Analysis of Willingness to Pay for Second-hand Clothing from the Perspective of Endowment Effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study analyzes the influential factors of the willingness to pay (WTP) in the used clothing market, and the endowment effect is taken into consideration. Endowment effect means that people tend to have a higher evaluation of what they own than before, and although endowment utility is a psychological behavior, it plays a very great influence in reality, and this influence cannot be ignored. This research first introduces the theoretical concept of WTA-WTP. WTA is the selling price the seller is willing to accept, while WTP is the price the buyer is willing to pay and describes which factors change the WTP. The WTP is the maximum price a consumer will pay, and the WTA is the minimum price a consumer will accept. When a consumer will trade for a good, it means that WTP equal to the WTA. The final factors influencing WTP can be divided into reference price, mental factors of purchase intention for basic physical needs, ecological concern and hedonism. The paper holds that all these factors affect buyers' willingness to pay from the perspective of endowment effect.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".