IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/qut/qubewp/wp034.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Recent developments in the experimental elicitation of time preference

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen L. Cheung

Abstract

This methodological survey reviews recent developments in the design of experiments to elicit individuals' time preferences, with a focus on the measurement or control for potentially non-linear utility. While the objective of a time preference experiment is usually to estimate parameters of a discount function, assumptions concerning the nature of utility may have an important influence upon these estimates. The survey classifies experiment designs on two dimensions: whether they assume an equivalence between utility under risk and over time, and whether they result in an estimate of the curvature of utility.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen L. Cheung, 2015. "Recent developments in the experimental elicitation of time preference," QuBE Working Papers 034, QUT Business School.
  • Handle: RePEc:qut:qubewp:wp034
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://external-apps.qut.edu.au/business/documents/QuBEWorkingPapers/2015/Survey.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten I. & Rutström, E. Elisabet, 2014. "Discounting behavior: A reconsideration," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 15-33.
    2. 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, May.
    3. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda, 2012. "The missing link: unifying risk taking and time discounting," ECON - Working Papers 096, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Oct 2018.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2012. "Estimating Time Preferences from Convex Budgets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(7), pages 3333-3356, December.
    7. Larry G. Epstein & Stanley E. Zin, 2013. "Substitution, risk aversion and the temporal behavior of consumption and asset returns: A theoretical framework," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 12, pages 207-239, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & Melonie B. Williams, 2002. "Estimating Individual Discount Rates in Denmark: A Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1606-1617, December.
    9. Helga Fehr-Duda & Thomas Epper, 2012. "Probability and Risk: Foundations and Economic Implications of Probability-Dependent Risk Preferences," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 4(1), pages 567-593, July.
    10. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier l'Haridon & Corina Paraschiv, 2013. "Is There One Unifying Concept of Utility?An Experimental Comparison of Utility Under Risk and Utility Over Time," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(9), pages 2153-2169, September.
    11. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    12. 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.
    13. Stephen L. Cheung, 2020. "Eliciting utility curvature in time preference," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 493-525, June.
    14. Arthur E. Attema & Han Bleichrodt & Yu Gao & Zhenxing Huang & Peter P. Wakker, 2016. "Measuring Discounting without Measuring Utility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(6), pages 1476-1494, June.
    15. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda, 2015. "Risk Preferences Are Not Time Preferences: Balancing on a Budget Line: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(7), pages 2261-2271, July.
    16. Larry G. Epstein & Stephen M. Tanny, 1980. "Increasing Generalized Correlation: A Definition and Some Economic Consequences," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 13(1), pages 16-34, February.
    17. Scott F. Richard, 1975. "Multivariate Risk Aversion, Utility Independence and Separable Utility Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 12-21, September.
    18. 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.
    19. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2012. "Risk Preferences Are Not Time Preferences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(7), pages 3357-3376, December.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.
    22. 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.
    23. Maribeth Coller & Melonie Williams, 1999. "Eliciting Individual Discount Rates," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 2(2), pages 107-127, December.
    24. Schmidt, Ulrich, 2014. "Risk preferences may be time preferences: A comment on Andreoni and Sprenger (2012)," Kiel Working Papers 1942, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Stephen L. Cheung, 2020. "Eliciting utility curvature in time preference," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 493-525, June.
    4. Cheung, Stephen L. & Tymula, Agnieszka & Wang, Xueting, 2021. "Quasi-Hyperbolic Present Bias: A Meta-Analysis," IZA Discussion Papers 14625, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Holden, Stein T. & Sommervoll, Dag Einar & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2020. "Mental Zooming as Variable Asset Integration in Inter-temporal Choice," CLTS Working Papers 7/20, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies.
    6. Mao, Hui & Zhou, Li & Ying, RuiYao & Pan, Dan, 2021. "Time Preferences and green agricultural technology adoption: Field evidence from rice farmers in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    7. 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.
    8. Lloyd-Smith, Patrick & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Entem, Alicia & Fenichel, Eli P. & Rouhi Rad, Mani, 2021. "The decade after tomorrow: Estimation of discount rates from realistic temporal decisions over long time horizons," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 158-174.
    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. Felix Koelle & Thomas Lauer, 2018. "Cooperation, Discounting, and the Effects of Delayed Costs and Benefits," Discussion Papers 2018-10, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    11. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin & Sommervoll, Dag Einar, 2020. "Magnitude Effects and Utility Curvature in Inter-temporal Choice," CLTS Working Papers 8/20, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies.
    12. Denis Fougere & Arthur Heim, 2019. "L'évaluation socioéconomique de l'investissement social: Comment mettre en oeuvre des analyses coûts-bénéfices pour les politiques d'emploi, de santé et d'éducation," Sciences Po publications info:hdl:2441/5lge9h8e809, Sciences Po.
    13. Boonmanunt, Suparee & Lauer, Thomas & Rockenbach, Bettina & Weiss, Arne, 2020. "Field evidence on the role of time preferences in conservation behavior," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    14. Sebastian Ebert, 2021. "Prudent Discounting: Experimental Evidence On Higher Order Time Risk Preferences," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 62(4), pages 1489-1511, November.
    15. Denis Fougère & Arthur Heim, 2019. "L'évaluation socioéconomique de l'investissement social," Working Papers hal-03456048, HAL.

    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. Stephen L. Cheung, 2020. "Eliciting utility curvature in time preference," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 493-525, June.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten I. & Rutström, E. Elisabet, 2014. "Discounting behavior: A reconsideration," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 15-33.
    6. 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.
    7. Chen Sun & Jan Potters, 2022. "Magnitude effect in intertemporal allocation tasks," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(2), pages 593-623, April.
    8. Irvine, Alastair & van der Pol, Marjon & Phimister, Euan, 2019. "A comparison of professional and private time preferences of General Practitioners," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 256-264.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Meyer, Andrew G., 2015. "The impacts of elicitation mechanism and reward size on estimated rates of time preference," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 132-148.
    13. Belot, Michele & Kircher, Philipp & Muller, Paul, 2021. "Eliciting time preferences when income and consumption vary: Theory, validation & application to job search," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2021035, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    14. Alina Ferecatu & Ayse Önçüler, 2016. "Heterogeneous risk and time preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(1), pages 1-28, August.
    15. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier l’Haridon, 2013. "Sign-dependence in intertemporal choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 225-253, December.
    16. Cheung, Stephen L. & Tymula, Agnieszka & Wang, Xueting, 2021. "Quasi-Hyperbolic Present Bias: A Meta-Analysis," IZA Discussion Papers 14625, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Abdellaoui, Mohammed & Kemel, Emmanuel & Panin, Amma & Vieider, Ferdinand M., 2019. "Measuring time and risk preferences in an integrated framework," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 459-469.
    18. Hermann, Daniel & Rüther, Dörte & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2015. "Die Zeitpräferenz von Landwirten," Die Unternehmung - Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 69(4), pages 396-417.
    19. Hanjin Li & Danny Campbell & Seda Erdem, 2022. "Measuring Time Preferences Using Stated Credit Repayment Choices," Journal of Quantitative Economics, Springer;The Indian Econometric Society (TIES), vol. 20(1), pages 43-67, March.
    20. Hermann, Daniel & Musshoff, Oliver, 2016. "Measuring time preferences: Comparing methods and evaluating the magnitude effect," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 16-26.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    time preference; discounted utility; instantaneous utility; choice list;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D90 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - 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:qut:qubewp:wp034. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://research.qut.edu.au/qube/ .

    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: Dipa Sarkar (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://research.qut.edu.au/qube/ .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.