Who is really loosing out?

The whole endownment theory is based around the fact that there are two different ways in which we could value an object. The first one, is on how much we are willing to pay for that object (WTP) and the second how much we are willing to sell it for or accept the loss of it (WTA). It is easy to see why, when we own something for a long time, we would value it higher. Usually, we put emotional attachment to things and would not want to depart from something that means something to us. However, the findings from studies show that WTP is still less than WTA when the item has been recently given to us. It does make sense as it follows from the loss aversion theory that we are not keen on giving things up. At this point something flashed up at me that I hope someone can answer or explain: buying and selling is simply an exchange of money for an item or service, so when we sell we lose the item but when we buy we lose the money. I guess my question is, if we are given £5 to buy something, wouldn't the giving up the £5 note away seem as a loss to us and therefore make us want to value it higher, i.e. Is there not two cases of endownment in each transaction rather than just one? If so how can this be proven?????

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone