Abstract
This article examines the effects of time preferences on job search behaviour and tests the exponential versus the hyperbolic discounting model. Theoretically, the relations between time preferences and job search intensity, reservation wages and the exit rate depend on whether exponential or hyperbolic discounting is assumed. By analysing these relations empirically we test which model of intertemporal choice better explains the results. Using the DNB Household Survey, a Dutch longitudinal survey, we capture variation in time preferences by a psychological construct that measures an individual’s future orientation. The empirical results are consistent with the hyperbolic discounting model.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In addition to the hyperbolic discounting model, several alternative models have been proposed (for a review, see: Doyle 2013).
Although we refer here to \(\beta -\delta \) models (quasi-hyperbolic discounting), the theoretical results hold for (continuous) hyperbolic discounting as well (DV&P, p.542).
Here we focus on the main intuition and predictions of the model; see DV&P for the formal derivations of the hypotheses.
In the analysis using the NLSY, the following indicators are used: having money in a checking or saving account; contraceptive use; having a life insurance; smoking; number of hangovers; participation in vocational clubs in high school; whether the interviewer specified that the respondent’s attitude was ‘impatient and restless’.
In the study of Halima and Halima (2009) these reliability indicators are 0.536 and 0.06 respectively.
It is not necessary that households have a PC or internet: when a PC is absent, access is provided through a special box which enables household members to fill in the survey via the television.
In each wave, respondents are asked the following question: “Are you currently looking for a(nother) job?” Potential answers are: (1)“Yes, I am seriously searching for a(nother) job”; (2)“Yes, I am considering searching for a(nother) job”; (3)“No, I just found another job”; (4)“No, I am not looking”. When their answer is (1) or (2) they are included in the analyses.
The original CFC Scale uses a 5-point scale and consists of twelve rather than eleven statements. However, this twelfth item is missing in the waves 1996–2003 and is therefore not included in the analysis.
Most studies in intertemporal choice measure discounting in an experimental setting and use monetary tasks, where subjects have the option to choose between smaller, more immediate rewards and larger, but more delayed rewards.
The Cronbach reliability measure and the average interitem correlation are considerably larger than the ones obtained in the study of DV&P and of Halima and Halima (2009). This suggests that the FUTURE items are substantially more precise.
To compute the five year average for the years 1998–2005, next to the patience variable of year t, two lags and two leads are used. If one of the five patience variables was missing, a four year window is used instead. This procedure is repeated, using a three year window, two year window and finally the patience level of year t. For the first and last years a four year window is used: 1996 (three leads), 1997 (one lag and two leads), 2006 (two lags and one lead), 2007 (two lags and the 2009 wave), 2008 (two lags, two leads), 2009 (one lead and two lags—the 2006 and 2007 waves) and 2010 (two lags—the 2007 and 2009 waves).
A respondent may be unemployed in wave x and not complete all answers on the FUTURE items. However, this respondent may be employed in another wave and provide answers the FUTURE items in wave y. In that case the observation is missing for the patience variable but available for the patience sum variable.
For the 2008 wave, the average between the 2007 and 2009 patience variable is used. If the variable was missing in either 2007 or 2009, a lead or lag was imputed instead.
To generate these variables information is obtained from the questions “How many times have you applied for a job during the last two months” and “How have you searched for a job during the last two months?” (up to eight different methods).
Since the number of applications and channels can be considered as count data, the models using these dependent variables are also estimated with a negative binomial regression. This leads to similar results.
Only the results using patience sum are presented here: for the original patience variable, the number of observations is rather low and the results are inconsistent.
The marginal effects turn only just insignificant at higher levels of patience.
References
Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M., & Rutström, E. E. (2013). Discounting behavior: A reconsideration. In Working paper.
Andreoni, J., & Sprenger, C. (2012). Estimating time preferences with convex budgets. American Economic Review, 102(7), 3333–3356.
Augenblick, N., Niederle, M., & Sprenger, C. (2013). Working over time: Dynamic inconsistency in real effort tasks. In NBER working paper 18734.
Babcock, L., Congdon, W. J., Katz, L. F., & Mullainathan, S. (2012). Notes on behavioral economics and labor market policy. IZA Journal of Labor Policy, 1(2), 1–14.
Borghans, L., & Golsteyn, B. H. H. (2006). Time discounting and the body mass index: Evidence from the Netherlands. Economics & Human Biology, 4(1), 39–61.
Bloemen, H. G. (2002). The relation between wealth and labour market transitions: An empirical study for the Netherlands. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 17(3), 249–268.
Bloemen, H. G. (2005). Job search, search intensity, and labor market transitions: An empirical analysis. Journal of Human Resources, 40(1), 232.
Blundell, R., Magnac, T., & Meghir, C. (1997). Savings and labor-market transitions. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 15(2), 153–164.
Brown, A. L., Chua, Z. E., & Camerer, C. F. (2009). Learning and visceral temptation in dynamic saving experiments. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(1), 197–231.
Card, D., Kluve, J., & Weber, A. (2010). Active labour market policy evaluations: A meta-analysis. The Economic Journal, 120(548), F452–F477.
Cockx, B., Ghirellia, C., & Van der Linden, B. (2014). Is it socially efficient to impose job search requirements on unemployed benefit claimants with hyperbolic preferences? Journal of Public Economics, 113, 80–95.
Daly, M., Harmon, C. P., & Delaney, L. (2009). Psychological and biological foundations of time preference. Journal of the European Economic Association, 7(2–3), 659–669.
DellaVigna, S. (2009). Psychology and economics: Evidence from the field. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 315–372.
DellaVigna, S., & Paserman, M. D. (2005). Job search and impatience. Journal of Labor Economics, 23(3), 527–588.
Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., & Sunde, U. (2012). Interpreting time horizon effects in inter-temporal choice. In IZA Discussion Paper No. 6385.
Doyle, J. R. (2013). Survey of time preference, delay discounting models. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(2), 116–135.
Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O’Donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 351–401.
Halima, B. B., & Halima, B. M. A. B. (2009). Time preferences and job search: Evidence from France. Labour, 23(3), 535–558.
Krueger, A. B., & Mueller, A. (2010). Job search and unemployment insurance: New evidence from time use data. Journal of Public Economics, 94(3–4), 298–307.
Laibson, D. (1997). Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 443–477.
McClure, S. M., Ericson, K. M., Laibson, D. I., Loewenstein, G., & Cohen, J. (2007). Time discounting for primary rewards. Journal of Neuroscience, 27(21), 5796–5804.
Meier, S., & Sprenger, C. (2010). Present-biased preferences and credit card borrowing. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2(1), 193–210.
Mortensen, D. T. (2011). Markets with search friction and the DMP model. American Economic Review, 101(4), 1073–1091.
O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (1999). Doing it now or later. American Economic Review, 89(1), 103–124.
O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (2001). Choice and procrastination. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 121–160.
Pannenberg, M. (2010). Risk attitudes and reservation wages of unemployed workers: Evidence from panel data. Economic Letters, 106(3), 223–226.
Paserman, M. D. (2008). Job search and hyperbolic discounting: Structural estimation and policy evaluation. Economic Journal, 118(531), 1418–1452.
Read, D. (2001). Is time discounting hyperbolic or subadditive? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 23(1), 5–32.
Rubinstein, A. (2003). “Economics and psychology?” The case of hyperbolic discounting. International Economic Review, 44(4), 1207–1216.
Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D. S., & Edwards, C. S. (1994). The consideration of future consequences: Weighing immediate rewards and distant outcomes of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(4), 742–752.
Strotz, R. H. (1956). Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utility maximization. Review of Economic Studies, 23(3), 165–180.
Tatsiramos, K., & Van Ours, J. C. (2012). Labor market effects of unemployment insurance design. Journal of Economic Surveys (forthcoming).
Thaler, R. H. (1981). Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency. Economic Letters, 8(3), 201–207.
Van der Klaauw, B., & Van Ours, J. C. (2013). Carrot and stick: How re-employment bonuses and benefit sanctions affect exit rates from welfare. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 28(2), 275–296.
Van der Klaauw, B., & Van Vuuren, A. (2010). Job search and academic achievement. European Economic Review, 54(2), 294–316.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The authors would like to thank Rob Alessie, participants of the SABE San Diego Conference and the XXV Annual ESPE Conference and two anonymous referees for helpful comments and suggestions. This study is part of the research programme ‘Life course, social security and the labour market’ at Utrecht University. Financial support from Stichting Instituut Gak is gratefully acknowledged.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
van Huizen, T., Plantenga, J. Job Search Behaviour and Time Preferences: Testing Exponential Versus Hyperbolic Discounting. De Economist 162, 223–245 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10645-014-9231-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10645-014-9231-y