Abstract
Time discounting is a fundamental characteristic of human decision-making. In general, the literature finds that individuals with lower discount rates are more likely to exhibit healthy behaviors such as saving for the future, exercising, acquiring more education and making other decisions that have long-term benefits. Recent evidence suggests there may be at least two pathways by which individual’s underlying behavioral discount rate may be realized: non-linearities in the intertemporal utility function (standard discounting behavior) and non-linearities in the perception of time. We conducted an experiment on Amazon Mechanical Turk (N = 1000) to evaluate whether discount rates could be modified through an educational intervention. In the experiment, the treatment group had to calculate rates of return for a six-month period for a series of investment vehicles with varying rates of returns including a savings account, a bank certificate of deposit, government bond, mutual fund, and mutual sector fund. The results indicate that even one week after treatment, the intervention group’s discount rates were significantly lower than the control group’s discount rates. This has important implications for the possibility of designing interventions to lower individual discount rates.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ainslie, G. (1991). Derivation of" rational" economic behavior from hyperbolic discount curves. The American Economic Review, 81(2), 334–340.
Ainslie, G., & Haslam, N. (1992). Hyperbolic discounting. In G. Loewenstein & J. Elster (Eds.), Choice over time (pp. 57–92). Russell Sage Foundation.
Alan, S., & Ertac, S. (2014). Good things come to those who (are taught how to) wait: Results from a randomized educational intervention on time preference. Available at SSRN 2566405.
Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2008). Eliciting risk and time preferences. Econometrica, 76(3), 583–618.
Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2014). Discounting behavior: A reconsideration. European Economic Review, 71, 15–33.
Barsky, R. B., Juster, F. T., Kimball, M. S., & Shapiro, M. D. (1997). Preference parameters and behavioral heterogeneity: An experimental approach in the health and retirement study. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 537–579.
Bishai, D. M. (2004). Does time preference change with age? Population Economics, 17(4), 583–602.
Becker, G. S., & Mulligan, C. B. (1997). The endogenous determination of time preference. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(3), 729–758.
Bradford, W. D. (2010). The association between individual time preferences and health maintenance habits. Medical Decision Making, 30(1), 99–112.
Bradford, W. D., Dolan, P., & Galizzi, M. M. (2019). Looking ahead: Subjective time perception and individual discounting. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 58(1), 43–69.
Carey, K. B., Carey, M. P., Maisto, S. A., & Henson, J. M. (2006). Brief motivational interventions for heavy college drinkers: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(5), 943.
Chapman, G. B., & Coups, E. J. (1999). Time preferences and preventive health behavior: Acceptance of the influenza vaccine. Medical Decision Making, 19(3), 307–314.
Chesson, H. W., Leichliter, J. S., Zimet, G. D., Rosenthal, S. L., Bernstein, D. I., & Fife, K. H. (2006). Discount rates and risky sexual behaviors among teenagers and young adults. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 32(3), 217–230.
Cohen, J., Ericson, K. M., Laibson, D., & White, J. M. (2020). Measuring time preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 58(2), 299–347.
Coller, M., & Williams, M. B. (1999). Eliciting individual discount rates. Experimental Economics, 2(2), 107–127.
Ferecatu, A., & Önçüler, A. (2016). Heterogeneous risk and time preferences. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 53(1), 1–28.
Ferrari, L., Nota, L., & Soresi, S. (2012). Evaluation of an intervention to foster time perspective and career decidedness in a group of Italian adolescents. The Career Development Quarterly, 60(1), 82–96.
Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O’donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 351–401.
Hall, P. A., & Fong, G. T. (2003). The effects of a brief time perspective intervention for increasing physical activity among young adults. Psychology and Health, 18(6), 685–706.
Kaplow, L., & Weisbach, D. (2011). Discount rates, social judgments, individuals’ risk preferences, and uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 42(2), 125–143.
Kirby, K. N., & Maraković, N. N. (1995). Modeling myopic decisions: Evidence for hyperbolic delay-discounting within subjects and amounts. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64(1), 22–30.
Laibson, D. (1997). Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 443–478.
Laury, S. K., McInnes, M. M., & Todd Swarthout, J. (2012). Avoiding the curves: Direct elicitation of time preferences. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 44(3), 181–217.
Lawrance, E. C. (1991). Poverty and the rate of time preference: Evidence from panel data. Journal of Political Economy, 99(1), 54–77.
Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (1992). Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evidence and an interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(2), 573–597.
Maital, S., & Maital, S. (1976). Time preference, delay of gratification and the intergenerational transmission of economic inequality: A behavioral theory of income distribution. Department of Economics, Tel-Aviv University.
Marko, K. W., & Savickas, M. L. (1998). Effectiveness of a career time perspective intervention. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52(1), 106–119.
Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106(1), 3.
Nurmi, J. -E. (2005). Thinking About and Acting Upon the Future: Development of Future Orientation Across the Life Span. In A. Strathman & J. Joireman (Eds.), Understanding behavior in the context of time: Theory, research, and application (pp. 31–57). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Park, I. -J., Rie, J., Kim, H. S., & Park, J. (2020). Effects of a future time perspective–based career intervention on career decisions. Journal of Career Development, 47(1), 96–110.
Prelec, D. (2004). Decreasing impatience: A criterion for Non-stationary time preference and “hyperbolic” discounting. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 106(3), 511–532.
Read, D. (2001). Is Time-Discounting Hyperbolic or Subadditive? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 23(1), 5–32.
Stevens, S. S. (1957). On the psychophysical law. Psychological Review, 64(3), 153–181.
Strathman, A., & Joireman, J. (2006). Understanding behavior in the context of time: Theory, research, and application. Psychology Press.
Strotz, R. H. (1955). Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utility maximization. Review of Economic Studies, 23(3), 165–180.
Viscusi, W. K., Huber, J., & Bell, J. (2008). Estimating discount rates for environmental quality from utility-based choice experiments. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 37(2–3), 199–220.
Walters, S. T., & Neighbors, C. (2005). Feedback interventions for college alcohol misuse: What, why and for whom? Addictive Behaviors, 30(6), 1168–1182.
Warner, J. T., & Pleeter, S. (2001). The personal discount rate: Evidence from military downsizing programs. The American Economic Review, 91(1), 33–53.
Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (2004). Do pretty women inspire men to discount the future? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences, 271(suppl_4), S177–S179.
Funding
This research was not supported by any extramural funds, and no entity other than the authors had input into the conduct of the research or manuscript preparation. The research was conducted under the oversight of the Institutional Review Board of the California State University – Fullerton campus.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of Interests
Neither W. David Bradford nor Meriem Hodge Doucette have any conflicts of interest to declare.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Bradford, W.D., Doucette, M.H. Effect of a brief intervention on respondents’ subjective perception of time and discount rates. J Risk Uncertain 66, 47–75 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-022-09390-z
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-022-09390-z