Editing Endowment effect (section)

===Psychological inertia===
[[David Gal]] proposed a [[psychological inertia]] account of the endowment effect.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Gal |first=David |date=July 2006 |title=A Psychological Law of Inertia and the Illusion of Loss Aversion |journal=Judgment and Decision Making |volume=1 |pages=23–32 |url=http://www.sjdm.org/~baron/journal/jdm06002.pdf |doi=10.1017/S1930297500000322}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/06/opinion/sunday/behavioral-economics.html |title=Opinion {{!}} Why Is Behavioral Economics So Popular? |last=Gal |first=David |date=2018-10-06 |work=The New York Times |access-date=2019-04-05 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref> In this account, sellers require a higher price to part with an object than buyers are willing to pay because neither has a well-defined, precise valuation for the object and therefore there is a range of prices over which neither buyers nor sellers have much incentive to trade. For example, in the case of Kahneman et al.'s (1990) classic mug experiments (where sellers demanded about $7 to part with their mug whereas buyers were only willing to pay, on average, about $3 to acquire a mug) there was likely a range of prices for the mug ($4 to $6) that left the buyers and sellers without much incentive to either acquire or part with it. Buyers and sellers therefore maintained the status quo out of inertia. Conversely, a high price ($7 or more) yielded a meaningful incentive for an owner to part with the mug; likewise, a relatively low price ($3 or less) yielded a meaningful incentive for a buyer to acquire the mug.