The Endowment Effect in the Circular Economy: Do Broken Products Face Less of a Trading Barrier Than Intact or Repaired Ones?
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. The Endowmnent Effect
1.2. The Present Study
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Design
2.2. Participants
2.3. Procedure
2.3.1. Endowment Effect Measurement
2.3.2. Measurement of Control Variables
3. Results
3.1. The Endowment Effect and Defective Products, with or without a Repairer
3.2. Robustness Checks
3.3. Explorative Analyses
4. Discussion
4.1. Main Findings
4.2. Practical, Environmental, and Economic Implications
4.3. Theoretical Contributions
4.4. Limitations
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Appendix A.1. Pretest
- Please indicate what amount of money you would be willing to pay for a mug on which the logo of the city you are currently living in is printed: [text box]
- Please indicate what amount of money you would be willing to pay for an outdoor plastic chair: [text box]
- Please indicate what amount of money you would be willing to pay for an authentic figurine: [text box]
- Please indicate what amount of money you would be willing to pay for a home speaker: [text box]
Appendix A.2. Scenarios
- ○
- Buyer and Baseline products
- ▪
- Imagine that someone owns a mug on which the logo of the city you are currently living in is printed. The owner is willing to sell it to you. What amount of money would you be willing to pay for it?
- ▪
- Imagine that someone owns an outdoor plastic chair on his or her terrace. The owner is willing to sell it to you. What amount of money would you be willing to pay for it?
- ▪
- Imagine that someone owns an authentic figurine. The owner is willing to sell it to you. What amount of money would you be willing to pay for it?
- ▪
- Imagine that someone owns a home speaker. The owner is willing to sell it to you. What amount of money would you be willing to pay for it?
- ○
- Buyer and Defective products
- ▪
- Imagine that someone owns a mug on which the logo of the city you are currently living in is printed. However, its ear has broken off. The owner is willing to sell it to you. What amount of money would you be willing to pay for it?
- ▪
- Imagine that someone owns an outdoor plastic chair on his or her terrace. However, one of its legs has broken off. The owner is willing to sell it to you. What amount of money would you be willing to pay for it?
- ▪
- Imagine that someone owns an authentic figurine. However, its arm has broken off. The owner is willing to sell it to you. What amount of money would you be willing to pay for it?
- ▪
- Imagine that someone owns a home speaker in his or her current living space. However, its cable has broken off. The owner is willing to sell it to you. What amount of money would you be willing to pay for it?
- ○
- Buyer and Defective products but with a maker repairing for the seller
- ▪
- Imagine that someone owns a mug on which the logo of the city you are currently living in is printed. Its ear had broken off, but a handyman (m/f/x) the owner knew repaired it. The owner is willing to sell it to you. What amount of money would you be willing to pay for it?
- ▪
- Imagine that someone owns an outdoor plastic chair on his or her terrace. One of its legs had broken off, but a handyman (m/f/x) the owner knew repaired it. The owner is willing to sell it to you. What amount of money would you be willing to pay for it?
- ▪
- Imagine that someone owns an authentic figurine. One of its arms had broken off, but a handyman (m/f/x) the owner knew repaired it. The owner is willing to sell it to you. What amount of money would you be willing to pay for it?
- ▪
- Imagine that someone owns a home speaker in his or her current living space. Its cable had broken off, but a handyman (m/f/x) the owner knew repaired it. The owner is willing to sell it to you. What amount of money would you be willing to pay for it?
- ○
- Buyer and Defective products but with a maker repairing for the buyer
- ▪
- Imagine that someone owns a mug on which the logo of the city you are currently living in is printed. The owner is willing to sell it to you. However, its ear has broken off. What amount of money would you be willing to pay for it, given that you know a handyman (m/f/x) who is willing to repair it?
- ▪
- Imagine that someone owns an outdoor plastic chair on his or her terrace. The owner is willing to sell it to you. However, its leg has broken off. What amount of money would you be willing to pay for it, given that you know a handyman (m/f/x) who is willing to repair it?
- ▪
- Imagine that someone owns an authentic figurine. The owner is willing to sell it to you. However, its arm has broken off. What amount of money would you be willing to pay for it, given that you know a handyman (m/f/x) who is willing to repair it?
- ▪
- Imagine that someone owns a home speaker in his or her current living space. The owner is willing to sell it to you. However, its cable has broken off. What amount of money would you be willing to pay for it, given that you know a handyman (m/f/x) who is willing to repair it?
- ○
- Seller and Baseline products
- ▪
- Imagine that you own a mug on which the logo of the city you are currently living in is printed. What amount of money would you be willing to sell it for?
- ▪
- Imagine that you own an outdoor plastic chair on your terrace. What amount of money would you be willing to sell it for?
- ▪
- Imagine that you own an authentic figurine. What amount of money would you be willing to sell it for?
- ▪
- Imagine that you own a home speaker in your current living space. What amount of money would you be willing to sell it for?
- ○
- Seller and Defective products
- ▪
- Imagine that you own a mug on which the logo of the city you are currently living in is printed. However, its ear has broken off. What amount of money would you be willing to sell it for?
- ▪
- Imagine that you own an outdoor plastic chair on your terrace. However, one of its legs has broken off. What amount of money would you be willing to sell it for?
- ▪
- Imagine that you own an authentic figurine. However, its arm has broken off. What amount of money would you be willing to sell it for?
- ▪
- Imagine that you own a home speaker in your current living space. However, its cable has broken off. What amount of money would you be willing to sell it for?
- ○
- Seller and Defective products but with a maker repairing for the seller
- ▪
- Imagine that you own a mug on which the logo of the city you are currently living in is printed. Its ear had broken off, but a handyman (m/f/x) you knew repaired it. What amount of money would you be willing to sell it for?
- ▪
- Imagine that you own an outdoor plastic chair on your terrace. One of its legs had broken off, but a handyman (m/f/x) you knew repaired it. What amount of money would you be willing to sell it for?
- ▪
- Imagine that you own an authentic figurine. Its arm had broken off, but a handyman (m/f/x) you knew repaired it. What amount of money would you be willing to sell it for?
- ▪
- Imagine that you own a home speaker in your current living space. Its cable had broken off, but a handyman (m/f/x) you knew repaired it. What amount of money would you be willing to sell it for?
- ○
- Seller and Defective products but with a maker repairing for the buyer
- ▪
- Imagine that you own a mug on which the logo of the city you are currently living in is printed. However, its ear has broken off. What amount of money would you be willing to sell it for, knowing that the buyer will have a handyman (m/f/x) repair it?
- ▪
- Imagine that you own an outdoor plastic chair on your terrace. However, one of its legs has broken off. What amount of money would you be willing to sell it for, knowing that the buyer will have a handyman (m/f/x) repair it?
- ▪
- Imagine that you own an authentic figurine. However, its arm has broken off. What amount of money would you be willing to sell it for, knowing that the buyer will have a handyman (m/f/x) repair it?
- ▪
- Imagine that you own a home speaker in your current living space. However, its cable has broken off. What amount of money would you be willing to sell it for, knowing that the buyer will have a handyman (m/f/x) repair it?
Appendix A.3. Multiple Price List Valuation Example
- -
- Pay [Receive] €[0] to buy [sell] this product: o yes o no
- -
- Pay [Receive] €[1] to buy [sell] this product: o yes o no
- -
- Pay [Receive] €[2] to buy [sell] this product: o yes o no
- -
- Pay [Receive] €[3] to buy [sell] this product: o yes o no
- -
- Pay [Receive] €[4] to buy [sell] this product: o yes o no
- -
- Pay [Receive] €[5] to buy [sell] this product: o yes o no
- -
- Pay [Receive] €[6] to buy [sell] this product: o yes o no
- -
- Pay [Receive] €[7] to buy [sell] this product: o yes o no
- -
- Pay [Receive] €[8] to buy [sell] this product: o yes o no
- -
- Pay [Receive] €[6.1] to buy [sell] this product: o yes o no
- -
- Pay [Receive] €[6.2] to buy [sell] this product: o yes o no
- -
- Pay [Receive] €[6.3] to buy [sell] this product: o yes o no
- -
- Pay [Receive] €[6.4] to buy [sell] this product: o yes o no
- -
- Pay [Receive] €[6.5] to buy [sell] this product: o yes o no
- -
- Pay [Receive] €[6.6] to buy [sell] this product: o yes o no
- -
- Pay [Receive] €[6.7] to buy [sell] this product: o yes o no
- -
- Pay [Receive] €[6.8] to buy [sell] this product: o yes o no
- -
- Pay [Receive] €[6.9] to buy [sell] this product: o yes o no
References
- Ben-Eli, M.U. Sustainability: Definition and five core principles, a systems perspective. Sustain. Sci. 2018, 13, 1337–1343. [Google Scholar]
- Abbes, I.; Hallem, Y.; Taga, N. Second-hand shopping and brand loyalty: The role of online collaborative redistribution platforms. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 52, 101885. [Google Scholar]
- Park, H.; Armstrong, C.M. Will “no-ownership” work for apparel?: Implications for apparel retailers. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 47, 66–73. [Google Scholar]
- Weaver, R.; Frederick, S. A reference price theory of the endowment effect. J. Mark. Res. 2012, 49, 696–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Morewedge, C.K.; Giblin, C.E. Explanations of the endowment effect: An integrative review. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2015, 19, 339–348. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Kahneman, D.; Tversky, A. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica 1979, 47, 263–292. [Google Scholar]
- Morewedge, C.K.; Shu, L.L.; Gilbert, D.T.; Wilson, T.D. Bad riddance or good rubbish? Ownership and not loss aversion causes the endowment effect. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2009, 45, 947–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dommer, S.L.; Swaminathan, V. Explaining the Endowment Effect through Ownership: The Role of Identity, Gender, and Self-Threat. J. Consum. Res. 2013, 39, 1034–1050. [Google Scholar]
- Gawronski, B.; Bodenhausen, G.V.; Becker, A.P. I like it, because I like myself: Associative self-anchoring and post-decisional change of implicit evaluations. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 43, 221–232. [Google Scholar]
- Reb, J.; Connolly, T. Possession, feelings of ownership and the endowment effect. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 2007, 2, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kahneman, D.; Knetsch, J.L.; Thaler, R.H. Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. J. Political Econ. 1990, 98, 1325–1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nayakankuppam, D.; Mishra, H. The Endowment Effect: Rose-Tinted and Dark-Tinted Glasses. J. Consum. Res. 2005, 32, 390–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steffen, A. Second-Hand Consumption as a Lifestyle Choice. In The 21st Century Consumer-Vulnerable, Responsible, Transparent? Bala, C., Schuldzinski, W., Eds.; Verbraucherzentrale NRW: Düsseldorf, Germany, 2017; pp. 189–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferraro, C.; Sands, S.; Brace-Govan, J. The role of fashionability in second-hand shopping motivations. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 32, 262–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guiot, D.; Roux, D. A second-hand shoppers’ motivation scale: Antecedents, consequences, and implications for retailers. J. Retail. 2010, 86, 355–371. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, B.; Fu, Y.; Li, Y. Young consumers’ motivations and barriers to the purchase of second-hand clothes: An empirical study of China. Waste Manag. 2022, 143, 157–167. [Google Scholar]
- Da Silva, S.; Matsushita, R.; Silveira, E. No endowment effect when people transact secondhand goods over the Internet. Econ. Bull. 2015, 35, 1961–1968. [Google Scholar]
- Dubourg, W.R.; Jones-Lee, M.W.; Loomes, G. Imprecise preferences and the WTP-WTA disparity. J. Risk Uncertain. 1994, 9, 115–133. [Google Scholar]
- Shogren, J.F.; Shin, S.Y.; Hayes, D.J.; Kliebenstein, J.B. Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept. Am. Econ. Rev. 1994, 84, 255–270. [Google Scholar]
- Horowitz, J.K.; McConnell, K.E. A review of WTA/WTP studies. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2002, 44, 426–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shu, S.B.; Peck, J. Psychological ownership and affective reaction: Emotional attachment process variables and the endowment effect. J. Consum. Psychol. 2011, 21, 439–452. [Google Scholar]
- Brenner, L.; Rottenstreich, Y.; Sood, S.; Bilgin, B. On the psychology of loss aversion: Possession, valence, and reversals of the endowment effect. J. Consum. Res. 2007, 34, 369–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Loewenstein, G.; Issacharoff, S. Source dependence in the valuation of objects. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 1994, 7, 157–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marzilli Ericson, K.M.; Fuster, A. The Endowment Effect. Annu. Rev. Econ. 2014, 6, 555–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knetsch, J.L. The endowment effect and evidence of nonreversible indifference curves. Am. Econ. Rev. 1989, 79, 1277–1284. [Google Scholar]
- Knetsch, J.L.; Sinden, J.A. Willingness to pay and compensation demanded: Experimental evidence of an unexpected disparity in measures of value. Q. J. Econ. 1984, 99, 507–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Lang, A.-G.; Buchner, A. G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 2009, 39, 175–191. [Google Scholar]
- Okada, E.M. Uncertainty, risk aversion, and WTA vs. WTP. Mark. Sci. 2010, 29, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mandel, D.R. Beyond mere ownership: Transaction demand as a moderator of the endowment effect. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2002, 88, 737–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brebner, S.; Sonnemans, J. Does the elicitation method impact the WTA/WTP disparity? J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 2018, 73, 40–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Padmavathy, C.; Swapana, M.; Paul, J. Online second-hand shopping motivation–Conceptualization, scale development, and validation. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 51, 19–32. [Google Scholar]
- Snyder, C.R.; Fromkin, H.L. Abnormality as a positive characteristic: The development and validation of a scale measuring need for uniqueness. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 1977, 86, 518–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maitre-Ekern, E.; Dalhammar, C. Towards a hierarchy of consumption behaviour in the circular economy. Maastricht J. Eur. Comp. Law 2019, 26, 394–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EEA. Enabling Consumer Choices for a Circular Economy; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Carmon, Z.; Ariely, D. Focusing on the forgone: How value can appear so different to buyers and sellers. J. Consum. Res. 2000, 27, 360–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chu, C.K.; Shu, S.B. Mementos and the endowment effect. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2022, 36, e2295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Product Condition | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Buyer_Seller Condition | Baseline | Defective | Defective, Repairer with Buyer | Defective, Repairer with Seller | Total |
Seller | 52 | 47 | 45 | 49 | 193 |
Buyer | 57 | 56 | 57 | 59 | 229 |
Buyer_Seller Condition | Buyer-Seller Condition | Product Condition | Interaction between Buyer-Seller Condition and Product Condition | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Baseline and Defective | F | 10.42 | 71.06 | 2.28 |
p-value | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.132 | |
Baseline and Defective with repairer involved with Buyer | F | 22.80 | 18.20 | 0.24 |
p-value | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.627 | |
Baseline and Defective with repairer involved with Seller | F | 25.44 | 27.26 | 0.04 |
p-value | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.847 | |
Defective and Defective with repairer involved with Buyer | F | 13.06 | 12.70 | 3.87 |
p-value | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.051 | |
Defective and Defective with repairer involved with Seller | F | 14.32 | 13.58 | 3.55 |
p-value | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.061 | |
Defective with repairer involved with Buyer and Defective and Defective with repairer involved with Seller | F | 28.68 | 0.119 | 0.118 |
p-value | 0.000 | 0.730 | 0.732 |
Buyer | Seller | Z | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Baseline | ||||
Mug | 3.20 | 4.18 | −1.74 | 0.0817 |
(2.36) | (2.92) | |||
Chair | 9.69 | 11.82 | −2.21 | 0.0274 |
(6.20) | (5.60) | |||
Figurine | 25.12 | 40.14 | −3.35 | 0.0008 |
(23.08) | (23.54) | |||
Speaker | 58.05 | 74.93 | −2.65 | 0.0080 |
(43.83) | (45.77) | |||
Obs. | 57 | 52 | ||
Defective | ||||
Mug | 1.60 | 2.41 | −1.49 | 0.1355 |
(1.88) | (2.80) | |||
Chair | 5.23 | 5.47 | −1.00 | 0.3166 |
(3.75) | (4.42) | |||
Figurine | 10.94 | 14.41 | −2.02 | 0.0439 |
(13.09) | (13.81) | |||
Speaker | 30.61 | 37.81 | −0.68 | 0.4986 |
(29.05) | (44.48) | |||
Obs. | 56 | 47 | ||
Defective with repairer involved with Buyer | ||||
Mug | 2.12 | 3.59 | −2.45 | 0.0143 |
(2.36) | (3.28) | |||
Chair | 6.25 | 9.14 | −3.10 | 0.0020 |
(4.85) | (6.16) | |||
Figurine | 12.7 | 28.6 | −4.17 | <0.0001 |
(15.39) | (21.94) | |||
Speaker | 38.9 | 58.58 | −2.48 | 0.0133 |
(36.87) | (47.39) | |||
Obs. | 57 | 45 | ||
Defective with repairer involved with Seller | ||||
Mug | 2.37 | 3.58 | −2.95 | 0.0032 |
(2.56) | (2.68) | |||
Chair | 6.80 | 9.39 | −2.89 | 0.0039 |
(3.88) | (5.35) | |||
Figurine | 14.34 | 23.87 | −3.10 | 0.0020 |
(15.64) | (20.33) | |||
Speaker | 26.82 | 54.11 | −4.40 | <0.0001 |
(28.75) | (39.93) | |||
Obs. | 59 | 49 |
Baseline | Defective | Defective with Repairer Involved with Buyer | Defective with Repairer Involved with Seller | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | p-Value | F | p-Value | F | p-Value | F | p-Value | ||
Gender | Buyer Seller | 9.64 | 0.0024 | 2.04 | 0.1567 | 13.23 | 0.0004 | 17.15 | 0.0001 |
Gender | 0.30 | 0.5842 | 0.61 | 0.5429 | 0.32 | 0.7261 | 0.35 | 0.5552 | |
BS#Gender | 0.07 | 0.7908 | 0.01 | 0.9223 | 1.69 | 0.1966 | 0.45 | 0.5041 | |
Education | Buyer Seller | 10.91 | 0.0013 | 1.39 | 0.2420 | 3.51 | 0.0639 | 9.20 | 0.0031 |
Education | 0.22 | 0.8042 | 0.18 | 0.8341 | 2.40 | 0.0960 | 1.55 | 0.2162 | |
BS#Education | 1.21 | 0.3016 | 0.63 | 0.5329 | 2.92 | 0.0586 | 1.72 | 0.1839 | |
Income | Buyer Seller | 6.62 | 0.0118 | 0.83 | 0.3652 | 20.55 | 0.0000 | 13.59 | 0.0004 |
Income | 0.98 | 0.4704 | 0.83 | 0.6111 | 1.41 | 0.1842 | 1.76 | 0.0807 | |
BS#Income | 0.40 | 0.9431 | 0.60 | 0.7925 | 1.32 | 0.0158 | 0.77 | 0.6616 | |
Age | Buyer Seller | 10.06 | 0.0225 | 0.63 | 0.4326 | 10.28 | 0.0023 | 18.07 | 0.0001 |
Age | 1.88 | 0.0193 | 0.81 | 0.7511 | 0.96 | 0.5436 | 1.52 | 0.0847 | |
BS#Age | 1.06 | 0.4142 | 1.08 | 0.3969 | 0.57 | 0.8897 | 1.62 | 0.0942 |
Baseline | Defective | Defective with Repairer Involved with Buyer | Defective with Repairer Involved with Seller | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | p-Value | F | p-Value | F | p-Value | F | p-Value | ||
Buyer Seller | 2.94 | 0.0894 | 0.10 | 0.7514 | 10.91 | 0.0014 | 12.02 | 0.0008 | |
Fashion | Fashion | 2.33 | 0.0382 | 0.40 | 0.8776 | 2.71 | 0.0182 | 1.38 | 0.2311 |
BS#Fashion | 1.29 | 0.2706 | 1.28 | 0.2799 | 7.01 | 0.0000 | 0.54 | 0.7729 | |
Buyer Seller | 0.00 | 0.9614 | 0.10 | 0.7490 | 7.98 | 0.0058 | 7.50 | 0.0073 | |
Uniqueness | Uniqueness | 5.72 | 0.0012 | 2.54 | 0.0610 | 3.64 | 0.0085 | 2.88 | 0.0397 |
BS#Unique | 5.25 | 0.0021 | 0.78 | 0.5107 | 0.70 | 0.5520 | 0.54 | 0.6587 | |
Buyer Seller | 2.73 | 0.1016 | 0.01 | 0.9320 | 1.90 | 0.1717 | 5.77 | 0.0182 | |
Product Experience | Experience | 0.49 | 0.7421 | 1.16 | 0.3334 | 0.68 | 0.6051 | 0.14 | 0.9653 |
BS#Exp. | 3.66 | 0.008 | 3.05 | 0.0206 | 2.09 | 0.0889 | 0.07 | 0.9775 | |
Buyer Seller | 2.33 | 0.1304 | 3.23 | 0.0754 | 17.11 | 0.0001 | 9.35 | 0.0029 | |
Critical Motivation | Critical Motivation | 1.01 | 0.4086 | 1.56 | 0.1926 | 3.90 | 0.0057 | 2.79 | 0.0303 |
BS#Critical | 1.54 | 0.1951 | 1.42 | 0.2338 | 2.68 | 0.0362 | 0.74 | 0.5640 | |
Buyer Seller | 0.71 | 0.4007 | 1.06 | 0.3056 | 4.33 | 0.0402 | 4.45 | 0.0374 | |
Hedonic Motivation | Hedonic Motivation | 2.38 | 0.0565 | 2.68 | 0.0361 | 5.44 | 0.0006 | 0.85 | 0.4992 |
BS#Hedonic | 1.32 | 0.2663 | 1.46 | 0.2315 | 0.61 | 0.6586 | 0.25 | 0.9102 | |
Buyer Seller | 5.17 | 0.0251 | 0.09 | 0.7612 | 1.27 | 0.2630 | 2.73 | 0.1015 | |
Economic Motivation | Economic Motivation | 2.20 | 0.0744 | 0.59 | 0.6231 | 0.71 | 0.5884 | 2.23 | 0.0712 |
BS#Economic | 0.25 | 0.8607 | 0.53 | 0.6634 | 0.72 | 0.5416 | 0.49 | 0.7447 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Botchway, E.; Verpooten, J.; van der Beken, I.; Baršytė, J.; Dewitte, S. The Endowment Effect in the Circular Economy: Do Broken Products Face Less of a Trading Barrier Than Intact or Repaired Ones? Sustainability 2023, 15, 11813. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511813
Botchway E, Verpooten J, van der Beken I, Baršytė J, Dewitte S. The Endowment Effect in the Circular Economy: Do Broken Products Face Less of a Trading Barrier Than Intact or Repaired Ones? Sustainability. 2023; 15(15):11813. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511813
Chicago/Turabian StyleBotchway, Ebo, Jan Verpooten, Ine van der Beken, Justina Baršytė, and Siegfried Dewitte. 2023. "The Endowment Effect in the Circular Economy: Do Broken Products Face Less of a Trading Barrier Than Intact or Repaired Ones?" Sustainability 15, no. 15: 11813. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511813
APA StyleBotchway, E., Verpooten, J., van der Beken, I., Baršytė, J., & Dewitte, S. (2023). The Endowment Effect in the Circular Economy: Do Broken Products Face Less of a Trading Barrier Than Intact or Repaired Ones? Sustainability, 15(15), 11813. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511813