IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/usi/labsit/043.html

The Effect of a Short Planning Horizon on Intertemporal Consumption Choices

Author

Listed:
  • Enrica Carbone

  • Gerardo Infante

Abstract

Previous experimental results (Ballinger et al. (2003) and Carbone and Hey (2004)) have found that many agents fail to correctly take into account the length of the planning horizon also finding some support (See Carbone (2006)) for descriptive models, such as the Rolling Model. This paper presents an experimental analysis on the effect of a short planning horizon on intertemporal consumption choices. The purpose of the study is to test whether very short horizons are more easily perceived by agents, allowing them to plan optimally. This experiment tests a somewhat implicit assumption of the Rolling Model, or of similar descriptive approaches, namely that people might be able to use the optimal strategy if they are faced with shorter planning horizons. Moreover, this hypothesis is tested in the cases of decision making under certainty, risk and uncertainty, in order to analyze how these environments may affect the perception of the length of the planning horizon. Results suggest that planning periods have a significant effect on deviations from unconditional optimum in all sequences and all treatments. This finding has been interpreted as evidence of participants not using the optimal strategy. When conditional deviations are considered, results are confirmed only in the case of decision making under uncertainty. This second finding has been interpreted as suggesting that uncertainty on income seems to prevent participants from improving their decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Enrica Carbone & Gerardo Infante, 2012. "The Effect of a Short Planning Horizon on Intertemporal Consumption Choices," Labsi Experimental Economics Laboratory University of Siena 043, University of Siena.
    • Handle: RePEc:usi:labsit:043
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.labsi.org/wp/labsi43.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John D Hey & Gianna Lotito & Anna Maffioletti, 2007. "Choquet OK?," Discussion Papers 07/12, Department of Economics, University of York.
    2. T. Ballinger & Eric Hudson & Leonie Karkoviata & Nathaniel Wilcox, 2011. "Saving behavior and cognitive abilities," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(3), pages 349-374, September.
    3. Laibson, David, 1998. "Life-cycle consumption and hyperbolic discount functions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(3-5), pages 861-871, May.
    4. repec:bla:scandj:v:100:y:1998:i:3:p:643-62 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Martin Browning & Annamaria Lusardi, 1996. "Household Saving: Micro Theories and Micro Facts," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 34(4), pages 1797-1855, December.
    6. Enrica Carbone & John D. Hey, 2004. "The effect of unemployment on consumption: an experimental analysis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(497), pages 660-683, July.
    7. John D. Hey & Julia A. Knoll, 2018. "Strategies in dynamic decision making – An experimental investigation of the rationality of decision behaviour," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 9, pages 223-233, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Ernst Fehr & Peter K. Zych, 1998. "Do Addicts Behave Rationally?," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 100(3), pages 643-661, September.
    9. George Loewenstein & Richard H Thaler, 2003. "Anomalies: Intertemporal Choice," Levine's Working Paper Archive 618897000000000784, David K. Levine.
    10. John D. Hey & Massimo Paradiso, 2006. "Preferences Over Temporal Frames In Dynamic Decision Problems: An Experimental Investigation," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 74(2), pages 123-137, March.
    11. Alexander L. Brown & Zhikang Eric Chua & Colin F. Camerer, 2009. "Learning and Visceral Temptation in Dynamic Saving Experiments," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 124(1), pages 197-231.
    12. 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.
    13. Loewenstein, George & Thaler, Richard H, 1989. "Intertemporal Choice," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 3(4), pages 181-193, Fall.
    14. John D. Hey & Gianna Lotito & Anna Maffioletti, 2018. "The descriptive and predictive adequacy of theories of decision making under uncertainty/ambiguity," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 8, pages 189-219, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    15. T. Parker Ballinger & Michael G. Palumbo & Nathaniel T. Wilcox, 2003. "Precautionary saving and social learning across generations: an experiment," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 113(490), pages 920-947, October.
    16. John D. Hey & Luca Panaccione, 2018. "Dynamic decision making: what do people do?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 10, pages 235-273, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    17. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    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. Jim Engle-Warnick & Diego Pulido & Marine de Montaignac, 2016. "Trust, ambiguity, and financial decision-making," CIRANO Working Papers 2016s-44, CIRANO.
    2. Claudia Milena Pico Bonilla & Luis Eduardo Sandoval Garrido, 2024. "Intertemporal consumption and lifecycle in a pandemic context: an experimental approximation," Revista Tendencias, Universidad de Narino, vol. 25(2), pages 57-85.
    3. Enrica Carbone & Konstantinos Georgalos & Gerardo Infante, 2019. "Individual vs. group decision-making: an experiment on dynamic choice under risk and ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(1), pages 87-122, July.
    4. Miller, Logan & Rholes, Ryan, 2023. "Joint vs. Individual performance in a dynamic choice problem," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 897-934.
    5. Paweł Rokita & Radosław Pietrzyk & Łukasz Feldman, 2014. "Multiobjective Optimization of Financing Household Goals with Multiple Investment Programs," Statistics in Transition new series, Główny Urząd Statystyczny (Polska), vol. 15(2), pages 243-268, March.
    6. Bachmann, Kremena & Lot, Andre & Xu, Xiaogeng & Hens, Thorsten, 2023. "Experimental Research on Retirement Decision-Making: Evidence from Replications," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    7. J Dustin Tracy & Kevin A James & Hillard Kaplan & Stephen Rassenti, 2021. "An investigation of health insurance policy and behavior in a virtual environment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-26, April.

    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. Zhou, Xue & Yang, Xiaolan & Jin, Xuejun & Zhang, Lele, 2025. "Enhancing optimal consumption: Experimental insights into nudging borrowing behavior via a life cycle model," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    2. Duffy, John & Li, Yue, 2019. "Lifecycle consumption under different income profiles: Evidence and theory," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 74-94.
    3. Miller, Logan & Rholes, Ryan, 2023. "Joint vs. Individual performance in a dynamic choice problem," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 897-934.
    4. Thomas Meissner, 2016. "Intertemporal consumption and debt aversion: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(2), pages 281-298, June.
    5. Orland, Andreas & Rostam-Afschar, Davud, 2021. "Flexible work arrangements and precautionary behavior: Theory and experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 442-481.
    6. John Duffy, 2022. "Why macroeconomics needs experimental evidence," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 73(1), pages 5-29, January.
    7. Carbone, Enrica & Infante, Gerardo, 2015. "Are groups better planners than individuals? An experimental analysis," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 112-119.
    8. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2013-045 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Enrica Carbone & Konstantinos Georgalos & Gerardo Infante, 2019. "Individual vs. group decision-making: an experiment on dynamic choice under risk and ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(1), pages 87-122, July.
    10. Koehler, Derek J. & Langstaff, Jesse & Liu, Wu-Qi, 2015. "A simulated financial savings task for studying consumption and retirement decision making," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 89-97.
    11. Carbone, Enrica & Duffy, John, 2014. "Lifecycle consumption plans, social learning and external habits: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 413-427.
    12. John Duffy & Enrica Carbone, 2013. "Lifecycle Consumption Plans, Social Learning and External Habits: Experimental Evidence," Working Paper 513, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh, revised Sep 2013.
    13. Florina Salaghe & Dimitra Papadovasilaki & Federico Guerrero & James Sundali, 2020. "Temptation and Retirement Accounts: A Story of Time Inconsistency and Bounded Rationality," Athens Journal of Business & Economics, Athens Institute for Education and Research (ATINER), vol. 6(3), pages 173-198, April.
    14. Kay Blaufus & Michael Milde, 2021. "Tax Misperceptions and the Effect of Informational Tax Nudges on Retirement Savings," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(8), pages 5011-5031, August.
    15. John Duffy & Yue Li, 2016. "Lifecycle Consumption Under Different Income Profiles: Experimental Evidence," Working Papers 161702, University of California-Irvine, Department of Economics.
    16. Brosig-Koch, Jeannette & Keldenich, Klemens, 2012. "The More You Know? – Consumption Behavior and the Communication of Economic Information," Ruhr Economic Papers 387, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    17. T. Ballinger & Eric Hudson & Leonie Karkoviata & Nathaniel Wilcox, 2011. "Saving behavior and cognitive abilities," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(3), pages 349-374, September.
    18. Feltovich, Nick & Ejebu, Ourega-Zoé, 2014. "Do positional goods inhibit saving? Evidence from a life-cycle experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PB), pages 440-454.
    19. Bachmann, Kremena & Lot, Andre & Xu, Xiaogeng & Hens, Thorsten, 2023. "Experimental Research on Retirement Decision-Making: Evidence from Replications," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    20. Enrique Fatás & Juan A. Lacomba & Francisco M. Lagos & Ana I. Moro, 2008. "Experimental tests on consumption, savings and pensions," ThE Papers 08/14, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    21. Ferruccio Ponzano & Roberto Ricciuti, 2018. "Growth and Inequality in an Experimental AK Model," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 4(2), pages 313-330, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior

    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:usi:labsit:043. 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: Alessandro Innocenti (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lasieit.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.