CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 984

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Eliciting Risk and Time Preferences

Andersen, Steffen, Harrison, Glenn W., Lau, Morten I., Rutström, E. Elisabet·2008·Econometrica
DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0262.2008.00848.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We design experiments to jointly elicit risk and time preferences for the adult Danish population. Since subjects are generally risk averse, we find that joint elicitation provides estimates of discount rates that are significantly lower than those found in previous studies and more in line with what would be considered as a priori reasonable rates. The statistical specification relies on a theoretical framework that involves a latent trade-off between long-run optimization and short-run temptation. Estimation of this specification is undertaken using structural, maximum likelihood methods. Our main results based on exponential discounting are robust to alternative specifications such as hyperbolic discounting. These results have direct implications for attempts to elicit time preferences, as well as debates over the appropriate domain of the utility function when characterizing risk aversion and time consistency.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1468-0262.2008.00848.x

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 57

  1. Abdulkadri A. O., 2000, Agricultural Finance Review, 60, 61, 10.1108/00214690080001110 · DOI
  2. Ahlbrecht M., 1997, Management Science, 43, 813, 10.1287/mnsc.43.6.813 · DOI
  3. Ainslie G., 1992, Picoeconomics
  4. 10.1111/1468-0475.00036 · DOI
  5. 10.1007/s10683-006-7055-6 · DOI
  6. S. A ndersen , G. W. H arrison , M. I. L au , and E. E. R utstrom (2008 a): "Supplement to ‘Eliciting Risk and Time Preferences’ ," Econometrica Supplemental Material , Vol. 76 , http://www.econometricsociety.org/ecta/Supmat/6966_instructions to experimental subjects.pdf; http://www.econometricsociety.org/ecta/Supmat/6966_data.zip.
  7. Andersen S., 2008, International Economic Review, 49, 10.1111/j.1468-2354.2008.00507.x · DOI
  8. 10.1111/1468-0297.00208 · DOI
  9. 10.1037/0033-2909.130.4.553 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1016/j.geb.2004.10.004 · DOI
  11. Cappellari L., 2006, Stata Journal, 6, 156, 10.1177/1536867X0600600202 · DOI
  12. 10.1037/0278-7393.22.3.771 · DOI
  13. Chavas J.-P., 2004, Risk Analysis in Theory and Practice
  14. 10.1257/089533005775196750 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Coller M., 1999, Experimental Economics, 2, 107, 10.1023/A:1009986005690 · DOI
  16. Eckel C., 2005, Field Experiments in Economics, 10, 219, 10.1016/S0193-2306(04)10006-9 · DOI
  17. 10.2307/2291506 · DOI
  18. 10.1177/096228029600500202 · DOI
  19. 10.1257/002205102320161311 · DOI
  20. 10.1257/aer.96.5.1449 · DOI
  21. Gollier C., 2001, The Economics of Risk and Time, 10.7551/mitpress/2622.001.0001 · DOI
  22. Gourieroux C., 1996, Statistics and Econometric Models
  23. Hamermesh D. S., 2005, The Economics of Time Use, 271
  24. 10.2307/2951749 · DOI
  25. 10.1257/0022051043004577 · DOI
  26. Harrison G. W., 2005, Experimental Economics, 10.1016/S0193-2306(2005)10 · DOI
  27. Harrison G. W., 2008, Risk Aversion in Experiments, 12, 10.1016/S0193-2306(08)00003-3 · DOI
  28. 10.1023/B:EXEC.0000026975.48587.f0 · DOI
  29. 10.1111/j.1467-9442.2007.00496.x · DOI
  30. Harrison G. W., 2005, Field Experiments in Economics, 10, 125, 10.1016/S0193-2306(04)10005-7 · DOI
  31. 10.1257/000282802762024674 · DOI
  32. Herrnstein R. J., 1981, Quantification of Steady-State Operant Behavior, 36
  33. 10.1016/0014-2921(09)40007-4 · DOI
  34. 10.1023/A:1020634723329 · DOI
  35. 10.2307/2951750 · DOI
  36. 10.1257/000282802762024700 · DOI
  37. 10.1257/0002828054201459 · DOI
  38. Issler J. V., 2000, Brazilian Review of Econometrics, 20, 201, 10.12660/bre.v20n22000.2758 · DOI
  39. 10.1023/A:1014067910173 · DOI
  40. Kirby K. N., 1996, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 100, 10.3758/BF03210748 · DOI
  41. 10.1037/0278-7393.29.1.66 · DOI
  42. 10.2307/1913656 · DOI
  43. 10.2307/2336267 · DOI
  44. 10.1016/0014-2921(94)00071-7 · DOI
  45. 10.1023/A:1014094209265 · DOI
  46. Mazur J. E., 1987, The Effect of Delay and Intervening Events on Reinforcement Value, 55
  47. McLachlan G., 2000, Finite Mixture Models, 10.1002/0471721182 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Mitchell R. C., 1989, Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method
  49. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1255(199611)11:6<619::AID-JAE418>3.0.CO;2-1 · DOI
  50. 10.1098/rsta.1894.0003 · DOI
  51. 10.1111/j.0347-0520.2004.00375.x · DOI
  52. 10.1111/1468-0262.00158 · DOI · Paper page
  53. Rogers W. H., 1993, Stata Technical Bulletin, 13, 19
  54. 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.05.003 · DOI
  55. T. T anaka , C. F. C amerer , and Q. N guyen (2007 ): "Risk and Time Preferences: Experimental and Household Survey Data From Vietnam ," Working Paper, California Institute of Technology. · DOI
  56. B. M. S. van P raag , and A. S. B ooij (2003 ): "Risk Aversion and the Subjective Time Preference: A Joint Approach ," Working Paper 923, CESifo Institute for Economic Studies, Munich. · DOI
  57. 10.1257/000282803321946930 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 984

Metadata

Authors
Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E.
Venue
Econometrica
Publisher
The Econometric Society
Published
2008-05
Volume
76
Issue
3
Pages
583-618
ISSN
  • 0012-9682
  • 1468-0262
DOI
10.1111/j.1468-0262.2008.00848.x
Cited by
984
References
6
Language
en
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm, 2679 d)

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