1. Hyperbolic discounting : Some old results; some recent results; some interpretation Daniel Read (WBS) Yael Grushka-Cockayne (Darden) Lisheng He (WBS) Umar Taj (WBS)

2. Intertemporal choices NOW SOME YEARS HENCE Choices between outcomes that occur at different times. Usually a trade off between smaller-sooner (SS) and larger-later (LL) outcomes.

3. Diversity of intertemporal choices Employment now or Education now and work later Misery now or Purgatory later Submit research now or wait for definitive findings Children now or Children later Carbon reduction now or mitigation later Smoke now or Live longer Dessert now or Slender Later £100 now or £150 in one year

4. Typical intertemporal choice question €200 Today€____ in 2 years What would you demand in 2 years in exchange for giving up € 200 today? Write down your answer

5. Measuring your annual “discount rate” % (Up to)€N 2%208 4%216 8%233 16%269 24%307 48%438 > 48%>438 £ 200 versus £ ______ in two years Write down your discount rate.

6. What are your reasons?

7. “I am impulsive, and 2 years is a long time to wait.” “I could use it to buy my wife/husband/SO/child a gift.” “I need the money now;” “I don’t need the money now.” “I can earn more by investing the money.”

8. Normative theory: Intertemporal choices for money and market goods Determine the opportunity cost of money? The interest rate currently being earned (for savers) or paid (by borrowers) If offered a return more than you are earning in your savings account, you should take the later outcome. Otherwise take the earlier one.

9. I had a reduction schedule carefully worked out. It was supposed to take twelve days. I had the junk [heroin] in solution, and in another bottle distilled water. Every time I took a dropper of solution out to use it, I put the same amount of distilled water in the junk solution bottle. Eventually I would be shooting plain water. Four days later in Cincinnati, I was out of junk and immobilized. I have never known one of these self- administered reduction cures to work. You find reasons to make each shot an exception that calls for a little extra junk. Finally, the junk is all gone and you still have your habit. Inconsistent preferences due to time From Junky

10. 10 A “classic” study Office workers chose between junk food or a piece of fruit. One week before, and then immediately before, consumption. 530 kCal per 100 g 95 kCal per 100 g

11. 11 The results Read & Van Leeuwen, 1998; See also Kirby and Herrnstein, 1995.

12. Distribution of choice patterns P(H|Switch) = 93% P(A|Switch) = 7%

13. Vice (SS) Virtue (LL) Decision utility Good intentions Vicious Impulse Preference reversal Earlier  Time  Later Hyperbolic discounting

14. But does that study provide evidence for hyperbolic discounting? Both kinds of food available at the same time. We must assume a difference in reward distribution for the Junk and Healthy food.

15. Assumption underlying the hyperbolic discounting interpretation The utility distribution from junk food is more ‘front loaded’ and adds up to less than the distribution from fruit. Instantaneous utility / value Time

16. Thaler’s (1981) example A thought experiment: Often replicated … in thought

17. Our study

18. Results: When the blue bar is higher we have the “apple” effect.

19. Choice pattern groups p(A|Switch) =.47 p(H|Switch) =.53

20. Two Conclusions Average apple choice: 78% now, 80% in one year. Very weak evidence of hyperbolic discounting. Many people want one apple in a year. Thought experiments are not always the best way to learn about the world

21. Studies using Google Consumer Surveys

26. EVERY study in first wave showed anti- hyperbolic discounting

27. Not the presence of an “indifference” option

28. Not simply unusually large magnitudes or delays

29. What do people do when they are “indifferent”? They disproportionately choose SS.

30. Amount or Delay within subjects? This made no difference! Replicated with UK sample provided by marketing firm.

31. Percent choosing LL – “anti-hyperbolic” effect is very large.

32. Effect of Cognitive ability (CRT score)

33. Effect of age?

34. More on age Now-1 year 1 year – 2 year

35. Pakistan panel: N=2028, National representative sample Suppose that you were to receive some money. If you receive the money today you will get Rs. 500, but if you wait one month you will receive Rs. 750. If you receive the money in six months you will get Rs. 500, but if you wait seven months you will receive Rs. 750.

36. Pakistan Wave 1

37. Pakistan Wave 2

38. Conclusion Impulsivity is observed when trading off “virtues” and “vices” Hyperbolic discounting explains this effect, but only occasionally choices for money. – Anti-hyperbolic discounting common – No effect of delay to outcome common – Common experience of temptation or impulsivity requires explanation Also, discounting varies among outcomes. We are patient about library books, less patient about heroin. (If we want both heroin and library books)

39. What produces “hyperbolic” discounting? 1.Emotions/”visceral” factors 2.Psychophysics 3.Multi-criteria discounting

40. 1. Visceral arousal/emotions

41. 2. Psychophysics Psychophysics: Intervals seem smaller when delayed, and can become “peanuts”.

42. Psychophysics for other outcomes is uncontroversial Diminishing marginal utility/marginal value for money

43. 3. Multi-dimensional discounting Outcomes are typically multi-dimensional. The value of each dimension changes as a function of delay at different rates. Implication: Time inconsistency If the value change is negative (discounting) Implication: Hyperbolic discounting

44. p q Taste Health

45. p q Money

46. Preference reversals caused by dimension-dependent discounting

47. Any questions? I still don’t know what causes “anti” hyperbolic discounting.

49. How do students compare to the rest of the UK?