Editing Endowment effect (section)

==Criticisms==
Some economists have questioned the effect's existence.<ref name="Zeiler 530–545"/><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Klass |first1=Greg |author2-link=Kathryn Zeiler |last2=Zeiler |first2=Kathryn |date=2013 |title=Against Endowment Theory: Experimental Economics and Legal Scholarship |url=https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/199 |journal=UCLA Law Review |volume=61 |issue=1 |pages=2–64 |ssrn=2224105 |doi=10.2139/ssrn.2224105 |s2cid=35058914 |id=Georgetown Public Law Research Paper No. 13-013, Georgetown Law and Economics Research Paper No. 13-005|url-access=subscription }}</ref> Hanemann (1991)<ref name="Hanemann"/> noted that [[economic theory]] only suggests that WTP and WTA should be equal for goods which are close substitutes, so observed differences in these measures for goods such as environmental resources and personal health can be explained without reference to an endowment effect. Shogren, et al. (1994)<ref name="Shogren"/> noted that the experimental technique used by Kahneman, Knetsch and Thaler (1990)<ref name="KahnemanKnetschThaler"/> to demonstrate the endowment effect created a situation of artificial scarcity. They performed a more robust experiment with the same goods used by Kahneman, Knetsch and Thaler (chocolate bars and mugs) and found little evidence of the endowment effect in substitutable goods, acknowledging the endowment effect as valid for goods without substitutes—non-renewable Earth resources being an example of these. Others have argued that the use of hypothetical questions and experiments involving small amounts of money tells us little about actual behavior (e.g. Hoffman and Spitzer, 1993, p.&nbsp;69, n. 23<ref name="Hoffman"/>) with some research supporting these points (e.g., Kahneman, Knetsch and Thaler, 1990,<ref name="KahnemanKnetschThaler"/> Harless, 1989<ref name="Harless"/>) and others not (e.g. Knez, Smith and Williams, 1985<ref name="Knez" />). More recently, [[Charles Plott|Plott]] and [[Kathryn Zeiler|Zeiler]] have challenged the endowment effect theory by arguing that observed disparities between [[Willingness to accept|WTA]] and [[Willingness-to-pay|WTP]] measures are not reflective of human preferences, but rather such disparities stem from faulty experimental designs.<ref name="Zeiler 530–545"/><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Plott |first=Charles |date=April 2011 |title=The Willingness to Pay-Willingness to Accept Gap, the 'Endowment Effect,' Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations: Reply |url=https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/521 |journal=American Economic Review |volume=101 |issue=2 |pages=1012–1028 |doi=10.1257/aer.101.2.1012 |doi-access=free}}</ref>