The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
ELICITING RISK AND TIME PREFERENCES USING FIELD EXPERIMENTS: SOME METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
Open accessAbstract
We design experiments to jointly elicit risk and time preferences for the adult Danish population. The experimental procedures build on laboratory experiments that have used traditional subject pools. The field experiments utilize field sampling designs that we developed, and procedures that were chosen to be relatively transparent in the field with non-standard subject pools. Our overall design was also intended to be a general template for such field experiments in other countries. We examine the characterization of risk over a wider domain for each subject than previous experiments, allowing more precise estimates of risk attitudes. We also examine individual discount rates over six time horizons, as the first stage in a panel experiment in which we revisit subjects to test consistency and stability of responses over time. Risk and time preferences are heterogeneous, varying by observable individual characteristics. On a methodological level, we implement a refinement of existing procedures which elicits much more precise estimates, and also mitigates framing effects.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/261737 · Cited by 3,194
Myopia and Inconsistency in Dynamic Utility Maximization
Strotz, R. H. (1955) · The Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.2307/2295722 · Cited by 2,834
Heroin addicts have higher discount rates for delayed rewards than non-drug-using controls.
Kirby, K. N., Petry, N. M., & Bickel, W. K. (1999) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.128.1.78 · Cited by 2,171
Individual discount rates and the purchase and utilization of energy-using durables
Hausman, J. A. (1979) · The Bell Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/3003318 · Cited by 1,372
Cited by
Eliciting Risk and Time Preferences
Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2008) · Econometrica · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2008.00848.x · Cited by 984
Self-citationEstimating Time Preferences from Convex Budgets
Andreoni, J., & Sprenger, C. (2012) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.102.7.3333 · Cited by 665
Risk and Rationality: Uncovering Heterogeneity in Probability Distortion
(2010) · Econometrica · doi:10.3982/ecta7139 · Cited by 384
Discounting financial literacy: Time preferences and participation in financial education programs
Meier, S., & Sprenger, C. D. (2013) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2012.02.024 · Cited by 311
Metadata
- Authors
- Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., Rutström, E. E., & Sullivan, M. B.
- Venue
- Research in Experimental Economics
- Publisher
- Emerald (MCB UP )
- Published
- 2005-03-26
- Pages
- 125-218
- ISSN
- 0193-2306 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2580397922
- Cited by
- 174
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 34.88
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: ELICITING RISK AND TIME PREFERENCES USING FIELD EXPERIMENTS: SOME METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0193-2306(04)10005-7
- The paper
- Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., Rutström, E. E., & Sullivan, M. B. (2005). ELICITING RISK AND TIME PREFERENCES USING FIELD EXPERIMENTS: SOME METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES. Research in Experimental Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0193-2306(04)10005-7
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.