The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Estimating Time Preferences from Convex Budgets
Abstract
Experimentally elicited discount rates are frequently higher than what seems reasonable for economic decision-making. Such high rates are often attributed to present-biased discounting. A well-known bias of standard measurements is the assumption of linear consumption utility. Attempting to correct this bias using measures of risk aversion to identify concavity, researchers find reasonable discounting but at the cost of exceptionally high utility function curvature. We present a new methodology for identifying time preferences, both discounting and curvature, from simple allocation decisions. We find reasonable levels of both discounting and curvature and, surprisingly, dynamically consistent time preferences. (JEL C91, D12, D81)
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
(2001) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 27,577
Journal of Economic Literature
(2019) · AEA Papers and Proceedings · doi:10.1257/pandp.109.633 · Cited by 7,468
Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review
Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G. F., & O’Donoghue, T. (2002) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/002205102320161311 · Cited by 6,381
Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting
Laibson, D. (1997) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355397555253 · Cited by 6,122
Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects
Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/000282802762024700 · Cited by 5,939
Epstein, L. G., & Zin, S. E. (1989) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1913778 · Cited by 4,262
Allais, M. (1953) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1907921 · Cited by 4,112
O'Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (1999) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.89.1.103 · Cited by 3,121
Separate neural systems value immediate and delayed monetary rewards
McClure, S. M., Laibson, D. I., Loewenstein, G., & Cohen, J. D. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1100907 · Cited by 3,089
Myopia and Inconsistency in Dynamic Utility Maximization
Strotz, R. H. (1955) · The Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.2307/2295722 · Cited by 2,834 · cited 2×
“To begin, we posit a time separable CRRA utility function discounted via the quasi-hyperbolic β–δ discounting function (Strotz 1956; Phelps and Pollak 1968; Laibson 1997),”
Method
Cited by
Risk and Time Preferences: Linking Experimental and Household Survey Data from Vietnam
Tanaka, T., Camerer, C. F., & Nguyen, Q. (2016) · Behavioral Economics of Preferences, Choices, and Happiness · doi:10.1007/978-4-431-55402-8_1 · Cited by 731
Trust, Risk, and Time Preferences After a Natural Disaster: Experimental Evidence from Thailand
Cassar, A., Healy, A., & von Kessler, C. (2017) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.12.042 · Cited by 599
Poverty and Economic Decision-Making: Evidence from Changes in Financial Resources at Payday
Carvalho, L. S., Meier, S., & Wang, S. W. (2016) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20140481 · Cited by 506
Falk, A., Becker, A., Dohmen, T., Huffman, D., & Sunde, U. (2023) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2022.4455 · Cited by 477
Cohen, J., Ericson, K. M., Laibson, D., & White, J. M. (2020) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.20191074 · Cited by 344
Metadata
- Authors
- Andreoni, J., & Sprenger, C.
- Venue
- American Economic Review
- Publisher
- American Economic Association
- Published
- 2012-12-01
- Volume
- 102
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 3333-3356
- ISSN
- 0002-8282 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1505862594
- Cited by
- 665
- References
- 56
- FWCI
- 31.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Estimating Time Preferences from Convex Budgets. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1257/aer.102.7.3333
- The paper
- Andreoni, J., & Sprenger, C. (2012). Estimating Time Preferences from Convex Budgets. American Economic Review. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.7.3333
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.
