IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Discounting Behavior: A Reconsideration

  • Steffen Andersen

    ()

    (Copenhagen Business School)

  • Glenn W. Harrison

    ()

    (Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University)

  • Morten Lau

    ()

    (Durham Business School)

  • Elisabet E. Rutstroem

    ()

    (Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University)

We re-evaluate the theory, experimental design and econometrics behind claims that individuals exhibit non-constant discounting behavior. Theory points to the importance of controlling for the non-linearity of the utility function of individuals, since the discount rate is defined over time-dated utility flows and not flows of money. It also points to a menagerie of functional forms to characterize different types of non-constant discounting behavior. The implied experimental design calls for individuals to undertake several tasks to allow us to identify these models, and to several treatments such as multiple horizons and the effect of allowing for a front end delay on earlier payments. The implied econometrics calls for structural estimation of the theoretical models, allowing for joint estimation of utility functions and discounting functions. Using data collected from a representative sample of 413 adult Danes in 2009, we draw striking conclusions. Assuming an exponential discounting model we estimate discount rates to be 5.6% on average: this is significantly lower than all previous estimates using controlled experiments. We also find no evidence to support quasi-hyperbolic discounting or “fixed cost†discounting, and only modest evidence to support other specifications of non-constant discounting. Furthermore, the evidence for non-constant discounting, while statistically significant, is not economically significant in terms of the size of the estimated discount rates. We undertake extensive robustness checks on these findings, including a detailed review of the previous, comparable literature.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://dro.dur.ac.uk/10351
File Function: main text
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Durham University Business School in its series Working Papers with number 2011_01.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 01 Jan 2011
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:dur:durham:2011_01
Contact details of provider: Postal: Durham University Business School, Mill Hill Lane, Durham DH1 3LB, England
Phone: +44 (0)191 334 5200
Fax: +44 (0)191 334 5201
Web page: http://www.dur.ac.uk/business
Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Elisabet Rutstrom & Glenn Harrison & Melonie Williams & Morten Lau, 2002. "Estimating individual discount rates in denmark: A field experiment," Artefactual Field Experiments 00062, The Field Experiments Website.
  2. Elisabet Rutstrom & Glenn Harrison & Morten Lau, 2004. "Estimating risk attitudes in denmark: A field experiment," Artefactual Field Experiments 00059, The Field Experiments Website.
  3. Camerer, Colin F & Ho, Teck-Hua, 1994. "Violations of the Betweenness Axiom and Nonlinearity in Probability," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 167-96, March.
  4. Halevy, Yoram, 2004. "Strotz meets Allais: Diminishing Impatience and the Certainty Effect," Microeconomics.ca working papers yoram_halevy-2004-16, Vancouver School of Economics, revised 25 Feb 2014.
  5. Kirby, Kris N. & Marakovic, Nino N., 1995. "Modeling Myopic Decisions: Evidence for Hyperbolic Delay-Discounting within Subjects and Amounts," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 22-30, October.
  6. Anderhub, Vital & Gneezy, Uri & Güth, Werner & Sonsino, Doron, 1999. "On the interaction of risk and time preferences: An experimental study," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1999,65, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
  7. Hey, John D & Orme, Chris, 1994. "Investigating Generalizations of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1291-1326, November.
  8. Maribeth Coller & Glenn W. Harrison & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2012. "Latent process heterogeneity in discounting behavior," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 64(2), pages 375-391, April.
  9. Dohmen Thomas & Falk Armin & Huffman David & Sunde Uwe, 2009. "Are Risk Aversion and Impatience Related to Cognitive Ability?," ROA Research Memorandum 007, Maastricht University, Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market (ROA).
  10. Shane Frederick & George Loewenstein & Ted O'Donoghue, 2002. "Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(2), pages 351-401, June.
  11. Laibson, David I., 1997. "Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting," Scholarly Articles 4481499, Harvard University Department of Economics.
  12. Steffen Andersen & James C. Cox & Glenn W. Harrison & Morten Lau & E. Elisabet Rutström & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2012. "Asset Integration and Attitudes to Risk: Theory and Evidence," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2012-12, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
  13. Drazen Prelec, 2004. "Decreasing Impatience: A Criterion for Non-stationary Time Preference and "Hyperbolic" Discounting," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 106(3), pages 511-532, October.
  14. Jim Engle-Warnick & Julie Héroux & Claude Montmarquette, 2009. "Willingness to Pay to Reduce Future Risk," CIRANO Working Papers 2009s-37, CIRANO.
  15. Glenn Harrison & John List, 2004. "Field experiments," Artefactual Field Experiments 00058, The Field Experiments Website.
  16. David Laibson & Andrea Repetto & Jeremy Tobacman, 2007. "Estimating Discount Functions with Consumption Choices over the Lifecycle," NBER Working Papers 13314, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  17. Susan Laury & Melayne McInnes & J. Todd Swarthout, 2012. "Avoiding the curves: Direct elicitation of time preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 181-217, June.
  18. Harrison, Glenn W, 1992. "Theory and Misbehavior of First-Price Auctions: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(5), pages 1426-43, December.
  19. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2012. "Estimating Time Preferences from Convex Budgets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(7), pages 3333-56, December.
  20. Read, Daniel, 2001. " Is Time-Discounting Hyperbolic or Subadditive?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 5-32, July.
  21. Robin Cubitt & Daniel Read, 2005. "Can intertemporal choice experiments elicit time preferences for consumption?," Discussion Papers 2005-16, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
  22. Loewenstein, George & Prelec, Drazen, 1992. "Anomalies in Intertemporal Choice: Evidence and an Interpretation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 107(2), pages 573-97, May.
  23. 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.
  24. Glenn W. Harrison & Eric Johnson & Melayne M. McInnes & E. Elisabet Rutstr�m, 2005. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 897-901, June.
  25. Steffen Andersen & Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2008. "Eliciting Risk and Time Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(3), pages 583-618, 05.
  26. Saul Pleeter & John T. Warner, 2001. "The Personal Discount Rate: Evidence from Military Downsizing Programs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(1), pages 33-53, March.
  27. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2010. "Risk Preferences Are Not Time Preferences," Levine's Working Paper Archive 814577000000000452, David K. Levine.
  28. Loewenstein, George & O'Donoghue, Ted & Rabin, Matthew, 2002. "Projection Bias in Predicting Future Utility," Working Papers 02-11, Cornell University, Center for Analytic Economics.
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. Steffen Andersen & Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2008. "Lost In State Space: Are Preferences Stable?," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 49(3), pages 1091-1112, 08.
  32. Glenn Harrison & E. Rutström, 2009. "Expected utility theory and prospect theory: one wedding and a decent funeral," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 133-158, June.
  33. Elisabet Rutstrom & Glenn Harrison & Melonie Williams & Morten Lau, 2005. "Eliciting risk and time preferences using field experiments: Some methodological issues," Artefactual Field Experiments 00063, The Field Experiments Website.
  34. 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.
  35. Jane E. J. Ebert & Drazen Prelec, 2007. "The Fragility of Time: Time-Insensitivity and Valuation of the Near and Far Future," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(9), pages 1423-1438, September.
  36. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, E. Elisabet, 2010. "Preference heterogeneity in experiments: Comparing the field and laboratory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 209-224, February.
  37. Keren, Gideon & Roelofsma, Peter, 1995. "Immediacy and Certainty in Intertemporal Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 287-297, September.
  38. Harrison, Glenn W. & Rutström, E. Elisabet, 2008. "Experimental Evidence on the Existence of Hypothetical Bias in Value Elicitation Methods," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier.
  39. Weber, Bethany J. & Chapman, Gretchen B., 2005. "The combined effects of risk and time on choice: Does uncertainty eliminate the immediacy effect? Does delay eliminate the certainty effect?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 104-118, March.
  40. Keller, L Robin & Strazzera, Elisabetta, 2002. " Examining Predictive Accuracy Among Discounting Models," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 143-60, March.
  41. Glenn W. Harrison, 2006. "Hypothetical Bias Over Uncertain Outcomes," Chapters, in: Using Experimental Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics, chapter 3 Edward Elgar.
  42. Ronald Harstad, 2000. "Dominant Strategy Adoption and Bidders' Experience with Pricing Rules," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 261-280, December.
  43. Holden, Stein T. & Shiferaw, Bekele & Wik, Mette, 1998. "Poverty, market imperfections and time preferences: of relevance for environmental policy?," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(01), pages 105-130, February.
  44. Martin Ahlbrecht & Martin Weber, 1997. "An Empirical Study on Intertemporal Decision Making Under Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(6), pages 813-826, June.
  45. Glenn Harrison, 2005. "Field experiments and control," Artefactual Field Experiments 00057, The Field Experiments Website.
  46. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2005. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects: New Data without Order Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 902-912, June.
  47. Maribeth Coller & Melonie Williams, 1999. "Eliciting Individual Discount Rates," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 107-127, December.
  48. Daniel Read & Shane Frederick & Burcu Orsel & Juwaria Rahman, 2005. "Four Score and Seven Years from Now: The Date/Delay Effect in Temporal Discounting," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(9), pages 1326-1335, September.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dur:durham:2011_01. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (IT Office)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.