][3] Zeiler and Charles R. Plott co-authored two articles in the American Economic Review re-examining the methodology used to establish the endowment effect theory:[5] “The Willingness to Pay-Willingness to Accept Gap, the ‘Endowment Effect,’ Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations,” (Cited 1137 times, according to Google Scholar [6]) and “Exchange Asymmetries Incorrectly Interpreted as Evidence of Endowment Effect Theory and Prospect Theory” (Cited 364 times, according to Google Scholar.
[5][7] While less than 10% of legal articles referencing the endowment effect theory cited to Zeiler and Plott's work in the five years following the 2005 article's publication, Zeiler and Plott's work is credited as being among the most prominent challengers to the endowment effect theory and has heavily influenced behavioralist scholarship.
[5][8] The endowment effect theory has previously been called "one of the most robust findings in the psychology of decision making” and is used by behavioral legal scholars to explain the relationship between ownership and value.
[9] Since Plott and Zeiler's 2005 and 2007 experiments, a new wave of research has sought to address whether the endowment effect theory stems from reference-dependent preferences.
[9][5] However, in their 2011 reply to such criticisms, Zeiler and Plott (1) asserted that lottery data is contaminated by irrational choice and distorted beliefs that promote inconsistent risks and (2) argued that other literature does not support a "house money" conjecture.
These findings call into question policy arguments in support of the implementation of damages caps to lower liability insurance premiums and improve patient care.
Zeiler has advocated for the increased use of empiricism in health law, specifically through the utilization of data and use of the scientific method.