Field
Trial Status
|
Before
in_development
|
After
completed
|
Field
Abstract
|
Before
A choice is most tempting when it is both immediate and certain. Prevailing experimental measures of static present-bias rely on the random incentive scheme (RIS) to gather rich data from subjects. Recent studies show that RIS adds background risk to decisions, thereby increasing risk-taking behavior. Evidence has shown that the immediacy effect is significantly moderated (or even eliminated) by uncertainty. Thus estimates of the present-bias factor $\beta$ are possibly biased upward toward unity, underestimating present-bias intensity. I conduct a framed field experiment that determines whether uncertainty indeed diminishes the immediacy effect by using real-effort tasks to approximate immediate and certain utility flows. Subjects allocate tasks using convex time budgets under both RIS and certain implementation. I compare within-subject estimates of the quasi-hyperbolic present-bias factor under these two mechanisms, assuming convex effort costs. I type individuals as present- or future-biased under each mechanism, which provides data on the interaction between the immediacy and certainty effects within subjects. I also report how the introduction of uncertainty affects the present-bias parameter on average, which would be some of the first incentivized evidence of the effect of uncertainty on immediacy.
|
After
Is an option is especially tempting when it is both immediate and certain? To study the effect of risk on present bias, I conduct an online experiment in which workers allocate about thirty minutes of real-effort tasks between two weeks. I compare choices made two days before the first workday against choices made when work is imminent. In baseline treatments, one choice is randomly implemented; meanwhile, one treatment implements a particular allocation with certainty. By assuming that effort costs are not affected by the mechanism (and thus independent of risk preferences), my novel design permits estimation of present bias using a decision with a consequence both immediate and certain. I find the average intensity of present bias is far greater under certainty than under risk. I find no evidence that present bias is more pervasive among individuals, suggesting instead that present-biased individuals become more myopic.
|
Field
Trial Start Date
|
Before
September 15, 2019
|
After
October 28, 2019
|
Field
Trial End Date
|
Before
November 08, 2019
|
After
November 06, 2019
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
October 28, 2019 02:20 PM
|
After
September 10, 2021 01:38 AM
|
Field
Study Withdrawn
|
Before
|
After
No
|
Field
Intervention Completion Date
|
Before
|
After
November 06, 2019
|
Field
Data Collection Complete
|
Before
|
After
Yes
|
Field
Data Collection Completion Date
|
Before
|
After
November 06, 2019
|
Field
Is data available for public use?
|
Before
|
After
No
|
Field
Intervention Start Date
|
Before
September 15, 2019
|
After
October 28, 2019
|
Field
Intervention End Date
|
Before
November 08, 2019
|
After
November 06, 2019
|
Field
Additional Keyword(s)
|
Before
Immediacy effect, certainty effect, Allais paradox, common-ratio effect, non-expected utility, independence axiom, intertemporal choice, dynamic inconsistency, nonstationarity, myopia, present-bias, future-bias
|
After
intertemporal choice, time preferences, risk preferences, dynamic inconsistency, present bias, nonstationarity, immediacy effect, certainty effect, common difference effect, common ratio effect, non-expected utility, Allais paradox
|
Field
Keyword(s)
|
Before
Labor
|
After
Behavior, Labor
|
Field
Building on Existing Work
|
Before
|
After
No
|