Risk Preferences Are Not Time Preferences

Andreoni, James; Sprenger, Charles

doi:10.1257/aer.102.7.3357

Cited by 414 publications

(285 citation statements)

References 47 publications

(23 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

257

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A gender gap is a recurrent finding also with the Outcome Scale method. For instance, The availability of a safe option within the set of alternatives has been shown to increase the likelihood of observing violations of expected utility theory (Andreoni and Sprenger, 2012;Camerer, 1992;Harless and Camerer, 1994;Starmer, 2000), and therefore a possibility is that the impact of certainty effects differs by gender.…”

Section: Gender Differences and The Characteristics Of The Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Reconsideration of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reconsiders the wide agreement that females are more risk averse than males. We survey the existing experimental literature, finding that significance and magnitude of gender differences are task-specific. We gather data from 54 Holt and Laury (2002) replications, involving more than 7000 subjects. Gender differences appear in less than 10% of the studies, and are significant but negligible in magnitude once all the data are pooled. We exclude that this result is driven by noisier HL data. Gender differences appear to correlate with the presence of a safe option and fixed probabilities in the elicitation method. JEL Classifications: C81; C91; D81

show abstract

Section: Gender Differences and The Characteristics Of The Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Reconsideration of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Explanations for this delay discounting phenomenon tend to emphasize that the uncertainty of future rewards makes capitalising on immediate opportunities a beneficial strategy in many circumstances (Andreoni & Sprenger, 2012;Daly & Wilson, 2005;Stevens & Stephens, 2010). Indeed, 'intertemporal choices' between immediate and delayed rewards are highly sensitive to context in humans (Lempert & Phelps, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-country relationships between life expectancy, intertemporal choice and age at first birth

Bulley

Pepper

2017

Evolution and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans, like other animals, typically discount the value of delayed rewards relative to those available in the present. From an evolutionary perspective, prioritising immediate rewards is a predictable response to high local mortality rates, as is an acceleration of reproductive scheduling. In a sample of 46 countries, we explored the cross-country relationships between average life expectancy, intertemporal choice, and women's age at first birth. We find that, across countries, lower life expectancy is associated with both a smaller percentage of people willing to wait for a larger but delayed reward, as well as a younger age at first birth. These results, which hold when controlling for region and economic pressures (GDP-per capita), dovetail with findings at the individual level to suggest that life expectancy is an important ecological predictor of both intertemporal and reproductive decision-making.

show abstract

“…Second, the transfer of risky cardinal utility to riskless intertemporal choice is controversial (Luce and Raiffa 1957, Fallacy 3;Camerer 1995;Moscati 2013). Andreoni and Sprenger (2012b) and provided empirical evidence against such a transfer. When introducing discounted utility, Samuelson (1937, last paragraph) immediately warned that cardinal intertemporal utility may differ from other kinds of cardinal utility.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%