论文标题
付费和假设的时间偏好是相同的：实验室，字段和在线证据
Paid and hypothetical time preferences are the same: Lab, field and online evidence
论文作者
论文摘要
经过数十年的经济实验，假设而不是真正的决策激励措施的使用仍在争论中。由于参与者的收入和后勤成本，标准激励实验涉及大量货币成本。在及时的偏好实验中，涉及未来付款的实验，实际付款特别有问题。由于即时奖励经常比实验任务中的延迟奖励的交易成本较低，因此（Quasi）无法准确估算双曲线功能形式。如果假设付款提供准确的数据，这些数据此外，避免交易成本问题，该怎么办？在本文中，我们测试了假设 - 与实际付款的使用是否会影响标准多个价格列表任务中短期和长期折扣的启发。还考虑了一个单一的参与者概率支付计划。我们分析了三项研究的数据：西班牙的实验室实验，尼日利亚的实地实验实验，以及针对概率支付的在线扩展。我们的结果表明，付费和假设的时间偏好主要是相同的，因此，假设的奖励是真正奖励的一个很好的选择。但是，我们的数据表明概率支付不是。
The use of hypothetical instead of real decision-making incentives remains under debate after decades of economic experiments. Standard incentivized experiments involve substantial monetary costs due to participants' earnings and often logistic costs as well. In time preferences experiments, which involve future payments, real payments are particularly problematic. Since immediate rewards frequently have lower transaction costs than delayed rewards in experimental tasks, among other issues, (quasi)hyperbolic functional forms cannot be accurately estimated. What if hypothetical payments provide accurate data which, moreover, avoid transaction cost problems? In this paper, we test whether the use of hypothetical - versus real - payments affects the elicitation of short-term and long-term discounting in a standard multiple price list task. One-out-of-ten participants probabilistic payment schemes are also considered. We analyze data from three studies: a lab experiment in Spain, a well-powered field experiment in Nigeria, and an online extension focused on probabilistic payments. Our results indicate that paid and hypothetical time preferences are mostly the same and, therefore, that hypothetical rewards are a good alternative to real rewards. However, our data suggest that probabilistic payments are not.
