,“A Review of WTA/WTP Studies”,Journal of Environmental Economics&M anagement,3(44):426-447.
Kahneman,D.and A.Tversky,1979,“Prospect Theory:An Analysis of Decision under Risk”,Econometrica,47(2):263-291.
Kahneman,D.,J.Knetsch and R.Thaler,1991,“Anomalies:The Endow ment Effect,Loss Aversion,and Status Quo Bias”,Journal of Economic Perspectives,5(1):193-206.
Kihm,A.and C.Vance,2016,“The Determinants of Equity Transmission betw een the New and Used Car M arkets:AHedonic Analysis”,Journal of the Operational Research Society,67(10):1250-1258.
Kooreman,P.and M.A.Haan,2006,“Price Anomalies in the Used Car M arket”,De Economist,154(1):41-62.
K9szegi,B.and M.Rabin,2006,“A M odel of Reference-Dependent Preferences”,Quarterly Journal of Economics,121(4):1133-1165.
M andel,D.R.,2002,“Beyond M ere Ow nership:Transaction Demand as a M oderator of the Endow ment Effect”,Organizational Behavior&Human Decision Processes,88(2):737-747.
M orew edge,C.K.and C.E.Giblin,2015,“Explanations of the Endow ment Effect:An Integrative Review”,Trends in Cognitive Sciences,19(6):339-348.
Plott,C.R.and K.Zeiler,2007,“Exchange Asymmetries Incorrectly Interpreted as Evidence of Endow ment Effect Theory and Prospect Theory?”,American Economic Review,97(4):1449-1466.
Samuelson,W.and R.Zeckhauser,1988,“Status quo bias in decision making”,Journal of Risk&Uncertainty,1(1):7-59.
Thaler,R.,1980,“Tow ard a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice”,Journal of Economic Behavior&Organization,1(1):39-60.
Tong,L.C.,K.J.Ye,K.Asai,S.Ertac,J.A.List,H.C.Nusbaum and A.Horta9su,2016,“Trading Experience M odulates Anterior Insula to Reduce the Endow ment Effect”,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,113(33):9238-9243.
Tun9el,T.and J.K.Hammitt,2014,“A New M eta-analysis on the WTP/WTA Disparity”,Journal of Environmental Economics&M anagement,68(1):175-187.
Tversky,A.and D.Kahneman,1974,“Judgment under Uncertainty:Heuristics and Biases”,Science(New Series),185(4157):1124-1131.
Tversky,A.and D.Kahneman,1992,“Advances in Prospect Theory:Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty”,Journal of Risk&Uncertainty,5(4):297-323.
Votinov,M.,T.M ima,T.Aso,M.Abe,N.Saw amoto,J.Shinozaki and H.Fukuyama,2010,“The Neural Correlates of Endow ment Effect w ithout Economic Transaction”,Neuroscience Research,68(1):59-65.
Wang,S.and X.Qin,2015,“The Effect of Digitalization on Penalty Payments:An Experimental Investigation”,Journal of Neuroscience Psychology&Economics,8(4):250-261.
Yechiam,E.,N.J.Ashby and T.Pachur,2017a,“Who’s Biased?A M eta-Analysis of Buyer-Seller Differences in the Pricing of Lotteries”,Psychological Bulletin,143(5):543-563.
Yechiam,E.,T.Abofol and T.Pachur,2017b,“The Seller’s Sense:Buying-Selling Perspective Affects the Sensitivity to Expected Value Differences”,Journal of Behavioral Decision M aking,30(2):197-208.
(1)数据来源:中国汽车技术研究中心数据资源中心(http://www.catarc.info/shownews.aspx?id=483)。
(1)Apicella et al.(2013)指出,文化和环境因素对禀赋效应的出现产生了非常重要的影响。考虑到地区因素的控制可能会影响对禀赋效应的测度,所以在再抽样时进行全国市场覆盖。
(1)(5)未控制地区因素时:α=e~^(-0.1497)=0.8610,β=e~^(-0.0053)=0.9947,γ=e~^(0.0470)=1.0481。以下采用相同计算方法。
董志强、张永璟,2016,“禀赋效应与自发社会秩序:一个行为经济理论”,《世界经济》,第10期,第174-192页。
董志强,2018,“经济理论该如何回应行为‘异象’挑战——来自桑塔费学派的看法”,《南方经济》,第2期,第12-22页。
郭文敏、杨思佳、罗俊、叶航,2017,“作为异质性偏好的禀赋效应:来自神经经济学的证据”,《南方经济》,第4期,第109-122页。
胡新艳、杨晓莹,2017,“农地流转中的禀赋效应及代际差异”,《华南农业大学学报(社会科学版)》,第1期,第12-23页。
黄劲松、孙建伟,2009,“禀赋效应对产品更换决策的影响”,《心理学报》,第8期,第737-744页。
刘腾飞、徐富明、张军伟、蒋多、陈雪玲,2010,“禀赋效应的心理机制及其影响因素”,《心理科学进展》,第4期,第646-654页。
连洪泉、董志强、张沛康,2016,“禀赋效应的行为和实验经济学研究进展”,《南方经济》,第11期,第95-112页。
罗必良,2014,“农地流转的市场逻辑——‘产权强度-禀赋效应-交易装置’的分析线索及案例研究”,《南方经济》,第5期,第1-24页。
罗必良,2016,“农地确权、交易含义与农业经营方式转型——科斯定理拓展与案例研究”,《中国农村经济》,第11期,第2-16页。
钟文晶,2013,“禀赋效应、认知幻觉与交易费用——来自广东省农地经营权流转的农户问卷”,《南方经济》,第3期,第13-22页。
Adjerid,I.,A.Acquisti,L.Brandimarte and G.Loew enstein,2013,“Sleights of Privacy:Framing,Disclosures,and the Limits of Transparency”,Symposium on Usable Privacy&Security,(9):1-15.
Apicella,C.L.,E.M.Azevedo,N.A.Christakis and J.H.Fow ler,2013,“Evolutionary Origins of the Endow ment Effect:Evidence from Hunter-Gatherers”,American Economic Review,104(6):1793-1805.
Barslund,M.,J.Rand,F.Tarp and J.Chiconela,2007,“Understanding Victimization:The Case of M ozambique”,World Development,35(7):1237-1258.
Crompton,J.L.,2016,“Implications of Prospect Theory for the Pricing of Leisure Services”,Leisure Sciences,38(4):1-23.
Genesove,D.and C.M ayer,2001,“Loss Aversion and Seller Behavior:Evidence from the Housing M arket”,Quarterly Journal of Economics,116(4):1233-1260.
Gusnard,D.A.,E.Akbudak,G.L.Shulman and M.E.Raichle,2001,“M edial Prefrontal Cortex and Selfreferential M ental Activity:Relation to a Default M ode of Brain Function”,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,98(7):4259-4264.
Horow itz,J.K.and K.E.M c Connell,2002,“A Review of WTA/WTP Studies”,Journal of Environmental Economics&M anagement,3(44):426-447.
Kahneman,D.and A.Tversky,1979,“Prospect Theory:An Analysis of Decision under Risk”,Econometrica,47(2):263-291.
Kahneman,D.,J.Knetsch and R.Thaler,1991,“Anomalies:The Endow ment Effect,Loss Aversion,and Status Quo Bias”,Journal of Economic Perspectives,5(1):193-206.
Kihm,A.and C.Vance,2016,“The Determinants of Equity Transmission betw een the New and Used Car M arkets:AHedonic Analysis”,Journal of the Operational Research Society,67(10):1250-1258.
Kooreman,P.and M.A.Haan,2006,“Price Anomalies in the Used Car M arket”,De Economist,154(1):41-62.
K9szegi,B.and M.Rabin,2006,“A M odel of Reference-Dependent Preferences”,Quarterly Journal of Economics,121(4):1133-1165.
M andel,D.R.,2002,“Beyond M ere Ow nership:Transaction Demand as a M oderator of the Endow ment Effect”,Organizational Behavior&Human Decision Processes,88(2):737-747.
M orew edge,C.K.and C.E.Giblin,2015,“Explanations of the Endow ment Effect:An Integrative Review”,Trends in Cognitive Sciences,19(6):339-348.
Plott,C.R.and K.Zeiler,2007,“Exchange Asymmetries Incorrectly Interpreted as Evidence of Endow ment Effect Theory and Prospect Theory?”,American Economic Review,97(4):1449-1466.
Samuelson,W.and R.Zeckhauser,1988,“Status quo bias in decision making”,Journal of Risk&Uncertainty,1(1):7-59.
Thaler,R.,1980,“Tow ard a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice”,Journal of Economic Behavior&Organization,1(1):39-60.
Tong,L.C.,K.J.Ye,K.Asai,S.Ertac,J.A.List,H.C.Nusbaum and A.Horta9su,2016,“Trading Experience M odulates Anterior Insula to Reduce the Endow ment Effect”,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,113(33):9238-9243.
Tun9el,T.and J.K.Hammitt,2014,“A New M eta-analysis on the WTP/WTA Disparity”,Journal of Environmental Economics&M anagement,68(1):175-187.
Tversky,A.and D.Kahneman,1974,“Judgment under Uncertainty:Heuristics and Biases”,Science(New Series),185(4157):1124-1131.
Tversky,A.and D.Kahneman,1992,“Advances in Prospect Theory:Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty”,Journal of Risk&Uncertainty,5(4):297-323.
Votinov,M.,T.M ima,T.Aso,M.Abe,N.Saw amoto,J.Shinozaki and H.Fukuyama,2010,“The Neural Correlates of Endow ment Effect w ithout Economic Transaction”,Neuroscience Research,68(1):59-65.
Wang,S.and X.Qin,2015,“The Effect of Digitalization on Penalty Payments:An Experimental Investigation”,Journal of Neuroscience Psychology&Economics,8(4):250-261.
Yechiam,E.,N.J.Ashby and T.Pachur,2017a,“Who’s Biased?A M eta-Analysis of Buyer-Seller Differences in the Pricing of Lotteries”,Psychological Bulletin,143(5):543-563.
Yechiam,E.,T.Abofol and T.Pachur,2017b,“The Seller’s Sense:Buying-Selling Perspective Affects the Sensitivity to Expected Value Differences”,Journal of Behavioral Decision M aking,30(2):197-208.
(1)数据来源:中国汽车技术研究中心数据资源中心(http://www.catarc.info/shownews.aspx?id=483)。
(1)Apicella et al.(2013)指出,文化和环境因素对禀赋效应的出现产生了非常重要的影响。考虑到地区因素的控制可能会影响对禀赋效应的测度,所以在再抽样时进行全国市场覆盖。
(1)(5)未控制地区因素时:α=e~^(-0.1497)=0.8610,β=e~^(-0.0053)=0.9947,γ=e~^(0.0470)=1.0481。以下采用相同计算方法。