IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v108y2014icp74-80.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Monetary cost for time spent in everyday physical activities

Author

Listed:
  • Hsu, Anne S.
  • Vlaev, Ivo

Abstract

We measured utility curves for the hypothetical monetary costs as a function of time engaged in three everyday physical activities: walking, standing, and sitting. We found that activities requiring more physical exertion resulted in steeper discount curves, i.e., perceived cost as a function of time. We also examined the effects of gain vs. loss framing (whether the activity brought additional rewards or prevented losses) as well as the effects of the individual factors of gender, income, and BMI. Steeper discount curves were associated with higher income (annual household ≥ median of $45,000) and gain framing (which indicates loss aversion). There were interactions between gender and frame, and also income and frame: Females and higher income participants showed loss aversion whereas males and lower income participants were not affected by framing. Males showed less discounting in gain frames relative to females, whereas females showed less discounting in loss frames relative to males. In gain frames, higher income participants discounted more but in loss frames there was no effect of income. We also found individual tendencies for discounting across activities: if an individual exhibited steeper discounting for one activity, they were also more likely to exhibit steeper discounting for the other activities. These results have implications for designers of interventions to encourage non-exercise physical activities, suggesting that loss-framed incentives are more effective for women and those with middle class (or greater) incomes. Furthermore loss framed incentives have more uniform impact across income brackets because people discount loss frames similarly regardless of income whereas those with middle-class incomes are not as motivated by gain frames. Our results also demonstrate a general method for examining the costs of effort associated with everyday activities.

Suggested Citation

  • Hsu, Anne S. & Vlaev, Ivo, 2014. "Monetary cost for time spent in everyday physical activities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 74-80.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:108:y:2014:i:c:p:74-80
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.02.043
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953614001476
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.02.043?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. Peter Brooks & Horst Zank, 2005. "Loss Averse Behavior," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 301-325, December.
    2. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 2008. "Men, Women and Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 113, pages 1061-1073, Elsevier.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:3:p:248-255 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Galliera, Arianna, 2018. "Self-selecting random or cumulative pay? A bargaining experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 106-120.
    2. Crosetto, P. & Filippin, A., 2017. "Safe options induce gender differences in risk attitudes," Working Papers 2017-05, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    3. Astrid Gamba & Luca Stanca, 2023. "Mis-judging merit: the effects of adjudication errors in contests," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(3), pages 550-587, July.
    4. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin, 2013. "The “bomb” risk elicitation task," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 31-65, August.
    5. Migheli, Matteo, 2010. "Gender at work: Productivity and incentives," POLIS Working Papers 142, Institute of Public Policy and Public Choice - POLIS.
    6. Alam, Jessica & Georgalos, Konstantinos & Rolls, Harrison, 2022. "Risk preferences, gender effects and Bayesian econometrics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 168-183.
    7. Marc Oliver Rieger & Mei Wang & Thorsten Hens, 2015. "Risk Preferences Around the World," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(3), pages 637-648, March.
    8. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    9. Oege Dijk, 2017. "For whom does social comparison induce risk-taking?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 82(4), pages 519-541, April.
    10. Sumit Agarwal & Richard K. Green & Eric Rosenblatt & Vincent Yao & Jian Zhang, 2015. "Who Bears the Pen? Relative Income and Gender Gap in Mortgage Signing Order," Working Paper 9475, USC Lusk Center for Real Estate.
    11. Thushyanthan Baskaran & Sonia Bhalotra & Brian Min & Yogesh Uppal, 2024. "Women legislators and economic performance," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 151-214, June.
    12. Muriel Niederle & Lise Vesterlund, 2007. "Do Women Shy Away From Competition? Do Men Compete Too Much?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(3), pages 1067-1101.
    13. Böheim, René & Lackner, Mario, 2013. "Gender and Competition: Evidence from Jumping Competitions," IZA Discussion Papers 7243, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Mehar, Mamta & Yamano, Takashi & Panda, Architesh, 2017. "The Role of Gender, Risk, and Time Preferences in Farmers' Rice Variety Selection in Eastern India," Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA), vol. 14(1), June.
    15. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Georgantzís, Nikolaos & Guillen, Pablo, 2007. "Direct and indirect effects of pathological gambling on risk attitudes," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 126-136, April.
      • Pablo Brañas-Garza & Nikolaos Georgantzis & Pablo Guillen, 2005. "I do not play lotteries," ThE Papers 05/04, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    16. Sule Alan & Seda Ertac & Elif Kubilay & Gyongyi Loranth, 2020. "Understanding Gender Differences in Leadership," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(626), pages 263-289.
    17. Jonathan Chapman & Erik Snowberg & Stephanie Wang & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Loss Attitudes in the U.S. Population: Evidence from Dynamically Optimized Sequential Experimentation (DOSE)," NBER Working Papers 25072, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Ferdinand M. Vieider & Mathieu Lefebvre & Ranoua Bouchouicha & Thorsten Chmura & Rustamdjan Hakimov & Michal Krawczyk & Peter Martinsson, 2015. "Common Components Of Risk And Uncertainty Attitudes Across Contexts And Domains: Evidence From 30 Countries," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 13(3), pages 421-452, June.
    19. Caliendo, Marco & Cobb-Clark, Deborah A. & Obst, Cosima & Uhlendorff, Arne, 2023. "Risk preferences and training investments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 668-686.
    20. Grossman, Philip J. & Eckel, Catherine & Komai, Mana & Zhan, Wei, 2019. "It pays to be a man: Rewards for leaders in a coordination game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 197-215.

    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:socmed:v:108:y:2014:i:c:p:74-80. 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.