Correo Electrónico
DNINFOA - SIA
Bibliotecas
Convocatorias
Identidad U.N.
Publicado
Desconto hiperbólico e efeito magnitude nas decisões intertemporais? Evidências de uma survey com escolhas monetárias
Hyperbolic Discounting and Magnitude Effect in Intertemporal Choices. Evidence from a Survey with Monetary Decisions
Desconto hiperbólico e efeito magnitude nas decisões intertemporais? Evidências de uma survey com escolhas monetárias*
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v32n84.99678Palabras clave:
inconsistência temporal, preferências temporais, survey, taxa de desconto, Tasa de Descuento (pt)inconsistencia temporal, preferencias temporales, recursos monetarios, survey, tasa de descuento (es)
Temporal inconsistency, temporal preferences, monetary resources, survey, discount rate (en)
o presente estudo busca responder às seguintes questões: há evidências de inconsistência intertemporal em decisões que envolvem o recebimento de valores monetários? As pessoas estão sujeitas ao efeito magnitude em decisões intertemporais que envolvem o recebimento de valores monetários? O objetivo deste artigo é identificar inconsistências em decisões intertemporais que envolvam o recebimento de recursos monetários em diferentes momentos. Parte-se do pressuposto que decisões intertemporais que envolvem montantes em dinheiro podem ser igualmente afetadas pelo efeito magnitude. Este é um achado robusto na literatura, tendo sido identificado em escolhas hipotéticas que envolvem dinheiro. Para abordar a questão, procedeu-se o cálculo da taxa de desconto implícita dos indivíduos e, em seguida, classificaram-se os indivíduos segundo o construto “impaciência”. Foram utilizados cenários adaptados de Sutter et al. (2013). Na análise dos dados, foi empregado um teste não paramétrico para diferença de médias e identificadas as características mais relevantes dos respondentes da survey. Há evidências de comportamento inconsistente nas decisões intertemporais para os cenários apresentados, com ocorrência de impaciência crescente para intervalos de tempo deslocados para o futuro. Tal achado vai de encontro à literatura empírica sobre desconto hiperbólico. Paralelamente, observou-se a ocorrência do efeito magnitude, ratificando achados anteriores sobre quantias monetárias aplicadas a escolhas intertemporais de longo prazo.
This study seeks to answer the following questions: Is there evidence of intertemporal inconsistency in the decisions that involve the reception of monetary values? Are people subject to the magnitude effect of intertemporal decisions that involve the reception of monetary values? In doing so, this research will try to identify inconsistencies in intertemporal choices involving the reception of monetary resources at different times, grounded in the premise that these type of decisions could also be affected by the so-called magnitude effect, a robust finding that has been identified for hypothetical choices involving money. To address this issue, we calculated the implicit discount rate of individuals and then classified these individuals based on the construct of “impatience.” Adapted scenarios from the work by Sutter et al. (2013) were used for this research, whose data analysis phase involved non-parametric testing to differentiate medians and identify the most relevant characteristics of respondents. There is evidence of inconsistent behavior in intertemporal choices for the scenarios presented, with the occurrence of growing impatience for the intervals shifted into the future, a finding that goes against those of the empirical literature on hyperbolic discounting. In addition, the occurrence of the magnitude effect was proved, confirming previous research findings on monetary amounts applied to long-term intertemporal choices.
Referencias
Agranov, M., Caplin, A., & Tergiman, C. (2015). Naive play and the process of choice in guessing games. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 1(2), 146-157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40881-015-0003-5
Ammerman, A. S., Hartman, T., & DeMarco, M. M. (2017). Behavioral economics and the supplemental nutrition assistance program: Making the healthy choice the easy choice. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 52(2S2), S145-S150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.08.017
Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2013). Discounting behaviour and the magnitude effect: Evidence from a field experiment in Denmark. Economica, 80(320), 670-697. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecca.12028
Andreoni, J., Gravert, C., Kuhn, M. A., Saccardo, S., & Yang, Y. (2018). Arbitrage or narrow bracketing? On using money to measure intertemporal preferences. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working paper n.o 25232. http://doi.org/10.3386/w25232
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 & Organization, 115, 67-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2014.10.007
Ballard, I. C., Kim, B., Liatsis, A., Aydogan, G., Cohen, J. D., & McClure, S. M. (2017). More is meaningful: The magnitude effect in intertemporal choice depends on self-control. Psychological Science, 28(10), 1443-1454. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617711455
Benhabib, J., Bisin, A., & Schotter, A. (2010). Present-bias, quasi-hyperbolic discounting, and fixed costs. Games and Economic Behavior, 69(2), 205-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2009.11.003
Bialaszek, W., Marcowski, P., & Ostaszewski, P. (2021). Risk inherent in delay accounts for magnitude effects in intertemporal decision making. Current Psychology, 40, 1680-1695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0092-4
Bleichrodt, H., Gao, Y., & Rohde, K. I. (2016). A measurement of decreasing impatience for health and money. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 52(3), 213-231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-016-9240-0
Bozio, A., Laroque, G., & O’Dea, C. (2017). Discount rate heterogeneity among older households: A puzzle? Journal of Population Economics, 30(2), 647-680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-016-0623-y
Branger, N., Cordes, H., & Langer, T. (2019). Don’t ignore inflation ignorance: An experimental analysis of the degree of money illusion in intertemporal decision making. http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3105976
Camargo, B. F., Braun, C. T., Rubert, I. V. G., & Treter, J. (2015). Contabilidade mental e finanças comportamentais: estudo com colaboradores de uma empresa cerealista. Revista da Universidade Vale do Rio Verde, 13(2), 65-91. http://doi.org/10.5892/ruvrd.v13i1.2169
Cohen, J. D., Ericson, K. M., Laibson, D., & White, J. M. (2016). Measuring time preferences National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper n.o 22455. https://doi.org/10.3386/w22455
Cruz, S., & Muñoz, M. J. (2016). Measuring impatience in intertemporal choice. PloS One, 11(2), e0149256. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149256
DeHart, W. B, Friedel J. E., Lown J.M., & Odum A. L. (2016) The effects of financial education on impulsive decision making. PLoS ONE, 11(7), e0159561. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159561
De Paola, M., & Gioia, F. (2017). Impatience and academic performance. Less effort and less ambitious goals. Journal of Policy Modeling, 39(3), 443-460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2016.11.001
Dittrich, M., & Leipold, K. (2014). Gender differences in time preferences. Economics Letters, 122(3), 413-415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2014.01.002
Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., & Sunde, U. (2017). The robustness and pervasiveness of sub-additivity in intertemporal choice. Working Paper. https://www.briq-institute.org/wc/files/people/armin-falk/working-papers/the-robustness-and-pervasiveness-of-sub-additivity-in-intertemporal-choice.pdf
Ericson, K. M., & Laibson, D. (2019). Intertemporal choice. Em B. D. Bernheim, S. DellaVigna, & D. Laibson (eds.), Handbook of Behavioral Economics — Foundations and Applications (v. 2, pp. 1-67). Elsevier/North-Holland. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.hesbe.2018.12.001
Ericson, K. M., & Noor, J. (2015). Delay functions as the foundation of time preference: Testing for separable discounted utility. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper n.o 21095. http://doi.org/10.3386/w21095
Ericson, K. M., White, J. M., Laibson, D., & Cohen, J. D. (2015). Money earlier or later? Simple heuristics explain intertemporal choices better than delay discounting does. Psychological Science, 26(6), 826-833. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615572232
Frakes, M. D., & Wasserman, M. F. (2016). Procrastination in the workplace: Evidence from the US patent office. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper n.o 22987. http://doi.org/10.3386/w22987
Goda, G. S., Levy, M. R., Manchester, C. F., Sojourner, A., & Tasoff, J. (2015). The role of time preferences and exponential-growth bias in retirement savings. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper n.o 21482. http://doi.org/10.3386/w21482
Green, L., Fry, A. F., & Myerson, J. (1994). Discounting of delayed rewards: A life-span comparison. Psychological Science, 5(1), 33-36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00610.x
Green, L., Myerson, J., Holt, D. D., Slevin, J. R., & Estle, S. J. (2004). Discounting of delayed food rewards in pigeons and rats: Is there a magnitude effect? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 81(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2004.81-39
Halevy, Y. (2015). Time consistency: Stationarity and time invariance. Econometrica, 83(1), 335-352. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA10872
Hardisty, D. J., Appelt, K. C., & Weber, E. U. (2013). Good or bad, we want it now: Fixed‐cost present bias for gains and losses explains magnitude asymmetries in intertemporal choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(4), 348-361. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1771
Hardisty, D. J., Fox-Glassman, K., Krantz, D., & Weber, E. U. (2011). How to measure discount rates? An experimental comparison of three methods. SSRN. http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1961367%20.
Hastings, J., & Mitchell, O. S. (2020). How financial literacy and impatience shape retirement wealth and investment behaviors. Journal of Pension Economics & Finance, 19(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474747218000227
Huffman, D., Maurer, R., & Mitchell, O. S. (2017). Time discounting and economic decision-making in the older population. The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, 14, 100121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeoa.2017.05.001
Janssens, W., Kramer, B., & Swart, L. (2017). Be patient when measuring hyperbolic discounting: Stationarity, time consistency and time invariance in a field experiment. Journal of Development Economics, 126, 77-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2016.12.011
Jones, D., & Mahajan, A. (2015). Time-inconsistency and saving: Experimental evidence from low-income tax filers. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working paper No. 21272. http://doi.org/10.3386/w21272
Kang, M. -I., & Ikeda, S. (2016). Time discounting and smoking behavior: Evidence from a panel survey. Em S. Ikeda, H. Kato, F. Ohtake, & Y. Tsutsui (eds.), Behavioral Economics of Preferences, Choices, and Happiness (pp. 197-226). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55402-8_9
Kettner, S. E., & Waichman, I. (2016). Old age and prosocial behavior: Social preferences or experimental confounds? Journal of Economic Psychology, 53, 118-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2016.01.003
Laibson, D. (1998). Life-cycle consumption and hyperbolic discount functions. European Economic Review, 42(3-5), 861-871. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2921(97)00132-3
Lempert, K. M., & Phelps, E. A. (2016). The malleability of intertemporal choice. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(1), 64-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.09.005
Loewenstein, G. (1996). Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(3), 272-292. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0028
Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (1992). Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evidence and an interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(2), 573-597. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118482
Loewenstein, G., & Thaler, R. H. (1989). Anomalies: Intertemporal choice. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3(4), 181-193. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1942918 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.3.4.181
Love, D., & Phelan, G. (2015). Hyperbolic discounting and life-cycle portfolio choice. Journal of Pension Economics & Finance, 14(4), 492-524. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474747215000220
Lührmann, M., Serra-Garcia, M., & Winter, J. (2018). The impact of financial education on adolescents’ intertemporal choices. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 10(3), 309-32. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20170012
Muramatsu, R., & Fonseca, P. (2008). Economia e psicologia na explicação da escolha intertemporal. Revista de Economia Mackenzie, 6(1), 87-112. http://editorarevistas.mackenzie.br/index.php/rem/article/view/810/505
O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (1999). Doing it now or later. The American Economic Review, 89(1), 103-124. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.89.1.103
Park, H., & Feigenbaum, J. (2018). Bounded rationality, lifecycle consumption, and social security. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 146, 65-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2017.12.005
Perez-Arce, F. (2017). The effect of education on time preferences. Economics of Education Review, 56, 52-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.11.004
Read, D. (2001). Is time-discounting hyperbolic or subadditive? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 23(1), 5-32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011198414683
Read, D., & Roelofsma, P. H. (2003). Subadditive versus hyperbolic discounting: A comparison of choice and matching. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91(2), 140-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00060-8
Roeder, K. (2014). Optimal taxes and pensions with myopic agents. Social Choice and Welfare, 42(3), 597-618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-013-0743-1
Shavit, T., Rosenboim, M., & Shani, Y. (2014). Time preference before and after a risky activity: A field experiment. Journal of Economic Psychology, 43, 30-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2014.04.005
Schreiber, P., & Weber, M. (2016). Time inconsistent preferences and the annuitization decision. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 129, 37-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2016.06.008
Shefrin, H. M., & Thaler, R. H. (1988). The behavioral life-cycle hypothesis. Economic Inquiry, 26(4), 609-643. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1988.tb01520.x
Simon, C. J., Warner, J. T., & Pleeter, S. (2015). Discounting, cognition, and financial awareness: New evidence from a change in the military retirement system. Economic Inquiry, 53(1), 318-334. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12146
Strotz, R. (1955). Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utility maximization. The Review of Economic Studies, 23(3), 165-180. https://doi.org/10.2307/2295722
Sutter, M., Kocher, M. G., Glätzle-Rützler, D., & Trautmann, S. T. (2013). Impatience and uncertainty: Experimental decisions predict adolescents’ field behavior. American Economic Review, 103(1), 510-31. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.103.1.510
Thaler, R. (1981). Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency. Economics Letters, 8(3), 201-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1765(81)90067-7
Thaler, R. (2015). Comportamento inadequado: a construção da economia comportamental. Actual Editora.
Wang, M., Rieger, M. O., & Hens, T. (2016). How time preferences differ: Evidence from 53 countries. Journal of Economic Psychology, 52, 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2015.12.001
Weatherly, J. N., & Terrell, H. K. (2014). Magnitude effects in delay and probability discounting when monetary and medical treatment outcomes are discounted. The Psychological Record, 64(3), 433-440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-014-0052-9
Zhong, X., Ishibashi, K., & Yada, K. (2018, outubro). An empirical study of the relationship among self-control, price promotions and consumer purchase behavior. Em 2018 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC) (pp. 1867-1872). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SMC.2018.00323
Cómo citar
APA
ACM
ACS
ABNT
Chicago
Harvard
IEEE
MLA
Turabian
Vancouver
Descargar cita
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2021 Innovar
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.
Todos los artículos publicados por Innovar se encuentran disponibles globalmente con acceso abierto y licenciados bajo los términos de Creative Commons Atribución-No_Comercial-Sin_Derivadas 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
Una vez seleccionados los artículos para un número, y antes de iniciar la etapa de cuidado y producción editorial, los autores deben firmar una cesión de derechos patrimoniales de su obra. Innovar se ciñe a las normas colombianas en materia de derechos de autor.
El material de esta revista puede ser reproducido o citado con carácter académico, citando la fuente.
Esta obra está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons:
