Abstract
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 .
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
The loss (gain) elasticity of gratification represents the percentage the gratification level decreases (increases) in response to a 1 % increase in a loss (gain).
- 3.
The present values are computed as \( 27+\frac{26.2}{1+0.1}+\frac{25.4}{{\left(1+0.1\right)}^2}+\cdots +\frac{23}{{\left(1+0.1\right)}^5}=120.9 \) for pattern 1 and \( 23+\frac{23.8}{1+0.1}+\cdots +\frac{27}{{\left(1+0.1\right)}^5}=118.7 \) for pattern 2.
References
Benzion, U., Rapoport, A., & Yagil, J. (1989). Discount rates inferred from decisions: A experimental study. Management Science, 35(3), 270–284.
Chapman, G. B. (1996). Temporal discounting and utility for health and money. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(3), 771–791.
Chapman, G. B. (2000). Preferences for improving and declining sequences of health outcomes. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(2), 203–218.
Chapman, G. B., & Winquist, J. R. (1998). The magnitude effect: Temporal discount rates and restaurant tips. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(1), 119–123.
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.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292.
Kinari, Y., Ohtake, F., & Tsutsui, Y. (2009). Time discounting: Declining impatience and interval effect. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 39(1), 87–112.
Loewenstein, G. (1988). Frames of mind in intetertemporal choice. Management Science, 34(2), 200–214.
Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (1991). Negative time preference. American Economic Review, 81(2), 347–352.
Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (1992). Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evidence and an interpretation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(2), 573–597.
Loewenstein, G., & Sicherman, N. (1991). Do workers prefer increasing wage profiles? Journal of Labor Economics, 9(1), 67–84.
Loewenstein, G., & Thaler, R. H. (1989). Anomalies: Intertemporal choice. Journal of Economic Perspective, 3(4), 181–193.
Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of economics. London: Macmillan.
Ono, Y. (1994). Money, interest and stagnation: Dynamic theory and Keyne’s economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Shefrin, H. M., & Thaler, R. H. (1988). The behavioral life-cycle hypothesis. Economic Inquiry, 26(4), 609–643.
Thaler, R. H. (1981). Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency. Economics Letters, 8(3), 201–207.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Japan
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ikeda, S. (2016). Varying Impatience. In: The Economics of Self-Destructive Choices. Advances in Japanese Business and Economics, vol 10. Springer, Tokyo. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55793-7_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55793-7_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Tokyo
Print ISBN: 978-4-431-55792-0
Online ISBN: 978-4-431-55793-7
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)