IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_10327.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Complexity and Time

Author

Listed:
  • Benjamin Enke
  • Thomas Graeber
  • Ryan Oprea

Abstract

We provide experimental evidence that core intertemporal choice anomalies – including extreme short-run impatience, structural estimates of present bias, hyperbolicity and transitivity violations – are driven by complexity rather than time or risk preferences. First, all anomalies also arise in structurally similar atemporal decision problems involving valuation of iteratively discounted (but immediately paid) rewards. These computational errors are strongly predictive of intertemporal decisions. Second, intertemporal choice anomalies are highly correlated with indices of complexity responses including cognitive uncertainty and choice inconsistency. We show that model misspecification resulting from ignoring behavioral responses to complexity severely inflates structural estimates of present bias.

Suggested Citation

  • Benjamin Enke & Thomas Graeber & Ryan Oprea, 2023. "Complexity and Time," CESifo Working Paper Series 10327, CESifo.
    • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_10327
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp10327.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anujit Chakraborty & Evan M. Calford & Guidon Fenig & Yoram Halevy, 2017. "External and internal consistency of choices made in convex time budgets," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(3), pages 687-706, September.
    2. Matthew O. Jackson & Leeat Yariv, 2014. "Present Bias and Collective Dynamic Choice in the Lab," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(12), pages 4184-4204, December.
    3. Ferdinand M. Vieider, 2021. "Noisy coding of time and reward discounting," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 21/1036, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    4. Marzilli Ericson, K. M. & White, J. M. & Laibson, David I. & Cohen, J. D., 2015. "Money Earlier or Later? Simple Heuristics Explain Intertemporal Choices Better Than Delay Discounting Does," Scholarly Articles 30367415, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    5. Markus Dertwinkel-Kalt & Holger Gerhardt & Gerhard Riener & Frederik Schwerter & Louis Strang, 2022. "Concentration Bias in Intertemporal Choice [Eliciting Risk and Time Preferences]," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 89(3), pages 1314-1334.
    6. Matthew Rabin & Ted O'Donoghue, 1999. "Doing It Now or Later," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 103-124, March.
    7. Keith M. Ericson & John Myles White & David Laibson & Jonathan D. Cohen, 2015. "Money Earlier or Later? Simple Heuristics Explain Intertemporal Choices Better than Delay Discounting," NBER Working Papers 20948, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Samuel J. Gershman & Rahul Bhui, 2020. "Rationally inattentive intertemporal choice," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 11(1), pages 1-8, December.
    9. Ariel Rubinstein, 2003. ""Economics and Psychology"? The Case of Hyperbolic Discounting," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 44(4), pages 1207-1216, November.
    10. Yoram Halevy, 2008. "Strotz Meets Allais: Diminishing Impatience and the Certainty Effect," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(3), pages 1145-1162, June.
    11. George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 1992. "Anomalies in Intertemporal Choice: Evidence and an Interpretation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 107(2), pages 573-597.
    12. Marina Agranov & Pietro Ortoleva, 2017. "Stochastic Choice and Preferences for Randomization," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 125(1), pages 40-68.
    13. Thaler, Richard, 1981. "Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 201-207.
    14. Lu, Jay & Saito, Kota, 2018. "Random intertemporal choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 780-815.
    15. Victor Stango & Jonathan Zinman, 2009. "Exponential Growth Bias and Household Finance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 64(6), pages 2807-2849, December.
    16. David Laibson, 1997. "Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 443-478.
    17. Read, Daniel, 2001. "Is Time-Discounting Hyperbolic or Subadditive?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 5-32, July.
    18. Mariana Carrera & Heather Royer & Mark Stehr & Justin Sydnor & Dmitry Taubinsky, 2022. "Who Chooses Commitment? Evidence and Welfare Implications [Self-Control and Demand for Commitment in Online Game Playing: Evidence from a Field Experiment]," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 89(3), pages 1205-1244.
    19. James Andreoni & Christina Gravert & Michael A. Kuhn & Silvia Saccardo & Yang Yang, 2018. "Arbitrage Or Narrow Bracketing? On Using Money to Measure Intertemporal Preferences," NBER Working Papers 25232, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Brocas, Isabelle & Carrillo, Juan D. & Tarrasó, Jorge, 2018. "How long is a minute?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 305-322.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thomas Graeber & Shakked Noy & Christopher Roth, 2024. "Lost in Transmission," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 272, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Benjamin Enke & Thomas W. Graeber, 2021. "Cognitive Uncertainty in Intertemporal Choice," CESifo Working Paper Series 9472, CESifo.
    2. Benjamin Enke & Thomas Graeber & Ryan Oprea & Thomas W. Graeber, 2023. "Complexity and Hyperbolic Discounting," CESifo Working Paper Series 10861, CESifo.
    3. Ali al-Nowaihi & Sanjit Dhami, 2021. "Preferences over Time and under Uncertainty: Theoretical Foundations," CESifo Working Paper Series 9215, CESifo.
    4. Ali al-Nowaihi & Sanjit Dhami, 2018. "Foundations for Intertemporal Choice," CESifo Working Paper Series 6913, CESifo.
    5. Uri Ben-Zion & Jan Pieter Krahnen & TAL SHAVIT, 2007. "Subjective Evaluation Of Delayed Risky Outcomes: An Experimental Approach," Working Papers 0709, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Marco Casari, 2009. "Pre-commitment and flexibility in a time decision experiment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 117-141, April.
    8. Scholten, Marc & Read, Daniel, 2006. "Beyond discounting: the tradeoff model of intertemporal choice," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 22710, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. al-Nowaihi, Ali & Dhami, Sanjit, 2009. "A value function that explains the magnitude and sign effects," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(3), pages 224-229, December.
    10. Takeuchi, Kan, 2011. "Non-parametric test of time consistency: Present bias and future bias," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 456-478, March.
    11. Sudeep Bhatia & Graham Loomes & Daniel Read, 2021. "Establishing the laws of preferential choice behavior," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(6), pages 1324-1369, November.
    12. Benhabib, Jess & Bisin, Alberto & Schotter, Andrew, 2010. "Present-bias, quasi-hyperbolic discounting, and fixed costs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 205-223, July.
    13. Inhwa Kim & Keith J. Gamble, 2022. "Too much or too little information: how unknown uncertainty fuels time inconsistency," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 1-33, February.
    14. Sanghoon K Lee, 2015. "Disability Risk and Hyperbolic Discounting," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(1), pages 371-380.
    15. Faralla, Valeria & Novarese, Marco & Ardizzone, Antonella, 2017. "Framing Effects in Intertemporal Choice: A Nudge Experiment," MPRA Paper 82086, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Przemysław Sawicki & Michał Białek, 2016. "Side Effects in Time Discounting Procedures: Fixed Alternatives Become the Reference Point," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-11, October.
    17. Wong, Wei-Kang, 2008. "How much time-inconsistency is there and does it matter? Evidence on self-awareness, size, and effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(3-4), pages 645-656, December.
    18. Arthur E. Attema & Han Bleichrodt & Kirsten I. M. Rohde & Peter P. Wakker, 2010. "Time-Tradeoff Sequences for Analyzing Discounting and Time Inconsistency," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(11), pages 2015-2030, November.
    19. Robin Chark & Soo Chew & Songfa Zhong, 2015. "Extended present bias: a direct experimental test," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(1), pages 151-165, July.
    20. Read, Daniel & Roelofsma, Peter H. M. P., 2003. "Subadditive versus hyperbolic discounting: A comparison of choice and matching," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 140-153, July.
    21. Uttara Balakrishnan & Johannes Haushofer & Pamela Jakiela, 2020. "How soon is now? Evidence of present bias from convex time budget experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 294-321, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    complexity; hyperbolic discounting; present bias; bounded rationality; noise; cognitive uncertainty;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • G00 - Financial Economics - - General - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_10327. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.