Experimental Economics

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 181–208 | Cite as

Patience and time consistency in collective decisions

  • Laurent Denant-Boemont
  • Enrico Diecidue
  • Olivier l’Haridon
Original Paper


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.


Time preferences Dynamic consistency Present-bias Group decisions 

JEL Classification

C92 D90 D03 

Supplementary material

10683_2016_9481_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (53 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 53 kb)
10683_2016_9481_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (303 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 303 kb)
10683_2016_9481_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (39 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 40 kb)


  1. Abdellaoui, M., Bleichrodt, H., & l’Haridon, O. (2013). Sign-dependence in intertemporal choice. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 47, 225–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreoni, J., & Sprenger, C. (2012a). Estimating time preferences from convex budgets. The American Economic Review, 102, 3333–3356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreoni, J., & Sprenger, C. (2012b). Risk preferences are not time preferences. American Economic Review, 102, 3357–3376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Augenblick, N., Niederle, M., & Sprenger, C. (2015). Working over time: Dynamic inconsistency in real effort tasks. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130, 1067–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baucells, M., & Heukamp, F. H. (2012). Probability and time trade-off. Management Science, 58, 831–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benzion, U., Rapoport, A., & Yagil, J. (1989). Discount rates inferred from decisions: An experimental study. Management Science, 35, 270–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bleichrodt, H., & Johannesson, M. (2001). Time preference for health: A test of stationarity versus decreasing timing aversion. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 45, 265–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bleichrodt, H., Rohde, K. I., & Wakker, P. P. (2008). Koopmans’ constant discounting for intertemporal choice: A simplification and a generalization. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 52, 341–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bleichrodt, H., Rohde, K. I., & Wakker, P. P. (2009). Non-hyperbolic time inconsistency. Games and Economic Behavior, 66, 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bostic, R., Herrnstein, R. J., & Luce, R. D. (1990). The effect on the preference-reversal phenomenon of using choice indifferences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 13, 193–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brandts, J., & Cooper, D. J. (2006). A change would do you good.. An experimental study on how to overcome coordination failure in organizations. American Economic Review, 96, 669–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Caplin, A., & Leahy, J. (2004). The supply of information by a concerned expert. The Economic Journal, 114, 487–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carlsson, F., He, H., Martinsson, P., Qin, P., & Sutter, M. (2012). Household decision making in rural China: Using experiments to estimate the influences of spouses. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 84(2), 525–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Casari, M., & Dragone, D. (2015). Choice reversal without temptation: A dynamic experiment on time preferences. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 50, 119–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quarterly journal of Economics, 117(3), 817–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Charness, G., & Sutter, M. (2012). Groups make better self-interested decisions. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26, 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coller, M., & Williams, M. B. (1999). Eliciting individual discount rates. Experimental Economics, 2, 107–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cooper, D. J., & Kagel, J. H. (2005). Are two heads better than one? Team versus individual play in signaling games. American Economic Review, 95(33), 477–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. DellaVigna, S. (2009). Psychology and economics: Evidence from the field. Journal of Economic Literature, 47, 315–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Denant-Boemont, L., & Loheac, Y. (2011). Time and teams: An experimental study about group inter-temporal choice. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  21. Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., & Sunde, U. (2010). Are risk aversion and impatience related to cognitive ability? American Economic Review, 100, 1238–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Epper, T., & Fehr-Duda, H. (2012). The missing link: Unifying risk taking and time discounting. Department of Economics, University of Zurich, Working Paper.Google Scholar
  23. Epper, T., Fehr-Duda, H., & Bruhin, A. (2011). Viewing the future through a warped lens: Why uncertainty generates hyperbolic discounting. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 43, 169–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fishburn, P. C., & Rubinstein, A. (1982). Time preference. International Economic Review, 23, 677–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Forsythe, R., Myerson, R. B., Rietz, T. A., & Weber, R. J. (1993). An experiment on coordination in multi-candidate elections: The importance of polls and election histories. Social Choice and Welfare, 10, 223–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O’donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of economic literature, 40, 351–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gerardi, D., & Yariv, L. (2007). Deliberative voting. Journal of Economic Theory, 134, 317–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Giné, X., Goldberg, J., Silverman, D., & Yang, D. (2014). Revising Commitments: Field evidence on the adjustment of prior choices. Working paper, World Bank.Google Scholar
  30. Glaeser, E. L., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Extremism and social learning. Journal of Legal Analysis, 1, 263–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Goeree, J. K., & Yariv, L. (2011). An experimental study of collective deliberation. Econometrica, 79, 893–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gollier, C., & Zeckhauser, R. (2005). Aggregation of heterogeneous time preferences. Journal of Political Economy, 113, 878–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Halevy, Y. (2008). Strotz meets Allais: Diminishing impatience and the certainty effect. American Economic Review, 98(3), 1145–1162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Halevy, Y. (2015). Time consistency: Stationarity and time invariance. Econometrica, 83, 335–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Holcomb, J. H., & Nelson, P. S. (1992). Another experimental look at individual time preference. Rationality and Society, 4, 199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Horowitz, J. K. (1992). A test of intertemporal consistency. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 17, 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jackson, M., & Yariv, L. (2014). Present bias and collective dynamic choice in the lab. American Economic Review, 104, 4184–4204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jackson, M., & Yariv, L. (2015). Collective dynamic choice: The necessity of time inconsistency. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 7(4), 150–178.Google Scholar
  39. Kang, M.-I., & Ikeda, S. (2014). Time discounting and smoking behavior: Evidence from a panel survey. Health Economics, 23, 1443–1464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kirby, K. N., & Maraković, N. N. (1995). Modeling myopic decisions: Evidence for hyperbolic delay-discounting within subjects and amounts. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 22–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (1992). Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evidence and an interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(2), 573–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Luhan, W. J., Kocher, M. G., & Sutter, M. (2009). Group polarization in the team dictator game reconsidered. Experimental Economics, 12, 26–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Maciejovsky, B., Sutter, M., Budescu, D. V., & Bernau, P. (2013). Teams make you smarter: How exposure to teams improves individual decisions in probability and reasoning tasks. Management Science, 59, 1255–1270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Meier, S., & Sprenger, C. D. (2015). Temporal stability of time preferences. Review of Economics and Statistics, 97, 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Millner, A., & Heal, G. (2014). Resolving intertemporal conflicts: Economics vs Politics. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  46. Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of personality and social psychology, 12, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Myerson, R. B., & Weber, R. J. (1993). A theory of voting equilibria. American Political Science Review, 87(1), 102–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Noussair, C., Robin, S., & Ruffieux, B. (2004). Revealing consumers’ willingness-to-pay: A comparison of the BDM mechanism and the Vickrey auction. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25, 725–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Palfrey, T. R. (2009). Laboratory experiments in political economy. Annual Review of Political Science, 12, 379–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Perez-Arce, F. (2011). The effect of education on time preferences. Working paper, RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  51. Phelps, E. S., & Pollak, R. A. (1968). On second-best national saving and game-equilibrium growth. The Review of Economic Studies, 35(2), 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Plott, C. R. (1967). A notion of equilibrium and its possibility under majority rule. The American Economic Review, 57(4), 787–806.Google Scholar
  53. Read, D., Frederick, S., & Airoldi, M. (2012). Four days later in Cincinnati: Longitudinal tests of hyperbolic discounting. Acta Psychologica, 140, 177–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Robson, A. J., & Szentes, B. (2014). A biological theory of social discounting. American Economic Review, 104, 3481–3497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rohde, K. I. (2010). The hyperbolic factor: A measure of time inconsistency. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 41, 125–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Samuelson, P. A. (1937). A note on measurement of utility. The Review of Economic Studies, 4, 155–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sayman, S., & Öncüler, A. (2009). An investigation of time inconsistency. Management Science, 55, 470–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schaner, S. (2015). Do opposites detract? Intrahousehold preference heterogeneity and inefficient strategic savings. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 7, 135–174.Google Scholar
  59. Schkade, D., Sunstein, C. R., & Kahneman, D. (2000). Deliberating about dollars: The severity shift. Columbia Law Review, 100, 1139–1175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schram, A. J. (2004). Experimental public choice. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  61. Shapiro, J. (2010). Discounting for you, me, and we: Time preference in groups and pairs. Working paper.Google Scholar
  62. Sobel, J. (2014). On the relationship between individual and group decisions. Theoretical Economics, 9, 163–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stoner, J. A. (1968). Risky and cautious shifts in group decisions: The influence of widely held values. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 442–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Strotz, R. H. (1955). Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utility maximization. The Review of Economic Studies, 23, 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Takeuchi, K. (2011). Non-parametric test of time consistency: Present bias and future bias. Games and Economic Behavior, 71, 456–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Thaler, R. (1981). Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency. Economics Letters, 8, 201–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Viscusi, W. K., Phillips, O. R., & Kroll, S. (2011). Risky investment decisions: How are individuals influenced by their groups? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 43, 81–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wölbert, E., & Riedl, A. (2013). Measuring time and risk preferences: Reliability, stability, domain specificity. CESifo working paper no 4339.Google Scholar
  69. Zuber, S. (2010). The aggregation of preferences: Can we ignore the past? Theory and Decision, 70, 367–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Science Association 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laurent Denant-Boemont
    • 1
  • Enrico Diecidue
    • 2
  • Olivier l’Haridon
    • 1
  1. 1.University Rennes 1 - CREMRennesFrance
  2. 2.INSEADFontainebleauFrance

Personalised recommendations