A note of clarification. The point of my post(s) on the subject were not that people who “talk” about the endowment effect ought to cite PZ. I’m not so worried about their citation counts, which I suspect are appropriately impressive. Rather, the point is that legal scholars relying on the evidence of the endowment effect are doing more than talking, they are proposing legal change (and sometimes the introduction of new regulatory agencies) based on the existing evidence. I don’t think the existing evidence justifies that, especially in the areas I am most familiar with, e.g. antitrust and consumer protection. More importantly, even if we take the existence of the effect for granted, the real problem in this literature is not taking seriously costs of the proposed solutions and comparing them to social costs imposed by alternatives. Now, this is a more general methodological problem and not one specific to behavioral law and economics. However, the lack of citation to the PZ paper (and often times problems with highly selective reviews of evidence) in my view is evidence of lack of rigor that should bother behavioral law and economics scholars more than it should bother skeptics like me. That said, there is obviously very good work being done in both behavioral law and economics and by behavioral economists. And it sounds like a wonderful conference. I’m looking forward to reading the materials and learning more.