Skip to main content

A Deeper Look at Hyperbolic Discounting

  • Chapter
Uncertainty and Risk

Part of the book series: Theory and Decision Library C ((TDLC,volume 41))

  • 1184 Accesses

Abstract

We conduct an experiment to investigate the degree to which deviations from exponential discounting can be accounted for by the hypothesis of hyperbolic discounting. Subjects are asked to choose between an earlier or later payoff in series of forty choice questions. Each question consists of a pair of monetary amounts determined by compounding a given base amount at a constant rate per period. Two bases (8 and 20 dollars), three compounding rates (low, medium and high) and three delays (two, four, and six weeks) are each used. There are also two initial periods (today and two weeks) and there are two separate questionnaires, one with lower “realistic” compounding rates and the other with higher compounding rates, typical of those used in previous studies. We analyze the detailed patterns of choice in 6 groups of 6 related questions each (in which the base and rate is fixed but the initial period and delay varies), documenting the frequency of patterns consistent with exponential discounting and with hyperbolic discounting. We find that exponential discounting is the clear modal choice pattern in virtually all cases. Hyperbolic discounting is never the modal pattern (except in the sense that constant discounting is a special case of hyperbolic discounting). We also estimate a linear probability model that takes account of individual heterogeneity. The estimates show substantial increases in the probability of choosing the later option when the compounding rate increases, as one would expect. There are small, sometimes significant, increases in this probability when the delay is increased or the initial period is in the future. Such behavior is consistent with hyperbolic discounting, but can account for only a small proportion of choices. Overall, deviations from exponential discounting appear to be due to error, or to other effects not accounted for by hyperbolic discounting. Principal among these is an increase in later choices when the base is larger.

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

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Ainslie, G., Haendel, V. (1983), “The Motives of Will,” in Etiologic Aspects of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, ed. E Gotthell, Druley, K., Skoloda, T., Waxman, H., Springfield, IL: Thomas, Charles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benzion, U., Rapoport, A., Yagil, J. (1989) “Discount Rates Inferred From Decisions: An Experimental Study,” Management Science, 35:270–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holcomb, J., Nelson, P.S. (1992) “Another Experimental Look at Individual Time Preference,” Rationality and Society, 4:2:199–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G., Prelec, D. (1992) “Anomalies In Intertemporal Choice: Evidence and an Interpretation,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107:2:573–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G., Prelec, D. (1993) “Preference for Sequences of Outcomes,” Psychological Review, 100(1):91–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G., Thaler, R. (1989) “Anomalies: Intertemporal Choice,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3:181–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mischel, W. (1966) “Theory and Research On The Antecedence of Self-Imposed Delay of Reward”, Progress In Experimental Personality Research, 3:85–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mischel, W. (1974) “Processes In Delay of Gratification,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. L. Berkowitz, New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mischel, W., Ebbenson, E. (1970) “Attention and Delay of Gratification,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16:329–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rachlin, H. (1974) “Self-control,” Behaviorism, 2:94–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strotz, R.H. (1955) “Myopia and Inconsistency in Dynamic Utility Maximization,” Review of Economic Studies, 8:165–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. (1981) “Some Empirical Evidence on Dynamic Inconsistency,” Economics Letters, 8:201–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sopher, B., Sheth, A. (2007). A Deeper Look at Hyperbolic Discounting. In: Abdellaoui, M., Luce, R.D., Machina, M.J., Munier, B. (eds) Uncertainty and Risk. Theory and Decision Library C, vol 41. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-48935-1_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics