Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-rbv74 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-18T08:37:20.971Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How to measure time preferences in children: a comparison of two methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2025

Silvia Angerer ,
Philipp Lergetporer ,
Daniela Glätzle-Rützler  and
Matthias Sutter
Silvia Angerer
Affiliation:
Institute for Advanced Studies Carinthia, Klagenfurt, Austria
Philipp Lergetporer
Affiliation:
Ifo Institute at the University of Munich and CESifo, Munich, Germany
Daniela Glätzle-Rützler
Affiliation:
University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
Matthias Sutter*
Affiliation:
University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
*
e-mail: matthias.sutter@uibk.ac.at
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We measure time preferences in a sample of 561 children aged 7–11 years. Using a within-subject design, we compare the behavior of our subjects using two distinct experimental measures of time preferences: a standard choice list with multiple decisions and a single choice time-investment-exercise requiring one decision only. We find that both measures yield very similar aggregate results, correlate significantly within subjects and can be explained by basically the same explanatory variables. Advantages and disadvantages of both measures are discussed. Our findings are relevant for the design of experiments to measure time preferences.

Keywords

Time preferencesExperimentMethodChildren

JEL classification

C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior B41: Economic Methodology
Type
Original Paper
Information
Journal of the Economic Science Association , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , December 2015 , pp. 158 - 169
Copyright
Copyright © Economic Science Association 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40881-015-0016-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Ai, C., Norton, E. C. (2003). Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economics Letters, 80, 123–129. 10.1016/S0165-1765(03)00032-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderhub, V., Güth, W., Gneezy, U., Sonsino, D. (2001). On the interaction of risk and time preferences: an Experimental Study. German Economic Review, 2, 239–253. 10.1111/1468-0475.00036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J., Sprenger, C. (2012). Estimating time preferences from convex budgets. American Economic Review, 102, 3333–3356. 10.1257/aer.102.7.3333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angerer, S., Glätzle-Rützler, D., Lergetporer, P., Sutter, M., (2015). Donations, risk attitudes and time preferences: a study on altruism in primary school children. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 115, 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartling, B., Fehr, E., Fischer, B., Kosse, F., Maréchal, M., Pfeiffer, F., Schunk, D., Schupp, J., Spieß, C. K., Wagner, G. G. (2010). Determinanten kindlicher Geduld—Ergebnisse einer Experimentalstudie im Haushaltskontext. Schmollers Jahrbuch, 130, 297–323. 10.3790/schm.130.3.297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bettinger, E., Slonim, R. (2007). Patience among children. Journal of Public Economics, 91, 343–363. 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2006.05.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, W. K., Odum, A. L., Madden, G. J. (1999). Impulsivity and cigarette smoking: delay discounting in current, never, and ex-smokers. Psychopharmacology (Berl), 146, 447–454. 10.1007/PL00005490CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burks, S., Carpenter, J., Goette, L., Rustichini, A. (2009). Cognitive skills affect economic preferences, strategic behavior, and job attachment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 106, 7745–7750. 10.1073/pnas.0812360106CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burks, S., Carpenter, J., Goette, L., Rustichini, A. (2012). Which measure of time preference best predict outcomes: evidence from a large-scale field experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 84, 308–320. 10.1016/j.jebo.2012.03.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chabris, C., Laibson, D., Morris, C., Schuldt, J., Taubinsky, D. (2008). Individual laboratory-measured discount rates predict field behavior. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 37, 237–269. 10.1007/s11166-008-9053-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charness, G., Gneezy, U. (2010). Portfolio choice and risk attitudes: an experiment. Economic Inquiry, 48, 133–146. 10.1111/j.1465-7295.2009.00219.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coller, M., Williams, M. B. (1999). Eliciting individual discount rates. Experimental Economics, 2, 107–127. 10.1023/A:1009986005690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U. (2010). Are risk aversion and impatience related to cognitive ability? American Economic Review, 100, 1238–1260. 10.1257/aer.100.3.1238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckel, C., Johnson, C., Montmarquette, C. (2013). Human capital investment by the poor: informing policy with laboratory experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 95, 224–239. 10.1016/j.jebo.2012.02.023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., O’Donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: a critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 351–401. 10.1257/jel.40.2.351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golsteyn, B., Grönqvist, H., Lindahl, L. (2014). Adolescent time preferences predict lifetime outcomes. Economic Journal, 124, F739–F761. 10.1111/ecoj.12095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., Williams, M. B. (2002). Estimating individual discount rates in Denmark: a field experiment. American Economic Review, 92, 1606–1617. 10.1257/000282802762024674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, K. N., Petry, N. M. (2004). Heroin and cocaine abusers have higher discount rates for delayed rewards than alcoholics or non-drug-using controls. Addiction, 99, 461–471. 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2003.00669.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laibson, D. (1997). Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 443–477. 10.1162/003355397555253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lammers, J., & van Wijnbergen, S. (2007). HIV/AIDS, risk aversion and intertemporal choice. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper 07-098/1.Google Scholar
Lergetporer, P., Angerer, S., Glätzle-Rützler, R., Sutter, M. (2014). Third-party punishment increases cooperation in children through (misaligned) expectations and conditional cooperation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 6916–6921. 10.1073/pnas.1320451111CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meier, S., Sprenger, C. (2010). Present-biased preferences and credit card borrowing. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2, 193–210.Google Scholar
Sutter, M., Angerer, S., Glätzle-Rützler, D., & Lergetporer, P., (2015). The effect of language on economic behavior: experimental evidence from children’s intertemporal choices IZA Discussion Paper 9383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutter, M., Kocher, M., Glätzle-Rützler, D., Trautmann, S. (2013). Impatience and uncertainty: experimental decisions predict adolescents’ field behavior. American Economic Review, 103, 510–531. 10.1257/aer.103.1.510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weller, R. E., Cook, E. W., Avsar, K. B., Cox, J. E. (2008). Obese women show greater delay discounting than healthy-weight women. Appetite, 51, 563–569. 10.1016/j.appet.2008.04.010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Angerer et al. supplementary material

Online Appendix
Download Angerer et al. supplementary material(File)
File 1.4 MB