When given a desirable item, people have a tendency to value this owned item more than an equally-desirable, unowned item. Conversely, when the endowed item is undesirable, in some circumstances people have a tendency to swap it for an equally undesirable item, a phenomenon known as the reversed endowment effect. The fact that the endowment effect can reverse for undesirable items has been taken as evidence against loss aversion being the underlying cause of the endowment effect. This study represents the first time that the reversed endowment effect has been observed for choices with real consequences. However, we find that the reversed endowment effect occurs only when participants’ ability to compare the available choice options is limited. We further show that these endowment reversals can also be induced for choices between desirable options and removed for choices between undesirable options by manipulating the expectations participants have when making a choice. Finally, we show that our data, including endowment reversals, can in principle be explained by loss aversion.

Traditional neuropsychological measures of executive dysfunction (ED) are widely believed to lack adequate sensitivity and selectivity. This may indicate that existing measures are poorly designed and constructed, although an alternative explanation is that executive cognition is multifactorial, such that its assessment necessarily requires administration of multiple measures. This possibility led to the development of a test battery, the Behavioural Assessment of the Dysexecutive Syndrome (BADS). To investigate the sensitivity of the BADS to ED, it and various other measures of ED were administered to 64 persons who had sustained traumatic brain injury. The treating clinical neuropsychologist and occupational therapist for each participant also completed a behavioural rating scale, the Dysexecutive Questionnaire (DEX). Four factors were found to underlie scores on the neuropsychological measures, but few tests were sufficiently powerful to make a significant unique contribution to predicting scores on the DEX. This confirms that multiple tests, drawn from both the BADS and other sources, may be necessary to detect ED in a clinical population. (JINS, 2005, 11, 606–613.)