IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/dpr/wpaper/1185r.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Investigation of the Convex Time Budget Experiment by Parameter Recovery Simulation

Author

Listed:
  • Keigo Inukai
  • Yuta Shimodaira
  • Kohei Shiozawa

Abstract

The convex time budget (CTB) method is a widely used experimental technique for eliciting an individual’s time preference in intertemporal choice problems. This paper investigates the accuracy of the estimation of the discount factor parameter and the present bias parameter in the quasi-hyperbolic discounting utility function for the CTB experiment. In this paper, we use a simulation technique called “parameter recovery.” We found that the precision of present bias parameter estimation is poor within the scope of previously reported parameter estimates, making it difficult to detect the effect of present bias. Our results recommend against using a combination of the CTB experimental task and the quasi-hyperbolic discounting utility model to explore the effect of present bias. This paper contributes to addressing the replicability issue in experimental economics and highlights the importance of auditing the accuracy of parameter estimates before conducting an experiment.

Suggested Citation

  • Keigo Inukai & Yuta Shimodaira & Kohei Shiozawa, 2022. "Investigation of the Convex Time Budget Experiment by Parameter Recovery Simulation," ISER Discussion Paper 1185r, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University, revised Mar 2023.
    • Handle: RePEc:dpr:wpaper:1185r
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.iser.osaka-u.ac.jp/library/dp/2022/DP1185R.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joshua Blumenstock & Michael Callen & Tarek Ghani, 2018. "Why Do Defaults Affect Behavior? Experimental Evidence from Afghanistan," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(10), pages 2868-2901, October.
    2. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    3. Stephen L. Cheung, 2015. "Risk Preferences Are Not Time Preferences: On the Elicitation of Time Preference under Conditions of Risk: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(7), pages 2242-2260, July.
    4. 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.
    5. Cheung, Stephen L. & Tymula, Agnieszka & Wang, Xueting, 2021. "Quasi-Hyperbolic Present Bias: A Meta-Analysis," IZA Discussion Papers 14625, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Leandro S. Carvalho & Stephan Meier & Stephanie W. Wang, 2016. "Poverty and Economic Decision-Making: Evidence from Changes in Financial Resources at Payday," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(2), pages 260-284, February.
    7. Bin Miao & Songfa Zhong, 2015. "Risk Preferences Are Not Time Preferences: Separating Risk and Time Preference: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(7), pages 2272-2286, July.
    8. Keigo Inukai & Yuta Shimodaira & Kohei Shiozawa, 2022. "Revisiting CES utility functions for distributional preferences: Do people face the equality–efficiency trade-off?," ISER Discussion Paper 1195, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    9. Andreoni, James & Kuhn, Michael A. & Sprenger, Charles, 2015. "Measuring time preferences: A comparison of experimental methods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 451-464.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Yan Chen & Ming Jiang & Erin L. Krupka, 2019. "Hunger and the gender gap," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(4), pages 885-917, December.
    2. Bao, Te & Dai, Yun & Yu, Xiaohua, 2018. "Memory and discounting: Theory and evidence," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 21-30.
    3. Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael & Ponti, Giovanni, 2017. "Social motives vs social influence: An experiment on interdependent time preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 177-194.
    4. Stephen L. Cheung, 2020. "Eliciting utility curvature in time preference," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 493-525, June.
    5. Aycinena, Diego & Blazsek, Szabolcs & Rentschler, Lucas & Sprenger, Charles, 2022. "Intertemporal choice experiments and large-stakes behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 484-500.
    6. Joshua Tasoff & Wenjie Zhang, 2022. "The Performance of Time-Preference and Risk-Preference Measures in Surveys," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 1149-1173, February.
    7. Aurélien Baillon & Owen O'Donnell & Stella Quimbo & Kim van Wilgenburg, 2022. "Do time preferences explain low health insurance take‐up?," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 89(4), pages 951-983, December.
    8. Chen Sun & Jan Potters, 2022. "Magnitude effect in intertemporal allocation tasks," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(2), pages 593-623, April.
    9. Yusuke Kuroishi & Yasuyuki Sawada, 2019. "On the Stability of Preferences:Experimental Evidence from Two Disasters," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-1130, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    10. Rong Rong & Therese C. Grijalva & Jayson Lusk & W. Douglass Shaw, 2019. "Interpersonal discounting," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 17-42, February.
    11. Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael & Ponti, Giovanni, 2017. "Social Motives vs Social Influence: an Experiment on Time Preferences," MPRA Paper 76486, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Taisuke Imai & Tom A Rutter & Colin F Camerer, 2021. "Meta-Analysis of Present-Bias Estimation using Convex Time Budgets," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 131(636), pages 1788-1814.
    13. Therese C. Grijalva & Jayson L. Lusk & Rong Rong & W. Douglass Shaw, 2018. "Convex Time Budgets and Individual Discount Rates in the Long Run," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 259-277, September.
    14. W. David Bradford & Paul Dolan & Matteo M. Galizzi, 2019. "Looking ahead: Subjective time perception and individual discounting," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 43-69, February.
    15. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2015. "Risk Preferences Are Not Time Preferences: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(7), pages 2287-2293, July.
    16. Stephen L. Cheung & Agnieszka Tymula & Xueting Wang, 2022. "Present bias for monetary and dietary rewards," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1202-1233, September.
    17. Jindrich Matousek & Tomas Havranek & Zuzana Irsova, 2022. "Individual discount rates: a meta-analysis of experimental evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 318-358, February.
    18. Backes-Gellner, Uschi & Herz, Holger & Kosfeld, Michael & Oswald, Yvonne, 2021. "Do preferences and biases predict life outcomes? Evidence from education and labor market entry decisions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    19. Königsheim, C. & Lukas, M. & Nöth, M., 2018. "Individual preferences and the exponential growth bias," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 352-369.
    20. Rose, Julia & Rose, Michael, 2019. "Ready-made oTree apps for time preference elicitation methods," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 23-28.

    More about this item

    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:dpr:wpaper:1185r. 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: Librarian (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/isosujp.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.