Varying Impatience

  • Shinsuke Ikeda
Part of the Advances in Japanese Business and Economics book series (AJBE, volume 10)


In standard economics, or “neo-classical economics,” discussions have been restricted to the paradigm of the “Discounted Utility Model.” This theory assumes that people maximize the discounted sum of the gratification flows at each point in time, where future gratifications are presupposed to be discounted at a constant rate in any situation and for any intertemporal-choice problem. However, as I discussed briefly in the previous chapter, 40 years of empirical research has shown that a decision-maker’s personal discount rate varies depending on choice conditions (e.g., differing amounts and/or delays) and the context in which the intertemporal-choice problem is framed. If this fluctuation only occurred in exceptional situations and did not introduce biases into the decision-making process, it would not be a serious problem. However, as I illustrate below, the phenomenon is associated with many, and in some cases very serious, “irrational” behaviors and social phenomena in everyday life. In economics, a phenomenon that the existing standard theory (i.e., the paradigm) cannot explain without positing unrealistic assumptions is called an (Loewenstein and Prelec 1992). The phenomenon that personal discount rates vary greatly depending on intertemporal-choice conditions and the contexts of those choices is called an intertemporal-choice anomaly or a .


Interest Rate Discount Rate Marginal Utility Magnitude Effect Monetary Reward 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Benzion, U., Rapoport, A., & Yagil, J. (1989). Discount rates inferred from decisions: A experimental study. Management Science, 35(3), 270–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chapman, G. B. (1996). Temporal discounting and utility for health and money. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(3), 771–791.Google Scholar
  3. Chapman, G. B. (2000). Preferences for improving and declining sequences of health outcomes. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(2), 203–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chapman, G. B., & Winquist, J. R. (1998). The magnitude effect: Temporal discount rates and restaurant tips. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(1), 119–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Frank, R. H., & Hutchens, R. M. (1993). Wages, seniority, and the demand for rising consumption profiles. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 21(3), 251–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kinari, Y., Ohtake, F., & Tsutsui, Y. (2009). Time discounting: Declining impatience and interval effect. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 39(1), 87–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Loewenstein, G. (1988). Frames of mind in intetertemporal choice. Management Science, 34(2), 200–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (1991). Negative time preference. American Economic Review, 81(2), 347–352.Google Scholar
  10. Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (1992). Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evidence and an interpretation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(2), 573–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Loewenstein, G., & Sicherman, N. (1991). Do workers prefer increasing wage profiles? Journal of Labor Economics, 9(1), 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Loewenstein, G., & Thaler, R. H. (1989). Anomalies: Intertemporal choice. Journal of Economic Perspective, 3(4), 181–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of economics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Ono, Y. (1994). Money, interest and stagnation: Dynamic theory and Keyne’s economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ono, Y., Ogawa, K., & Yoshida, A. (2004). The liquidity trap and persistent unemployment with dynamic optimizing agents: Empirical evidence. Japanese Economic Review, 55(4), 355–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shefrin, H. M., & Thaler, R. H. (1988). The behavioral life-cycle hypothesis. Economic Inquiry, 26(4), 609–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Thaler, R. H. (1981). Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency. Economics Letters, 8(3), 201–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shinsuke Ikeda
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Social and Economic ResearchOsaka UniversityIbarakiJapan

Personalised recommendations