Advertisement

Experimental Economics

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 107–127 | Cite as

Eliciting Individual Discount Rates

  • Maribeth Coller
  • Melonie B. Williams
Article

Abstract

Controlled laboratory conditions using monetary incentives have been utilized in previous studies that examine individual discount rates, and researchers have found several apparently robust anomalies. We conjecture that subject behavior in these experiments may be affected by (uncontrolled) factors other than discount rates. We address some experimental design issues and report a new series of experiments designed to elicit individual discount rates. Our primary treatments include: (i) informing subjects of the annual and effective interest rates associated with alternative payment streams, and (ii) informing subjects of current market interest rates. We also test for the effect of real (vs. hypothetical) payments and for the effect of delaying both payment options (vs. offering an immediate payment option). The statistical analysis uses censored data techniques to account for the interactions between field and lab incentives. Each of the information treatments appears to reduce revealed discount rates. When both types of information are provided, annual rates in the interval of 15%–17.5% are revealed, whereas rates of 20%–25% are revealed in the control session. Each of the treatments also lowers the residual variance of subject responses.

experimental economics discount rates censored dependent variable 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ainslie, G. and Haendel, V. (1982). “The Motives of Will.” In E. Gottheil, K. Druley, T. Skolda, and H. Waxman (eds.), Etiologic Aspects of Alcohol and Drug Abuse. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  2. Benzion, U., Rapoport, A., and Yagil, J. (1989). “Discount Rates Inferred from Decisions: An Experimental Study.” Management Science. 35, 270–284.Google Scholar
  3. Camerer, C.F. and Ho, T. (1994). “Violations of the Betweeness Axiom and Nonlinearity in Probability.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 8, 67–196.Google Scholar
  4. Carlson, C.R. and Johnson, R.D. (1992). “Measuring Rate of Time Preference as a Function of Delay: An Experimental Study.” Unpublished Manuscript, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
  5. Fisher, I. (1930). The Theory of Interest. New York: McMillan.Google Scholar
  6. Gately, D. (1980). “Individual Discount Rates and the Purchase and Utilization of Energy-using Durables: Comment.” Bell Journal of Economics. 10, 373–374.Google Scholar
  7. Greene, W.H. (1993). Econometric Analysis. New York: McMillan.Google Scholar
  8. Greene, W.H. (1995). LIMDEP, Version 7.0: User's Manual. Plainview, NY: Econometric Software, Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Hartman, R.S. and Doane, M.J. (1986). “Household Discount Rates Revisited.” Quarterly Journal of Economics. 7, 139–148.Google Scholar
  10. Hausman, J.A. (1979). “Individual Discount Rates and the Purchase and Utilization of Energy-using Durables.” Bell Journal of Economics. 10, 33–54.Google Scholar
  11. Holcomb, J.H. and Nelson, P.S. (1992). “Another Experimental Look at Individual Time Preference.” Rationality and Society. 4, 199–220.Google Scholar
  12. Horowitz, J.K. (1991). “Discounting Money Payoffs: An Experimental Analysis.” Handbook of Behavioral Economics. 2B, 309–324.Google Scholar
  13. Kirby, K.N. and Marakoviċ, N.N. (1996). “Delay-Discounting Probabilistic Rewards: Rates Decrease as Amounts Increase.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 3(1), 100–104.Google Scholar
  14. Lawrance, E.C. (1991). “Poverty and the Rate of Time Preference.” Journal of Political Economy. 99(1), 54–77.Google Scholar
  15. Lazo, J.K., McClelland, G.H., and Schulze, W.D. (1992). “What is the FutureWorth: An Experimental Examination of Rates of Time Preference.” Unpublished Manuscript, Department of Economics, University of Colorado at Boulder.Google Scholar
  16. Loewenstein, G.F. (1987). “Anticipation and the Valuation of Delayed Consumption.” Economic Journal. 97, 666–684.Google Scholar
  17. Loewenstein, G.F. (1988). “Frames of Mind in Intertemporal Choice.” Management Science. 34, 200–214.Google Scholar
  18. Pender, J.L. (1996). “Discount Rates and Credit Markets: Theory and Evidence from Rural India.” Journal of Development Economics. 50, 257–296.Google Scholar
  19. Ruderman, H., Levine, M., and McMahon, J. (1986). “Energy-Efficiency Choice in the Purchase of Residential Appliances.” In Willett Kempton and Max Neiman (eds.), Energy Efficiency: Perspectives on Individual Behavior. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.Google Scholar
  20. Rutström, E. Elisabet. (1998). “Home-Grown Values and the Design of Incentive Compatible Auctions.” Journal of International Game Theory. 27, 427–441.Google Scholar
  21. Shelley, M.K. (1993). “Outcome Signs, Question Frames and Discount Rates.” Management Science. 39, 806–815.Google Scholar
  22. Thaler, R.H. (1981). “Some Empirical Evidence on Dynamic Inconsistency.” Economics Letters. 8, 201–207.Google Scholar
  23. Wagenaar, W.A. and Sagaria, S.D. (1975). “Misperception of Exponential Growth.” Perception and Psychophysics. 18(6), 416–422.Google Scholar
  24. Winston, G.C. and Woodbury, R.G. (1991). “Myopic Discounting: Empirical Evidence.” Handbook of Behavioral Economics. 2B, 325–342.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maribeth Coller
    • 1
  • Melonie B. Williams
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Accounting, The Darla Moore School of BusinessUniversity of South CarolinaColumbia
  2. 2.U. S. EPA, Office of PolicyWashington, DC

Personalised recommendations