Skip to main content
Log in

Effect of a brief intervention on respondents’ subjective perception of time and discount rates

  • Published:
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ainslie, G., & Haslam, N. (1992). Hyperbolic discounting. In G. Loewenstein & J. Elster (Eds.), Choice over time (pp. 57–92). Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2014). Discounting behavior: A reconsideration. European Economic Review, 71, 15–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishai, D. M. (2004). Does time preference change with age? Population Economics, 17(4), 583–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S., & Mulligan, C. B. (1997). The endogenous determination of time preference. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(3), 729–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradford, W. D. (2010). The association between individual time preferences and health maintenance habits. Medical Decision Making, 30(1), 99–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Ericson, K. M., Laibson, D., & White, J. M. (2020). Measuring time preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 58(2), 299–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coller, M., & Williams, M. B. (1999). Eliciting individual discount rates. Experimental Economics, 2(2), 107–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferecatu, A., & Önçüler, A. (2016). Heterogeneous risk and time preferences. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 53(1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O’donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 351–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplow, L., & Weisbach, D. (2011). Discount rates, social judgments, individuals’ risk preferences, and uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 42(2), 125–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laibson, D. (1997). Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 443–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrance, E. C. (1991). Poverty and the rate of time preference: Evidence from panel data. Journal of Political Economy, 99(1), 54–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (1992). Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evidence and an interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(2), 573–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marko, K. W., & Savickas, M. L. (1998). Effectiveness of a career time perspective intervention. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52(1), 106–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106(1), 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prelec, D. (2004). Decreasing impatience: A criterion for Non-stationary time preference and “hyperbolic” discounting. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 106(3), 511–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Read, D. (2001). Is Time-Discounting Hyperbolic or Subadditive? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 23(1), 5–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, S. S. (1957). On the psychophysical law. Psychological Review, 64(3), 153–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strathman, A., & Joireman, J. (2006). Understanding behavior in the context of time: Theory, research, and application. Psychology Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Strotz, R. H. (1955). Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utility maximization. Review of Economic Studies, 23(3), 165–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walters, S. T., & Neighbors, C. (2005). Feedback interventions for college alcohol misuse: What, why and for whom? Addictive Behaviors, 30(6), 1168–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, J. T., & Pleeter, S. (2001). The personal discount rate: Evidence from military downsizing programs. The American Economic Review, 91(1), 33–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W. David Bradford.

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.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-022-09390-z

Keywords

JEL

Navigation