We design and conduct a real-effort experiment to jointly estimate present bias and sophistication across effort and monetary domains. Unlike prior work (e.g.,Augenblick and Rabin, 2019; Fedyk, 2024), we do not assume that these parameters are identical across domains. We explain and empirically demonstrate how assuming identical sophistication across money and effort domains can bias the estimates of key parameters. In our online experiment, participants chose to (predicted to) complete 14% (10%) fewer tasks on the same day than on a future day, leading to an estimated present bias ($\beta_e$) over effort of 0.70–0.79, and an estimated sophistication ($\widehat{\beta}_e$) of 0.80–0.88. For money, aggregate present bias ($\beta_m$) is near zero, but there is substantial heterogeneity, with roughly equal numbers of participants exhibiting present bias and future bias. At the individual level, roughly three quarters of all participants correctly anticipate the direction of their bias in both domains, even if not its full magnitude.

Our decisions frequently involve combinations of gains and losses occurring at different points in time, such as enduring early losses for future gains (investments) or enjoying immediate gains at the expense of future losses (loans). This research introduces novel experiments that examine how binary intertemporal payment options, framed as either investments or loans, influence decision-making. Each option comprised two payment components: common payments, which are identical between the options, and focal payments, which vary between the options. Through strategic manipulation of these payments, the research explores how Investment or Loan frames affect time preferences. Our three studies consistently indicate that the common payments tend to be disregarded and thus the preferences are affected by framing. Notably, this remained true even when common payments were substantial (Study 2), and the framing effect was also found in scenarios where decisions carried real financial consequences (Study 3).

The effectiveness of health recommendations and treatments depends on the extent to which individuals follow them. For each individual, medical adherence involves an inter-temporal trade-off between expected future health benefits and immediate effort costs. Therefore variation in time preferences may help us understand why and not least which people fail to follow health recommendations and treatments. We develop a novel, yet simple real-effort time-preference task implemented via text message among pregnant women in South Africa and show that behavior in the task predicts medical adherence. We find that planning to do the task with delay significantly lowers self-reported adherence to the recommendation of taking daily iron supplements during pregnancy. There is weaker indication that delaying the task longer than initially planned also negatively affects adherence. Together our results suggest that even simple measures of time preferences could help predict medication adherence and is a first step toward designing targeted policies to help improve medication adherence, healthcare outcomes, and welfare.

We develop and validate a survey instrument to elicit six key economic preferences in children: undefined time preferences, risk preferences, altruism, positive reciprocity, negative reciprocity, and trust. The survey was administered to a sample of 339 nine-year-old children, for whom we also collected behavioral data through incentivized choice experiments targeting the same preferences. Our econometric analysis allows us to identify a set of 14 survey items that best predict children’s experimental behavior. For each preference, we also compare the predictive power of this 14-item validated survey to a shorter 9-item self-evaluation version. Our results demonstrate that these surveys provide a simple and reliable tool for measuring individual preferences in children – enabling researchers to account for heterogeneity when designing and evaluating policies targeting younger populations.

The use of real decision-making incentives remains under debate after decades of economic experiments. In time preferences experiments involving future payments, real incentives are particularly problematic due to between-options differences in transaction costs, among other issues. What if hypothetical payments provide accurate data which, moreover, avoid transaction cost problems? In this paper, we test whether the use of hypothetical or one-out-of-ten-participants probabilistic—versus real—payments affects the elicitation of short-term and long-term discounting in a standard multiple price list task. We analyze data from a lab experiment in Spain and well-powered field and online experiments in Nigeria and the UK, respectively (N = 2,038). Our results indicate that the preferences elicited using the three payment methods are mostly the same: we can reject that either hypothetical or one-out-of-ten payments change any of the four preference measures considered by more than 0.18 SD with respect to real payments.

The COVID-19 pandemic presents a remarkable opportunity to put to work all of the research that has been undertaken in past decades on the elicitation and structural estimation of subjective belief distributions as well as preferences over atemporal risk, patience, and intertemporal risk. As contributors to elements of that research in laboratories and the field, we drew together those methods and applied them to an online, incentivized experiment in the United States. We have two major findings. First, the atemporal risk premium during the COVID-19 pandemic appeared to change significantly compared to before the pandemic, consistent with theoretical results of the effect of increased background risk on foreground risk attitudes. Second, subjective beliefs about the cumulative level of deaths evolved dramatically over the period between May and November 2020, a volatile one in terms of the background evolution of the pandemic.

We present experimental evidence regarding individual and group decisions over time. Static and longitudinal methods are combined to test four conditions on time preferences: impatience, stationarity, age independence, and dynamic consistency. Decision making in groups should favor coordination via communication about voting intentions. We find that individuals are neither patient nor consistent, that groups are both patient and highly consistent, and that information exchange between participants helps groups converge to stable decisions. Finally we provide additional evidence showing that our results are driven by the specific role of groups and not by either repeated choices or individual preferences when choosing for other subjects.

We elicited incentivized measures of risk and time preferences from a sample of undergraduate students in Athens, Greece, in waves that preceded and overlapped with the COVID-19 pandemic. We exploited the timing of several events that occurred in the course of the pandemic (e.g., first occurrence of cases and deaths, curfew, relaxation of curfew etc.) and estimated structural parameters for various theories of risk and time preferences comparing these with pre-pandemic estimates. We find no effect between the different waves or other key events of the pandemic, despite the fact that we have about 1000 responses across all waves. Overall, our subjects exhibit intertemporal stability of risk and time preferences despite the significant effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on public health and the global economy.

In rural China, male offspring are traditionally regarded as the primary heirs of household assets, particularly land. This study examines the impact of offspring gender composition on long-term agricultural investment behavior, using commercial organic fertilizer application as an example of a strategic long-term investment in farmland. Based on cross-sectional data from 4090 rice farming households across 10 cities (counties) in Hubei province, collected between 2021 and 2023, this analysis identifies three key findings. First, the absence of male offspring significantly reduces long-term agricultural investments, a result that remains robust even when addressing potential endogeneity biases using instrumental variable techniques. Second, households without male heirs exhibit stronger present-oriented preferences and diminished social capital, which further hinder long-term agricultural investments. Third, the negative impact of not having male offspring is more pronounced when the current agricultural decision-maker is male and when land marketization is underdeveloped. These findings underscore the complex interplay between gender norms and agricultural behavior, revealing significant socioeconomic implications of inheritance practices. The study provides insights into addressing these challenges by emphasizing the importance of promoting gender equality and advancing land marketization to enhance equitable land use and support long-term agricultural investment.

We convey our experiences developing and implementing an online experiment to elicit subjective beliefs and economic preferences. The COVID-19 pandemic and associated closures of our laboratories required us to conduct an online experiment in order to collect beliefs and preferences associated with the pandemic in a timely manner. Since we had not previously conducted a similar multi-wave online experiment, we faced design and implementation considerations that are not present when running a typical laboratory experiment. By discussing these details more fully, we hope to contribute to the online experiment methodology literature at a time when many other researchers may be considering conducting an online experiment for the first time. We focus primarily on methodology; in a complementary study we focus on initial research findings.

The personal experience of events such as financial crises and natural disasters can alter economic preferences. We administered a repeated cross-sectional preference survey during the early stages of the COVID-19 outbreak, collecting three bi-weekly samples from participants recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk. The survey elicits economic preferences, self-reported fear of the pandemic, and beliefs about economic and health consequences. Preferences varied over time and across regions, and self-reported fear of the pandemic explains this variation. These findings suggest caution about the generalizability of some types of experimental work during times of heightened fear.

We measure time preferences in a sample of 561 children aged 7–11 years. Using a within-subject design, we compare the behavior of our subjects using two distinct experimental measures of time preferences: a standard choice list with multiple decisions and a single choice time-investment-exercise requiring one decision only. We find that both measures yield very similar aggregate results, correlate significantly within subjects and can be explained by basically the same explanatory variables. Advantages and disadvantages of both measures are discussed. Our findings are relevant for the design of experiments to measure time preferences.

Many studies have investigated the role of socio-demographic factors (including gender, age, race), cognitive ability and cultural factors on time and risk preferences. Yet, research regarding the effect of mindfulness on risk and time preferences has been limited. This study investigates the association between mindfulness and time/risk preferences. We conducted a survey on a representative sample of the French adult population (N = 1154) in Spring 2020. We assessed individual mindfulness through the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS), and measured time and risk preferences with incentive-compatible economic games as well as self-reported questionnaires. Our results suggest that a higher level of mindfulness is associated with higher risk aversion and patience for stated preferences, but we found no relationship for revealed ones. We also observe that a higher level of mindfulness is related to greater time consistency, as we found a negative and significant association between the MAAS and the present and future biases.

This paper is about time preferences, the phenomenon that the very same things are usually considered the less valuable the farther in the future they are obtained. The utilities of those things are discounted at a certain rate. The paper presents a novel normative argument for exponential discount rates, whatever their empirical adequacy. It proposes to take indexical utility seriously, i.e. utilities referring to indexical propositions (that speak of ‘I’, ‘now’, etc.) as opposed to non-indexical propositions. Economic focus is only on the latter, while the former are neglected. The potential ignorance of when is now generates a difference between indexical and non-indexical utility that can be exploited for a novel argument in favour of exponential discount rates.

Time preferences may explain public opinion about a wide range of long-term policy problems with costs and benefits realized in the distant future. However, mass publics may discount these costs and benefits because they are later or because they are more uncertain. Standard methods to elicit individual-level time preferences tend to conflate risk and time attitudes and are susceptible to social desirability bias. A potential solution relies on a costly lab-experimental method, convex time budgets (CTB). We present and experimentally validate an affordable version of this approach for implementation in mass surveys. We find that the theoretically preferred CTB patience measure predicts attitudes toward a local, delayed investment problem but fails to predict support for more complex, future-oriented policies.

Critiques of the meritocracy have centered on its narrow definition and biased assessment of merit, its stigmatization of the unsuccessful, and excessive competition. This paper identifies a different mechanism that could have pernicious social and political consequences. Economic mobility sorts people based on certain ‘productive’ traits, separating them into classes, and thus alters social externalities. This sorting–separation–externalities mechanism can produce between-class polarization in social outcomes (e.g. alcoholism and drug abuse) and worsen aggregate outcomes over all classes, consistent with rising ‘deaths of despair’ in the United States (Case and Deaton, 2020, Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. Princeton University Press). When traits are endogenous, transition out of a caste-based society produces an initial burst of economic mobility which dissipates over time. Thus, a dynamic meritocratic society devolves into a static class-based society. I set out an alternative model called the ‘experimental society’, which is less susceptible to these problems.