IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/chu/wpaper/14-11.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

People Do Not Discount Heavily in Strategic Settings, but They Believe Others Do

Author

Listed:
  • Cary Deck

    (University of Arkansas and Chapman University)

  • Salar Jahedi

    (RAND Corporation)

Abstract

Several studies have shown that people greatly discount future benefits and costs. However, most of the direct laboratory evidence of this phenomenon has focused on individual choice experiments. This paper investigates the degree to which the timing of payments affects behavior in four commonly studies strategic settings: a Prisoner's Dilemma game, a Stag-Hunt game, a First Price Auction and a Second Price Auction. In all four settings, a two week delay in payoffs has a comparable effect to a 20% reduc- tion in current payoffs. A follow-up study suggests that it is an individual's strategic response to the anticipated discount rate of others that might be driving this behavior rather than a participant's own discount factor.

Suggested Citation

  • Cary Deck & Salar Jahedi, 2014. "People Do Not Discount Heavily in Strategic Settings, but They Believe Others Do," Working Papers 14-11, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:chu:wpaper:14-11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.chapman.edu/research-and-institutions/economic-science-institute/_files/WorkingPapers/deck-jahedi-strategic-discounting.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kirby, Kris N. & Marakovic, Nino N., 1995. "Modeling Myopic Decisions: Evidence for Hyperbolic Delay-Discounting within Subjects and Amounts," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 22-30, October.
    2. Charles A. Holt & Monica Capra, 2000. "Classroom Games: A Prisoner's Dilemma," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(3), pages 229-236, September.
    3. Leeat Yariv & David Laibson, 2004. "Safety in Markets: An Impossibility Theorem for Dutch Books," 2004 Meeting Papers 867, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    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. Shiv, Baba & Fedorikhin, Alexander, 1999. "Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 26(3), pages 278-292, December.
    6. Leeat Yariv, 2004. "Safety in Markets: An Impossibility Theorem for Dutch Books," Theory workshop papers 658612000000000072, UCLA Department of Economics.
    7. Catherine Eckel & Philip Grossman, 2000. "Volunteers and Pseudo-Volunteers: The Effect of Recruitment Method in Dictator Experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 3(2), pages 107-120, October.
    8. Timothy N. Cason & Charles R. Plott, 2014. "Misconceptions and Game Form Recognition: Challenges to Theories of Revealed Preference and Framing," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 122(6), pages 1235-1270.
    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. Deck, Cary & Jahedi, Salar, 2015. "An experimental investigation of time discounting in strategic settings," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 95-104.
    2. Cary Deck & Salar Jahedi, 2015. "Time Discounting in Strategic Contests," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(1), pages 151-164, March.
    3. Meyer, Andrew G., 2015. "The impacts of elicitation mechanism and reward size on estimated rates of time preference," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 132-148.
    4. Jindrich Matousek & Tomas Havranek & Zuzana Irsova, 2022. "Individual discount rates: a meta-analysis of experimental evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 318-358, February.
    5. Laurent Denant-Boemont & Enrico Diecidue & Olivier l’Haridon, 2017. "Patience and time consistency in collective decisions," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(1), pages 181-208, March.
    6. Stein T. Holden & Dag Einar Sommervoll & Mesfin Tilahun, 2022. "Mental Zooming as Variable Asset Integration in Inter-Temporal Choice," International Journal of Applied Behavioral Economics (IJABE), IGI Global, vol. 11(1), pages 1-21, January.
    7. Xavier Gabaix & David Laibson, 2018. "Shrouded attributes, consumer myopia and information suppression in competitive markets," Chapters, in: Victor J. Tremblay & Elizabeth Schroeder & Carol Horton Tremblay (ed.), Handbook of Behavioral Industrial Organization, chapter 3, pages 40-74, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Jonathan Cohen & Keith Marzilli Ericson & David Laibson & John Myles White, 2020. "Measuring Time Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 58(2), pages 299-347, June.
    9. Jonathan Chapman & Mark Dean & Pietro Ortoleva & Erik Snowberg & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Econographics," CESifo Working Paper Series 7202, CESifo.
      • Jonathan Chapman & Mark Dean & Pietro Ortoleva & Erik Snowberg & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Econographics," NBER Working Papers 24931, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. 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.
    11. Kfir Eliaz & Ran Spiegler, 2006. "Contracting with Diversely Naive Agents," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 73(3), pages 689-714.
    12. Ernst Fehr & Jean-Robert Tyran, 2005. "Individual Irrationality and Aggregate Outcomes," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 43-66, Fall.
    13. Freeman, David & Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco & Mittone, Luigi, 2016. "Procedures for eliciting time preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 126(PA), pages 235-242.
    14. Slonim, Robert & Wang, Carmen & Garbarino, Ellen & Merrett, Danielle, 2013. "Opting-in: Participation bias in economic experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 43-70.
    15. Jawwad Noor & Norio Takeoka, 2022. "Optimal Discounting," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(2), pages 585-623, March.
    16. Slonim, Robert & Wang, Carmen & Garbarino, Ellen & Merrett, Danielle, 2012. "Opting-In: Participation Biases in the Lab," IZA Discussion Papers 6865, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Emmanouil Mentzakis & Jana Sadeh, 2021. "Experimental evidence on the effect of incentives and domain in risk aversion and discounting tasks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 62(3), pages 203-224, June.
    18. Tasoff, Joshua & Letzler, Robert, 2014. "Everyone believes in redemption: Nudges and overoptimism in costly task completion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PA), pages 107-122.
    19. Castro, Luciano de & Galvao, Antonio F. & Kim, Jeong Yeol & Montes-Rojas, Gabriel & Olmo, Jose, 2022. "Experiments on portfolio selection: A comparison between quantile preferences and expected utility decision models," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    20. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Strategic Behavior; Time Discounting; Experiments.;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:chu:wpaper:14-11. 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: Megan Luetje (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/esichus.html .

    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.