Preference Anomalies, Preference Elicitation and the Discovered Preference Hypothesis
In: Environmental and resource economics, Band 32, Heft 1, S. 55-89
ISSN: 1573-1502
33456 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Environmental and resource economics, Band 32, Heft 1, S. 55-89
ISSN: 1573-1502
In: American economic review, Band 102, Heft 7, S. 3357-3376
ISSN: 1944-7981
Risk and time are intertwined. The present is known while the future is inherently risky. This is problematic when studying time preferences since uncontrolled risk can generate apparently present-biased behavior. We systematically manipulate risk in an intertemporal choice experiment. Discounted expected utility performs well with risk, but when certainty is added common ratio predictions fail sharply. The data cannot be explained by prospect theory, hyperbolic discounting, or preferences for resolution of uncertainty, but seem consistent with a direct preference for certainty. The data suggest strongly a difference between risk and time preferences. (JEL C91 D81 D91)
In: Journal of elections, public opinion and parties, Band 27, Heft 2, S. 172-191
ISSN: 1745-7297
In: Annual review of political science, Band 3, S. 1-24
ISSN: 1094-2939
In: Synthese: an international journal for epistemology, methodology and philosophy of science, Band 67, Heft 2, S. 361-368
ISSN: 1573-0964
In: Economic Theory Center Working Paper No. 43-2012
SSRN
Working paper
SSRN
SSRN
SSRN
Working paper
SSRN
In: American economic review, Band 105, Heft 7, S. 2287-2293
ISSN: 1944-7981
Can the well-known experimental phenomenon of present-bias in intertemporal choice be confounded with the risks associated with receiving payment? Can measurements of risk preferences be used to represent desires for smoothness in intertemporal payments? In our two 2012 papers in this journal we explored these two questions and found the answer to the first to be yes and the second to be no. We feel the three papers inspired by our work and published here underscore these arguments and point to interesting new possibilities for modeling and measuring risk over time. (JEL C91, D81, D91)
In: American economic review, Band 105, Heft 7, S. 2272-2286
ISSN: 1944-7981
Andreoni and Sprenger (2012a,b) observe that utility functions are distinct for risk and time preferences, and show that their findings are consistent with a preference for certainty. We revisit this question in an enriched experimental setting in which subjects make intertemporal decisions under different risk conditions. The observed choice behavior supports a separation between risk attitude and intertemporal substitution rather than a preference for certainty. We further show that several models, including Epstein and Zin (1989); Chew and Epstein (1990); and Halevy (2008) exhibit such a separation and can account for the overall experimental findings. (JEL C91, D81, D91)
In: Annual review of political science, Band 3, Heft 1, S. 1-24
ISSN: 1545-1577
This review concerns political preferences—what they are and where they come from. We begin by documenting the close relationship between processes of preference formation and change. Rather than suddenly appearing, most preferences emerge from interactions between individuals and their environment. This aspect of preference formation poses a concrete challenge: to uncover the mechanics of these interactions in important social contexts. We then describe political science research that meets this challenge. We find an expansive literature that clarifies how phenomena such as parties, campaigns, and the need to act strategically affect preferences. This work provides many widely applicable insights.
In: University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Band 160
SSRN
In: European Journal of Political Economy, Band 9, Heft 4, S. 541-550