IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v41y2012i2p137-142.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stock investors’ preference for short-term vs. long-term bonuses

Author

Listed:
  • Hedesström, Martin
  • Andersson, Maria
  • Gärling, Tommy
  • Biel, Anders

Abstract

Bonuses in the finance sector may be based on too short time intervals for environmental and social factors to be taken into account in investment decisions. We report two experiments to investigate whether investors prefer short-term to long-term bonuses. In Experiment 1 employing 27 undergraduates, preferences were measured for four short-term certain bonuses, evenly distributed across a time interval, and one certain long-term bonus at the end of the time interval. A majority chose the short-term bonuses, and in order for the long-term bonus to be equally preferred it had to be about 40% higher than the four added short-term bonuses. Experiment 2 employing another 36 undergraduates introduced outcome uncertainty that more accurately reflects the choices stock investors face. The participants again choose between a long-term bonus and four distributed short-term bonuses. It was shown that uncertainty made more participants prefer the long-term bonus to the added short-term bonuses than when the outcome was certain. A smaller increase of the long-term bonus of about 20% was now required to make it equally attractive as the four added short-term bonuses.

Suggested Citation

  • Hedesström, Martin & Andersson, Maria & Gärling, Tommy & Biel, Anders, 2012. "Stock investors’ preference for short-term vs. long-term bonuses," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 137-142.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:41:y:2012:i:2:p:137-142
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2011.12.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053535711001624
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2011.12.010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Loewenstein, George, 1996. "Out of Control: Visceral Influences on Behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 272-292, March.
    2. Keren, Gideon & Roelofsma, Peter, 1995. "Immediacy and Certainty in Intertemporal Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 287-297, September.
    3. Shlomo Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, 1995. "Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(1), pages 73-92.
    4. Martin Hedesström & Ulrika Lundqvist & Anders Biel, 2011. "Investigating consistency of judgement across sustainability analyst organizations," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(2), pages 119-134, March/Apr.
    5. Weber, Bethany J. & Chapman, Gretchen B., 2005. "The combined effects of risk and time on choice: Does uncertainty eliminate the immediacy effect? Does delay eliminate the certainty effect?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 104-118, March.
    6. Shane Frederick & George Loewenstein & Ted O'Donoghue, 2002. "Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(2), pages 351-401, June.
    7. Walther, Herbert, 2010. "Anomalies in intertemporal choice, time-dependent uncertainty and expected utility - A common approach," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 114-130, February.
    8. Mae Baker, 1998. "Fund managers' attitudes to risk and time horizons: the effect of performance benchmarking," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(3), pages 257-278.
    9. Stuart L. Hart & Gautam Ahuja, 1996. "Does It Pay To Be Green? An Empirical Examination Of The Relationship Between Emission Reduction And Firm Performance," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(1), pages 30-37, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda & Adrian Bruhin, 2011. "Viewing the future through a warped lens: Why uncertainty generates hyperbolic discounting," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 169-203, December.
    2. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda, 2012. "The missing link: unifying risk taking and time discounting," ECON - Working Papers 096, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Oct 2018.
    3. Yuanyuan Liu & Timothy B. Heath & Ayse Onculer, 2020. "The Future Ambiguity Effect: How Narrow Payoff Ranges Increase Future Payoff Appeal," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(8), pages 3754-3770, August.
    4. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2012. "Estimating Time Preferences from Convex Budgets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(7), pages 3333-3356, December.
    5. Jim Engle-Warnick & Julie Héroux & Claude Montmarquette, 2009. "Willingness to Pay to Reduce Future Risk," CIRANO Working Papers 2009s-37, CIRANO.
    6. Palenik Marcin, 2021. "The effect of uncertainty on negative discounting," International Journal of Management and Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of World Economy, vol. 57(4), pages 287-298, December.
    7. Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine, 2012. "Timing and Self‐Control," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(1), pages 1-42, January.
    8. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten I. & Rutström, E. Elisabet, 2014. "Discounting behavior: A reconsideration," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 15-33.
    9. Mark Schneider, 2018. "A Dual System Model of Risk and Time Preferences," Working Papers 18-18, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    10. Abdellaoui, Mohammed & Kemel, Emmanuel & Panin, Amma & Vieider, Ferdinand M., 2019. "Measuring time and risk preferences in an integrated framework," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 459-469.
    11. Scholten, Marc & Read, Daniel, 2006. "Beyond discounting: the tradeoff model of intertemporal choice," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 22710, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. Cristini, Annalisa & Origo, Federica & Pinoli, Sara, 2017. "The healthy fright of losing a good one for a bad one," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 129-144.
    13. Ali al-Nowaihi & Sanjit Dhami, 2021. "Preferences over Time and under Uncertainty: Theoretical Foundations," CESifo Working Paper Series 9215, CESifo.
    14. Tomasz Potocki, 2012. "Cumulative Prospect Theory as a model of economic rationality," Ekonomia journal, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, vol. 31.
    15. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2012. "Risk Preferences Are Not Time Preferences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(7), pages 3357-3376, December.
    16. Daniele Pennesi, 2017. "Uncertain discount and hyperbolic preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(3), pages 315-336, October.
    17. Cruz Rambaud, Salvador & Ortiz Fernández, Piedad & Parra Oller, Isabel María, 2023. "A systematic review of the main anomalies in intertemporal choice," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    18. Walther, Herbert, 2010. "Anomalies in intertemporal choice, time-dependent uncertainty and expected utility - A common approach," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 114-130, February.
    19. Jinrui Pan & Craig S. Webb & Horst Zank, 2019. "Delayed probabilistic risk attitude: a parametric approach," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(2), pages 201-232, September.
    20. Min Gong & David Krantz & Elke Weber, 2014. "Why Chinese discount future financial and environmental gains but not losses more than Americans," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 103-124, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Stock investments; Performance-related bonuses; Time discounting;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G02 - Financial Economics - - General - - - Behavioral Finance: Underlying Principles
    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
    • G23 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Non-bank Financial Institutions; Financial Instruments; Institutional Investors

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:41:y:2012:i:2:p:137-142. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.