Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

At the nexus of risk and time preferences: An experimental investigation

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

Abstract

Although many economic decisions involve choices between uncertain outcomes occurring at different times, most theoretical and empirical work restricts attention to one dimension or another. In this paper, we investigate whether both risk and time preferences can be represented by a single parameter. We collect experimental data to estimate models which allows for a disentanglement of risk and time preferences. Results reveal that the discounted expected utility model assumption, that risk and time preferences can be explained by a single parameter, is not supported by the data. The model estimates imply people prefer to delay the resolution of risky outcomes.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This roughly inverse relationship does have some empirical support. For example, Anderhub et al. (2001) found a negative correlation between risk and time preferences, in that more risk averse individuals tended to discount the future more heavily. Other psychologists have gone so far as to suggest that time and risk preferences both arise from a common underlying dimension, equating the discounting of future outcomes to the discounting of uncertain outcomes (e.g., Rachlin et al. 2000; Weber and Chapman 2005).

  2. Two individuals demonstrated a preference reversal and were excluded from the analysis.

  3. We have also considered a more flexible functional form for the μ t and V functions. In particular, we investigated a parameterization in which both functions were specified according to Holt and Laury’s (2002) power-expo form (see also Saha 1993). The power-expo form nests the CRRA form as a special case when one of the parameters is equal to zero. For both the μ t and V functions, we cannot reject the hypothesis that the parameter in question is different than zero, suggesting that the CRRA form is the preferred specification.

  4. The analysis in Holt and Laury (2002) does not consider the panel nature of their choice data. When we ignore the repeated nature of our data and omit the random effect in our likelihood function, we find an estimated value for α of about 0.45 which is very similar to the Holt and Laury (2002) estimate when one notes that the dollar amounts used in this study are about 5x the baseline values in Holt and Laury (2002). This suggests, at least in our data, that ignoring individual heterogeneity leads to an inflated estimate of the degree of relative risk aversion.

References

  • Ahlbrecht, M., & Weber, M. (1997). An empirical study on intertemporal decision making under risk. Management Science, 43, 813–826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderhub, V., Guth, W., Gneezy, U., & Sonsino, D. (2001). On the interaction of risk and time preference: an experimental study. German Economic Review, 2, 239–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2008). Eliciting risk and time preferences. Econometrica, 76, 583–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, L. R., & Stafford, S. L. (2009). Individual decision-making experiments with risk and intertemporal choice. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 38, 51–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. Y. (1993). Intertemporal asset pricing without consumption data. American Economic Review, 83, 487–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, G. B. (1996). Temporal discounting and utility for health and money. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 771–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesson, H., & Viscusi, W. K. (2000). The heterogeneity of time risk tradeoffs. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 251–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesson, H., & Viscusi, W. K. (2003). Commonalities in time and ambiguity aversion for long-term risks. Theory and Decision, 54, 57–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Cubbitt, R., & Read, D. (2007). Can intertemporal choice experiments elicit time preferences for consumption? Experimental Economics, 10, 369–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, L. G., & Zin, S. E. (1989). Substitution, risk aversion, and the temporal behavior of consumption and asset returns: a theoretical framework. Econometrica, 57, 937–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, L. G., & Zin, S. E. (1991). Substitution, risk aversion, and the temporal behavior of consumption and asset returns: an empirical analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 99, 263–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, S., & Loewenstein, G. (2008). Conflicting motives in evaluations of sequences. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 37, 221–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gollier, C. (2001). The economics of risk and time. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Williams, M. B. (2002). Estimating individual discount rates for Denmark: a field experiment. American Economic Review, 92, 1606–1617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hey, J. D., & Orme, C. (1994). Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica, 62, 1291–1326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hey, J. D., & Lotito, G. (2009). Naive, resolute or sophisticated? A study of dynamic decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 38, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92, 1644–1655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kocherlakota, N. R. (1990). Disentangling the coefficient of relative risk aversion from the elasticity of intertemporal substitution: an irrelevance result. Journal of Finance, 45, 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreps, D. M., & Porteus, E. L. (1978). Temporal resolution of uncertainty and dynamic choice theory. Econometrica, 46, 185–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lence, S. H. (2000). Using consumption and asset return data to estimate farmers’ time preferences and risk attitudes. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 82, 934–947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1973). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noussair, C., & Wu, P. (2006). Risk tolerance in the present and the future: an experimental study. Managerial and Decision Economics, 27, 401–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onay, S., & Oncüler, A. (2007). Intertemporal choice under timing risk: an experimental approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 34, 99–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rachlin, H., Brown, J., & Cross, D. (2000). Discounting in judgments of delay and probability. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 145–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Read, D. (2001). Is time-discounting hyperbolic or sub-additive? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 23, 5–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saha, A. (1993). Expo-power utility: a flexible form for absolute and relative risk aversion. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75, 905–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. (1937). A note on measurement of utility. Review of Economic Studies, 4, 155–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starmer, C. (2000). Developments in non-expected utility theory. Journal of Economic Literature, 38, 332–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, M. K. (1992). The impact of temporal context and risk on the judged value of future outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 455–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Summers, L., & Zeckhauser, R. (2008). Policymaking for posterity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 37, 115–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34, 273–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, B. J., & Chapman, G. B. (2005). The combined effects of risk and time on choice: does uncertainty eliminate the immediacy effect? Does delay eliminate the certainty effect? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 104–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weil, P. (1989). The equity premium puzzle and the risk-free rate puzzle. Journal of Monetary Economics, 24, 401–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agricultural Economics, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, 39762-9755, USA

    Keith H. Coble

  2. Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, 74078, USA

    Jayson L. Lusk

Authors
  1. Keith H. Coble
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jayson L. Lusk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keith H. Coble.

Additional information

Authors are Giles Distinguished Professor in the department of agricultural economics at Mississippi State University and professor and Willard Sparks Endowed Chair in the department of agricultural economics at Oklahoma State University, respectively.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Coble, K.H., Lusk, J.L. At the nexus of risk and time preferences: An experimental investigation. J Risk Uncertain 41, 67–79 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-010-9096-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-010-9096-7

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation