Reference dependence in the UK housing market

Figures & data

Figure 1. Behavioural studies of housing choice decisions.

Table 1. Reference dependence studies in residential property markets.

No	Paper	Buyer or seller	Reference points	Data source	Sample size	Sampling period	Property type	Country/region	Methods
1	Genesove and Mayer (2001)	Sellers	Purchase price/initial price	Transactions	5,785	1990–1997	Condominiums	USA	Linear regression and hazard model
2	Simonsohn and Loewenstein (2006)	Renters and buyers	Rent in previous cities	Survey	928 (650 renters & 278 buyers)	1983–1993	Private housing	USA	Linear regression
3	Einio et al. (2008)	Sellers	Purchase price	Transactions	309,314	1987–2003	Apartments	Finland	Linear regression
4	Seiler et al. (2008)	Sellers	Historical high	Lab experiment	225	2006	Investment property	33 countries	T test
5	Anenberg (2011)	Sellers	Purchase price/initial price	Transactions	1,150,497	1988–2005	Private housing	USA	Linear regression
6	Paraschiv and Chenavaz (2011)	Buyers and sellers	Purchase price/initial price; Recent price; Historical high & low	Online experiment	401	2008	Private housing	France	Linear regression
7	Scott and Lizieri (2012)	Buyers	Arbitrary anchor (telephone numbers)	Lab experiment	139	2009–2010	Private housing	UK	Linear regression
8	Bucchianeri and Minson (2013)	Sellers	Listing price	Transactions	331,541	2005–2009	Private housing	USA	Linear regression
9	Leung and Tsang (2013)	Sellers	Purchase price	Transactions	266,720	1992–2006	Condominiums	Hong Kong, China	Linear regression and logit model
10	Arbel et al. (2014)	Buyers	Prior program price reductions	Transactions	6,853	1999–2008	Public housing	Israel	Hazard model
11	Sun and Ong (2014)	Sellers	Purchase price/initial price; Recent price;	Transactions	51,047	1990–2001	Private housing	Singapore	Spatio-temporal autoregressive model
12	Arbel et al. (2016)	Buyers	Initial reduction rate; Recent reduction rate	Transactions	6,854	1999–2009	Public housing	Israel	Hazard model
13	Hirota et al. (2020)	Sellers (landlords)	Current rents	Lab experiment	160	Not reported	Private housing	Japan	Linear regression

Table 2. Scenario designs.

Question	Label	Market trend	Price info
1	Benchmark Price	Declining	Similar properties trade between £250,000–£350,000
2	Initial Purchase Price	Declining	Four years ago, the property was bought for £400,000
3	Intermediate Price	Declining	Two years ago, the property was worth £350,000
4	Alternative Offer Price	Declining	A similar property has just sold for £250,000
5	Benchmark Price	Growing	Similar properties trade between £450,000–£550,000
6	Initial Purchase Price	Growing	Four years ago, the property was bought for £400,000
7	Intermediate Price	Growing	Two years ago, the property was worth £450,000
8	Alternative Offer Price	Growing	A similar property has just sold for £550,000
9	Historical Peak	–	Four years ago, price of the property was £300,000. You wanted to sell (buy) but deal fell through. Two years ago, the property's price had risen to £400,000. Recent valuation of £350,000 by real estate expert.
10	Historical Trough	–	Four years ago, price of the property was £300,000. You wanted to sell (buy) but deal fell through. Two years ago, the property's price had fallen to £200,000. Recent valuation of £250,000 by real estate expert.
11	Expected Profits – Low	–	You bought a property for £500,000 several years ago. Set a target of earning at least £25,000 in profit when you sell. You now have to sell. Property currently valued between £525,000–£575,000.
12	Expected Profits – Mid	–	You bought a property for £500,000 several years ago. Set a target of earning at least £75,000 in profit when you sell. You now have to sell. Property currently valued between £525,000–£575,000.
13	Expected Profits – High	–	You bought a property for £500,000 several years ago. Set a target of earning at least £100,000 in profit when you sell. You now have to sell. Property currently valued between £525,000–£575,000.

Note: All questions asked for the minimum price they would sell the property for. The buyer questionnaire asked the same questions 1–10 (questions 11–13 only used for sellers) as the seller questionnaire, with wording changed slightly to represent a buyer decision. The buyer questionnaire asked for the maximum price they would pay for the property. Where important, the wording of the buyer questionnaire has been included in parentheses in Table 1 to ensure clarity.

Table 3. Questions use to test hypotheses.

Hypothesis	Questions used to test hypothesis
Hypothesis 1: Initial purchase price is used as a reference point	1–2, 5–6
Hypothesis 2: Intermediate prices are used as reference points	2–3, 6–7, 9, 10
Hypothesis 3: Recent prices are used as reference points	3–4, 7–8
Hypothesis 4: Expectations affect reference point formation	11, 12, 13
Hypothesis 5: Social norms influence reference point formation	Questions 1 − 13

Table 4. Personal traits of respondents.

Variable	Definition	Sellers	Buyers
			Owners	Renters
Age	Age in years
Less than 25 years old (AGE1)		2%	3%	21%
25–35 years old (AGE2)		31%	35%	41%
36–50 years old (AGE3)		40%	38%	31%
51–65 years old (AGE4)		22%	20%	7%
More than 65 years old		5%	4%	1%
Gender	= 1 if male, 0 otherwise
Female		75%	73%	69%
Male (MALE)		25%	27%	31%
Education	Highest education attainment
Secondary school (EDU1)		11%	10%	21%
Sixth form college (EDU2)		26%	22%	31%
Undergraduate degree (EDU3)		42%	47%	34%
Postgraduate and/or PhD (EDU4)		19%	20%	12%
Others		2%	1%	2%
Income	Average monthly income (£)
Less than £500 (INCOME1)		11%	9%	17%
Between £500–£999 (INCOME2)		17%	15%	26%
Between £1000–£1999 (INCOME3)		43%	42%	41%
Between £2000–£3000 (INCOME4)		21%	24%	12%
More than £3000		8%	10%	4%
Housing expenditure	Average monthly housing expenditure (£)
Less than £500 (HEXP1)		57%	55%	55%
Between £500–£999 (HEXP2)		39%	37%	42%
Between £1000–£1500 (HEXP3)		2%	5%	4%
More than £1500		2%	3%	0%
Social norms – reference groups	Have you ever made a comparison between your lifestyle and the lifestyle of any of the following persons?
A close friend (SOCIAL1)		76%	78%	77%
A colleague (SOCIAL2)		61%	59%	52%
A neighbour (SOCIAL3)		42%	46%	32%
A family member (SOCIAL4)		70%	67%	69%
Yourself in the past (SOCIAL5)		64%	67%	66%
Other or none		13%	11%	13%
Social norms – frequency	How often do you compare your lifestyle to the person(s) you selected above?
All the time (FRE1)		6%	8%	6%
Frequently (FRE2)		17%	17%	19%
Occasionally or never		78%	75%	74%
Social norms – importance (IMP)	On a scale of 0 to 10 (10 being the most important), how important it is for you to be better off than the person(s) that you selected above?	3.27	3.61	3.44
Sample size		197	203	195

Note: Labels in brackets are the names of the independent variables used in the regression model given in section 4.

Table 5. Behaviour under different market conditions.

Question	Label	Market trend	SET predictions (£000's)	Manipulated information (£000's)	Average reported price (£000's)	Deviation from SET predictions	Price distribution %
							Lower	SET predictions	Higher
Seller
1	Benchmark Price	Declining Market	300	–	293	–2.26%	43.15%	22.84%	34.01%
2	Initial Purchase Price (High)		300	400	380	26.66%	3.05%	6.09%	90.86%
3	Intermediate Price		300	350	353	17.67%	3.05%	8.63%	88.32%
4	Recent Transaction (Low)		300	250	289	–3.81%	57.36%	17.77%	24.87%
5	Benchmark Price	Growing Market	500	–	487	–2.62%	47.21%	30.96%	21.83%
6	Initial Purchase Price (Low)		500	400	452	–9.51%	76.65%	13.71%	9.64%
7	Intermediate Price		500	450	470	–5.93%	70.56%	19.29%	10.15%
8	Recent Transaction (High)		500	550	520	4.06%	12.18%	26.90%	60.91%
9	Historical Peak	–	350	400	359	2.57%	12.18%	49.24%	38.58%
10	Historical Trough		250	200	256	2.33%	19.29%	50.25%	30.46%
11	Expected profits (Low)	–	550	25	539	–1.98%	55.33%	33.50%	11.17%
12	Expected profits (Medium)		550	75	566	2.89%	5.08%	22.34%	72.59%
13	Expected profits (High)		550	100	572	3.98%	4.06%	19.29%	76.65%
Buyer (Owner)
1	Benchmark Price	Declining Market	300	–	305	1.72%	25.85%	37.56%	36.59%
2	Initial Purchase Price (High)		300	400	337	12.42%	11.82%	18.72%	69.46%
3	Intermediate Price		300	350	323	7.58%	15.76%	21.18%	63.05%
4	Recent Transaction (Low)		300	250	282	–6.04%	65.52%	21.67%	12.81%
5	Benchmark Price	Growing Market	500	–	495	–1.02%	32.68%	40.98%	26.34%
6	Initial Purchase Price (Low)		500	400	455	–8.98%	70.24%	16.59%	13.17%
7	Intermediate Price		500	450	468	–6.44%	68.78%	19.02%	12.20%
8	Recent Transaction (High)		500	550	514	2.75%	22.93%	22.93%	54.15%
9	Historical Peak	–	350	400	346	–1.06%	27.80%	53.66%	18.54%
10	Historical Trough		250	200	238	–4.95%	48.78%	40.49%	10.73%
Buyer (Renter)
1	Benchmark Price	Declining Market	300	–	303	1.08%	28.21%	38.46%	33.33%
2	Initial Purchase Price (High)		300	400	337	12.25%	11.28%	25.64%	63.08%
3	Intermediate Price		300	350	323	7.59%	16.92%	26.15%	56.92%
4	Recent Transaction (Low)		300	250	283	–5.52%	61.03%	28.72%	10.26%
5	Benchmark Price	Growing Market	500	–	493	–1.31%	34.87%	41.03%	24.10%
6	Initial Purchase Price (Low)		500	400	442	–11.67%	76.92%	17.44%	5.64%
7	Intermediate Price		500	450	456	–8.76%	73.33%	19.49%	7.18%
8	Recent Transaction (High)		500	550	515	2.97%	24.10%	22.56%	53.33%
9	Historical Peak	–	350	400	350	–0.14%	52.82%	32.82%	14.36%
10	Historical Trough		250	200	236	–5.74%	22.56%	50.26%	27.18%

Table 6. Test results for Hypothesis 1 through 4.

Hypothesis	Null hypotheses and test statistics
Seller
Hypothesis 1 (Initial Purchase Prices)	$H_0:{\mu }_{Q1}={\mu }_{Q2}$	$H_0:{\mu }_{Q5}={\mu }_{Q6}$
	22.777***	–12.153***
Hypothesis 2 (Intermediate Price)	$H_0:{\mu }_{Q2}={\mu }_{Q3}$	$H_0:{\mu }_{Q6}={\mu }_{Q7}$	$H_0:{\mu }_{Q9}=350,000$	$H_0:{\mu }_{Q10}=250,000$
	–12.763***	9.738***	6.266***	3.907***
Hypothesis 3 (Recent Transaction Prices)	$H_0:{\mu }_{Q3}={\mu }_{Q4}$	$H_0:{\mu }_{Q7}={\mu }_{Q8}$
	–19.253***	19.363***
Hypothesis 4 (Expected profits)	$H_0:{\mu }_{Q11}={\mu }_{Q12}$	$H_0:{\mu }_{Q12}={\mu }_{Q13}$
	19.356***	6.913***
Buyer (Owner)
Hypothesis 1 (Initial Purchase Prices)	$H_0:{\mu }_{Q1}={\mu }_{Q2}$	$H_0:{\mu }_{Q5}={\mu }_{Q6}$
	9.844***	–13.939***
Hypothesis 2 (Intermediate Price)	$H_0:{\mu }_{Q2}={\mu }_{Q3}$	$H_0:{\mu }_{Q6}={\mu }_{Q7}$	$H_0:{\mu }_{Q9}=350,000$	$H_0:{\mu }_{Q10}=250,000$
	–6.208***	7.461***	–2.836***	–8.188***
Hypothesis 3 (Recent Transaction Prices)	$H_0:{\mu }_{Q3}={\mu }_{Q4}$	$H_0:{\mu }_{Q7}={\mu }_{Q8}$
	–14.348***	14.675***
Buyer (Renter)
Hypothesis 1 (Initial Purchase Prices)	$H_0:{\mu }_{Q1}={\mu }_{Q2}$	$H_0:{\mu }_{Q5}={\mu }_{Q6}$
	9.402***	–14.080***
Hypothesis 2 (Intermediate Price)	$H_0:{\mu }_{Q2}={\mu }_{Q3}$	$H_0:{\mu }_{Q6}={\mu }_{Q7}$	$H_0:{\mu }_{Q9}=350,000$	$H_0:{\mu }_{Q10}=250,000$
	–6.224***	7.307***	–0.316	–8.263***
Hypothesis 3 (Recent Transaction Prices)	$H_0:{\mu }_{Q3}={\mu }_{Q4}$	$H_0:{\mu }_{Q7}={\mu }_{Q8}$
	–12.565***	15.668***

Note: The first line in each sell shows the questions that are used in the test. The second line in each cell is the t-test statistics and its statistical significance, which is indicated by the asterisks. P-value < 0.01 (***).

Table 7. Test results for Hypothesis 5 (seller, sample size = 197).

Independent variables	Dependent variable
	Declining market			Growing market			Historical peak/trough		Expected profits
	Initial price (Q2-Q1)	Intermedia price (Q3-Q2)	Recent price (Q4-Q3)	Initial price (Q6-Q5)	Intermedia price (Q7-Q6)	Recent price (Q8-Q7)	Peak (Q9-350,000)	Trough (Q10-250,000)	Medium (Q11-Q12)	High (Q12-Q13)
INTERCEPT	9.76***	11.10***	5.71*	0.17	0.45	4.34	–1.90	0.54	6.39**	3.11
AGE1	–1.34	–1.59	–1.12	–1.1	1.86	–0.98	2.48	0.26	–1.08	–0.06
AGE2	–1.28	–3.81*	–2.85*	–1.87	–2.74	–1.76	0.26	–0.86	–0.02	–0.17
AGE3	–1.42	–4.08**	–2.98**	–2.56	–2.4	–3.00**	0.89	0.29	–0.16	–0.95
AGE4	–0.82	–2.95	–1.40	–0.18	–2.27	–1.02	1.84	–0.58	0.77	–1.31
MALE	–1.14**	–2.32***	–0.42	0.04	–0.05	0.62	1.11	–0.67	–0.34	–0.35
EDU1	0.81	–4.61	1.37	4.65	1.46	4.99**	3.19	–0.31	–2.24	1.08
EDU2	1.08	–2.41	5.19**	4.87*	2.01	6.11***	1.35	–0.98	–1.84	0.2
EDU3	1.37	–2.37	3.03	4.76*	1.65	5.69***	1.70	–1.24	–1.48	1.42
EDU4	0.66	–3.26	4.08*	4.58	0.69	4.9**	2.84	–1.85	–2.89	0.73
INCOME1	–2.01*	–2.94	–0.23	0.81	0.27	–2.75*	–0.63	0.52	–2.17	–2.52
INCOME2	–1.41	–1.89	–0.25	1.98	2.54	–2.20	1.63	1.67	0.39	–3.19*
INCOME3	–1.15	–1.50	0.38	0.29	1.20	–1.75	0.81	0.02	–0.7	–2.08
INCOME4	–2.35**	–1.42	0.01	0.09	–0.95	–1.46	0.03	–1.33	–1.18	–1.84
HEXP1	1.77	2.97	0.82	3.51	3.94	2.03	2.37	4.23	4.59**	2.99
HEXP2	2.35	4.17	1.13	3.52	3.78	1.6	3.04	3.98	5.13**	2.42
HEXP3	3.53	–0.36	1.15	5.58	6.43	4.28	–4.11	1.08	3.28	0.13
SOCIAL1	0.94	0.53	1.83*	–0.4	2.04	0.57	0.04	1.85	0.95	–0.44
SOCIAL2	–0.02	–1.21	0.77	–0.06	–0.01	–0.36	–0.76	–0.16	–0.06	0.01
SOCIAL3	–1.37**	–0.33	–2.16***	–0.05	0.04	–1.46**	0.58	–0.90	–0.57	–0.63
SOCIAL4	0.04	0.08	0.03	0.32	–0.88	1.45*	1.35	–0.94	0.59	0.75
SOCIAL5	–0.54	0.04	0.22	–0.52	–0.16	–0.11	–0.22	1.53*	–0.27	0.06
FRE1	–0.73	–0.93	–0.36	0.92	–0.21	–0.73	2.01	–0.57	–1.71	0.48
FRE2	–0.68	–0.26	–0.57	0.51	–0.18	–0.36	1.02	–0.50	0.81	–1.1
IMP	0.24**	0.35**	0.09	–0.01	0.07	0.15	–0.04	0.24	–0.13	0.11
R Square	0.1542	0.1606	0.1743	0.1025	0.1276	0.1885	0.1176	0.1118	0.1392	0.0674

Note: ***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.10.

Table 8. Test results for Hypothesis 5 (Buyer – Owner, Sample Size = 203).

Independent Variables	Dependent variable
	Declining market			Growing market			Historical peak/trough
	Initial price (Q2-Q1)	Intermedia price (Q3-Q2)	Recent price (Q4-Q3)	Initial price (Q6-Q5)	Intermedia price (Q7-Q6)	Recent price (Q8-Q7)	Peak (Q9-350,000)	Trough (Q10-250,000)
INTERCEPT	–2.29	1.17	8.26**	–3.33	–5.22	3.69	3.35	0.25
AGE1	0.66	1.32	–1.82	–0.32	0.14	–1.81	3.65	1.09
AGE2	–2.49	–3.17	–1.73	0.17	3.92*	–1.77	–1.96	–0.29
AGE3	–2.00	–3.53*	–2.14	0.06	2.58	–1.99	–2.40	–1.03
AGE4	–2.02	–3.08	–2.36	0.95	2.02	–2.59	–1.49	–0.51
MALE	–0.12	–0.70	0.82	–0.16	0.13	0.72	–0.56	–2.04**
EDU1	5.79	6.51	5.90*	6.93*	5.47	1.88	6.23	9.83***
EDU2	4.96	4.69	4.63	7.97**	4.88	3.63	5.79	7.85**
EDU3	5.79	4.68	4.21	8.50**	6.26*	3.20	5.07	7.66**
EDU4	5.00	5.05	3.23	6.85*	4.22	2.34	4.69	7.19**
INCOME1	1.96	0.62	–0.66	0.90	2.02	–1.12	–0.14	3.64**
INCOME2	2.75*	1.02	0.44	2.38	1.26	–2.18	0.81	0.63
INCOME3	2.67*	1.76	–0.03	2.62*	1.35	–0.02	2.26	3.69***
INCOME4	1.53	0.77	0.72	1.24	–0.41	–1.93	0.90	2.29
HEXP1	2.25	1.20	–2.20	–0.03	0.27	3.04	–3.85*	–5.05**
HEXP2	2.54	1.13	–3.20	0.25	–0.59	2.78	–4.83**	–5.86***
HEXP3	2.28	2.45	–0.42	2.22	1.17	4.68*	–1.87	–2.26
SOCIAL1	0.99	0.90	–1.48	–0.54	0.02	0.58	0.21	0.79
SOCIAL2	1.68	–0.35	1.62*	0.18	–0.61	0.06	–1.04	–1.51
SOCIAL3	–2.10**	–0.74	0.13	–0.17	–0.01	0.61	0.15	–0.21
SOCIAL4	0.68	–0.66	–0.04	0.83	0.82	0.18	0.18	–0.40
SOCIAL5	–1.30	–0.90	–0.96	–1.23	–0.06	–1.38	0.68	1.38*
FRE1	2.54	1.61	–1.64	0.39	–0.09	–1.82	0.15	1.18
FRE2	0.52	0.49	–1.46	–0.33	–0.89	–1.45	–0.20	0.56
IMP	0.16	0.01	0.27*	0.27*	0.40**	0.33**	0.13	0.31**
R Square	0.1629	0.1126	0.1264	0.1072	0.1409	0.1287	0.1329	0.1834

Table 9. Test results for Hypothesis 5 (Buyer – Renter, Sample Size = 195).

Independent variables	Dependent variable
	Declining market			Growing market			Historical peak/trough
	Initial price (Q2-Q1)	Intermedia price (Q3-Q2)	Recent price (Q4-Q3)	Initial price (Q6-Q5)	Intermedia price (Q7-Q6)	Recent price (Q8-Q7)	Peak (Q9-350,000)	Trough (Q10-250,000)
INTERCEPT	3.52	7.15	4.76	6.77	11.63*	9.55	0.80	–1.13
AGE1	–5.95	–6.34	–3.66	–5.29	–6.18	–4.53	4.45	6.14
AGE2	–6.03	–7.23	–4.98	–4.57	–5.73	–2.94	5.18	7.69
AGE3	–6.49	–6.17	–5.18	–5.27	–7.53	–4.00	4.27	5.97
AGE4	–7.18	–6.35	–4.94	–9.21*	–5.22	–5.7	3.94	4.34
MALE	1.13	–0.08	–0.75	0.19	0.8	–1.52**	–0.05	–0.10
EDU1	2.92	–0.85	4.58	3.55	–2.71	1.82	–1.55	–2.80
EDU2	1.53	–1.17	4.78	4.15	–0.89	2.17	–1.50	–1.53
EDU3	3.00	–2.09	4.73	2.39	–1.71	1.43	–2.33	–0.83
EDU4	2.47	–1.50	6.50**	4.27	–2.04	0.24	–3.03	–0.48
INCOME1	1.41	1.48	–2.58	2.00	0.24	–1.36	–1.98	3.65*
INCOME2	–0.37	0.58	–3.17	0.6	–1.47	–2.35	–0.94	4.51**
INCOME3	1.38	0.72	–0.99	2.21	0.02	–0.98	0.07	4.99**
INCOME4	–0.82	3.00	–1.40	2.35	–0.28	–1.45	–1.51	3.43
HEXP1	2.70	1.83	2.44	0.88	1.01	0.90	1.35	–1.08
HEXP2	3.07	2.56	2.08	1.01	0.72	0.45	0.67	–0.71
SOCIAL1	3.16**	1.87	1.63	0.28	0.64	1.84	0.08	–0.19
SOCIAL2	–0.31	0.69	–0.52	0.33	0.59	–0.0005	–1.02	–0.83
SOCIAL3	0.89	–1.51	0.82	–0.68	–0.31	–1.52*	1.66*	0.10
SOCIAL4	–1.08	–0.17	0.42	–1.25	–0.48	0.57	–0.11	–0.05
SOCIAL5	0.12	1.84*	0.94	0.46	0.26	0.10	1.28	0.42
FRE1	1.22	–3.94	2.72	–7.19***	–5.62**	–1.26	1.31	–4.42*
FRE2	1.40	0.77	0.57	0.14	–0.76	1.22	2.11	1.49
IMP	–2.62	1.06	–2.52	–1.43	0.45	–1.19	–3.03*	–2.28
R Square	0.1321	0.1240	0.1728	0.1641	0.1115	0.1395	0.0888	0.1614

Genesove, D. & Mayer, C. (2001) Loss aversion and seller behavior: Evidence from the housing market, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, pp. 1233–1260.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Simonsohn, U. & Loewenstein, G. (2006) Mistake #37: The effect of previously encountered prices on current housing demand, Economic Journal, 116, pp. 175–199.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Einio, M., Kaustia, M. & Puttonen, V. (2008) Price setting and the reluctance to realize losses in apartment markets, Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, pp. 19–34.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Seiler, M. J., Seiler, V. L., Traub, S. & Harrison, D. M. (2008) Regret aversion and false reference points in residential real estate, Journal of Real Estate Research, 30, pp. 461–474.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Paraschiv, C. & Chenavaz, R. (2011) Sellers' and buyers' reference point dynamics in the housing market, Housing Studies, 26, pp. 329–352.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Scott, P. J. & Lizieri, C. (2012) Consumer house price judgements: New evidence of anchoring and arbitrary coherence, Journal of Property Research, 29, pp. 49–68.

 Google Scholar

Bucchianeri, G. W. & Minson, J. A. (2013) A homeowner's dilemma: Anchoring in residential real estate transactions, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 89, pp. 76–92.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Leung, T. C. & Tsang, K. P. (2013) Anchoring and loss aversion in the housing market: Implications on price dynamics, China Economic Review, 24, pp. 42–54.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Arbel, Y., Ben-Shahar, D. & Gabriel, S. (2014) Anchoring and housing choice: Results of a natural policy experiment, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 49, pp. 68–83.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sun, H. & Ong, S. E. (2014) Bidding heterogeneity, signaling effect and its implications on house seller's pricing strategy, The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 49, pp. 568–597.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Arbel, Y., Fialkoff, C. & Kerner, A. (2016) Does the first impression matter? Efficiency testing of tenure-choice decision, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 60, pp. 223–237.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hirota, S., Suzuki-Löffelholz, K. & Udagawa, D. (2020) does owners' purchase price affect rent offered? Experimental evidence, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 25, pp. 100260.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar