Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Present bias

Present bias is a cognitive bias characterized by the tendency to overvalue immediate rewards or costs relative to those occurring in the future, resulting in time-inconsistent preferences where individuals may prefer a smaller-sooner payoff over a larger-later one when choices involve the present but reverse this preference when both are equally delayed.^[1]^[2] This bias manifests in behaviors such as procrastination, undersaving for retirement, and suboptimal health choices, as individuals disproportionately discount near-term trade-offs despite recognizing long-term benefits.^[3]^[4] In behavioral economics, it is commonly modeled using quasi-hyperbolic discounting frameworks, where a present-bias parameter (often denoted β < 1) applies additional discounting to all future periods relative to the current one, capturing empirical deviations from exponential discounting.^[5] Empirical evidence from laboratory experiments, field studies, and convex time budget methods consistently demonstrates higher short-run discount rates compared to long-run ones, with present bias explaining patterns like credit card debt accumulation and delayed exercise adherence among those unaware of their future self-control issues (naïve agents).^[5]^[6] While sophisticated individuals anticipate their bias and may implement commitment devices, the bias's robustness across domains underscores its role in policy design, such as nudges for automatic enrollment in savings plans to counteract immediate gratification pulls.^[7] Debates persist on whether present bias constitutes a distinct psychological mechanism or arises from alternative factors like uncertainty or reference dependence, though field data linking it to real-world inconsistencies bolsters its causal relevance over purely descriptive accounts.^[8]^[4]

Definition and Conceptual Framework

Core Definition and Distinction from Other Biases

Present bias refers to the systematic tendency of individuals to overvalue immediate rewards or costs relative to those occurring in the future, even when the future outcomes offer greater net utility when evaluated consistently.^[1] This manifests in intertemporal choices as a preference for smaller-sooner rewards over larger-later alternatives, coupled with a reversal of that preference when both options are delayed equally into the future, highlighting a discontinuity in valuation at the boundary between present and future periods.^[1] Empirical demonstrations include choices where participants select $10 today over $15 in 7 days, but favor $15 in 14 days over $10 in 7 days, with the inconsistency persisting across domains like consumption, savings, and health behaviors.^[9] Formally, present bias is captured in the quasi-hyperbolic discounting model, which augments standard exponential discounting with a bias parameter β (0 < β ≤ 1) applied uniformly to all future periods relative to the present: utility at time t is discounted as β δ^t, where δ (0 < δ ≤ 1) represents long-run patience.^[10] This framework, introduced by Laibson in 1997, parsimoniously models the heightened impatience for immediate trade-offs while preserving geometric discounting over longer horizons, facilitating analysis of self-control failures such as procrastination or undersaving.^[11] Meta-analyses of experimental data estimate average β values around 0.7–0.9, indicating moderate but pervasive bias, with stronger effects in real-stakes tasks compared to hypothetical scenarios.^[10] Present bias differs from exponential discounting, which assumes time-consistent preferences via a constant rate (u_t = δ^t u), yielding stable intertemporal rankings without preference reversals.^[12] It approximates hyperbolic discounting—modeled as v(t) = 1/(1 + k t) for delay t, producing continuously steeper curves near t=0—but employs a single-step discontinuity rather than a smooth hyperbola, enhancing computational tractability despite debates over empirical superiority; laboratory studies often find quasi-hyperbolic forms outperforming pure hyperbolics in predictive power for certain datasets.^[13] Unlike unrelated temporal biases such as probabilistic discounting (overweighting certain over risky outcomes) or spatial discounting (fading value with physical distance), present bias isolates the present-future asymmetry, excluding confounds like uncertainty or context-dependent framing.^[14] It also contrasts with non-temporal biases, such as loss aversion in prospect theory, which amplifies immediate pains or gains irrespective of timing.^[15]

Hyperbolic Discounting Model

The hyperbolic discounting model posits that individuals apply a discount rate to future rewards that declines hyperbolically with time, resulting in disproportionately high valuation of immediate outcomes relative to delayed ones—a core mechanism underlying present bias. This contrasts with the exponential discounting model prevalent in standard economic theory, which assumes a constant discount rate (δ) yielding time-consistent intertemporal choices, as formalized by Samuelson in 1937. In hyperbolic discounting, the present value V of a reward A delayed by time D follows the form V = A / (1 + kD), where k parameterizes impatience; this generates a steep initial decline in value for near-term delays, flattening thereafter, and predicts dynamic inconsistency such as preference reversals (e.g., rejecting $100 today for $110 tomorrow but accepting $110 in 31 days over $100 in 30 days).^[16]^[17] Originating from psychological research on animal choice schedules, the model was empirically derived by Mazur in 1987 from pigeon experiments matching choice indifference curves to hyperbolic functions, capturing observed impulsivity better than exponential alternatives. Ainslie extended this to human behavior in the 1970s, arguing that hyperbolic curves explain self-control failures through competing impulses that reverse over time, as smaller-sooner rewards temporarily outvalue larger-later ones despite long-run regret. In economics, Laibson (1997) integrated hyperbolic-like preferences via the quasi-hyperbolic (β-δ) approximation—V_t = β ∑{τ=0}^∞ δ^τ u{t+τ} with 0 < β ≤ 1 and δ < 1—offering tractability for modeling time-inconsistent consumption, undersaving, and demand for commitment devices like illiquid assets.^[16]^[18]^[17] This framework implies naive agents fail to anticipate future self-control problems, exacerbating present bias in domains like addiction and procrastination, while sophisticated agents foresee inconsistencies and seek precommitment. Empirical support includes laboratory intertemporal choice tasks where human discount rates exceed 20-50% for short delays but drop below 5% for multi-year horizons, aligning with hyperbolic predictions over exponential ones across cultures and species. Critics note the model's descriptive accuracy but question its normative implications, as it deviates from rational choice axioms without clear welfare foundations; nonetheless, it robustly predicts observed deviations from exponential benchmarks in savings data and delay discounting experiments.^[19]^[20]

Sophisticated versus Naive Present Bias

In the framework of time-inconsistent preferences, naive agents fail to anticipate their future selves' susceptibility to present bias, incorrectly assuming that future decisions will align with long-term goals evaluated under consistent discounting.^[21] This leads naive individuals to form plans based on an overoptimistic view of their future rationality, only to deviate when the moment of choice arrives, resulting in repeated procrastination or excessive immediate consumption.^[22] By contrast, sophisticated agents recognize the persistence of present bias across time periods and strategically account for their future selves' weaknesses, often employing precommitment mechanisms—such as binding contracts or illiquid assets—to enforce optimal long-run behavior.^[23] The distinction originates in Richard Strotz's 1955 analysis of dynamic inconsistency, where sophisticated decision-makers solve for subgame-perfect equilibria in their multi-period planning problem, treating future selves as predictably myopic, while naive ones project current preferences without adjustment.^[21] In modern behavioral economics, this is formalized within quasi-hyperbolic discounting models, introduced by David Laibson in 1997, which parameterize present bias via a discount factor β < 1 applied only to the immediate period, followed by geometric discounting δ^t for t ≥ 1.^[24] Sophisticated quasi-hyperbolics, aware of their β < 1 in all future periods, exhibit time-consistent planning within each subgame but may undersave relative to exponential discounters due to intra-temporal present bias; naive quasi-hyperbolics, believing future β = 1, plan more ambitiously but execute poorly, often leading to even greater deviations from first-best outcomes.^[22]^[23] Empirical identification of sophistication versus naivete draws from choice timing experiments, where partially naive agents (who partially anticipate bias) display intermediate behaviors, such as occasional commitment-seeking that naive agents ignore.^[25] For instance, sophisticated savers may prefer illiquid retirement accounts to constrain future consumption, anticipating temptation, whereas naive counterparts overestimate their future discipline and save insufficiently.^[24] Theoretical comparisons reveal that sophisticated agents typically outperform naives in welfare terms by mitigating self-control failures, though both suffer losses relative to time-consistent benchmarks; in concave utility settings with θ > 1 (where θ measures risk aversion or diminishing marginal utility), sophisticates save more than naives.^[26] This awareness gradient influences policy design, favoring default mechanisms or nudges that mimic commitment for those with naive tendencies.^[27]

Historical and Theoretical Development

Pre-Modern Observations and Philosophical Roots

In ancient Greek philosophy, the phenomenon of preferring immediate gratification over long-term benefits was explored through the concept of akrasia, or weakness of will, denoting actions taken against one's own better judgment.^[28] Socrates, as depicted in Plato's Protagoras, rejected the possibility of akrasia, positing that individuals always pursue what they perceive as the greatest good, with apparent cases of self-undermining behavior stemming from ignorance rather than deliberate choice.^[29] Aristotle countered this in Nicomachean Ethics Book VII (circa 350 BCE), affirming akrasia as real and distinguishing it into impetuosity—acting hastily without deliberation under passion's sway—and weakness, where deliberation occurs but immediate appetites, particularly bodily pleasures like eating or sex, overpower rational resolve.^[30] He attributed this to the conflict between the rational soul and non-rational desires, which amplify in the present, leading agents to undervalue future goods despite foreknowledge of their superiority.^[31] Stoic philosophers, building on Socratic and Aristotelian foundations from the 3rd century BCE onward, emphasized enkrateia (self-mastery) as essential to virtue, urging restraint from immediate sensory pleasures to align with reason and nature's rational order.^[32] Figures like Epictetus (circa 50–135 CE) taught that yielding to transient impulses disrupts inner tranquility, advocating premeditation of temptations—such as envisioning the fleeting nature of indulgences—to fortify against present allurements in favor of enduring ethical consistency.^[33] Seneca (circa 4 BCE–65 CE) similarly critiqued the pursuit of short-lived delights, arguing in Letters to Lucilius that true pleasure derives from disciplined postponement, as unchecked desires chain individuals to vice while temperance liberates for higher goods.^[34] Biblical narratives provide early anecdotal illustrations, such as Esau's exchange of his birthright for a single meal of lentil stew in Genesis 25:29–34 (circa 6th–5th century BCE composition), where immediate hunger prompted despising a substantial future inheritance, exemplifying disregard for long-term spiritual and familial primacy.^[35] This episode, interpreted as profane shortsightedness in Hebrews 12:16, underscores a pattern of prioritizing corporeal urgency over covenantal promises.^[36] In Eastern traditions, Confucius (551–479 BCE) observed that "petty impatience confounds great projects," linking hasty gratification to failure in moral and societal endeavors, as impatience erodes the perseverance needed for lasting achievement.^[37] These pre-modern accounts, while not formalized as psychological models, highlight recurring human tendencies toward present-oriented lapses, often framed ethically as failures of reason or piety.

Formalization in 20th-Century Economics

In 1955, R. H. Strotz formalized the concept of dynamic inconsistency in intertemporal choice within economics, identifying how agents' preferences over time streams of consumption could lead to planned actions that are later abandoned due to shifting valuations of immediate versus delayed rewards.^[38] Strotz's model highlighted "myopic" tendencies where current selves undervalue future utilities relative to initial plans, proposing strategies like precommitment to maintain consistency, though he retained exponential discounting as the baseline while critiquing its empirical fit.^[39] This laid groundwork for recognizing present bias as a deviation from time-consistent exponential models originally axiomatized by Paul Samuelson in 1937. Edmund Phelps and Robert Pollak advanced this in 1968 by introducing a quasi-hyperbolic discount function, δ^t β for t ≥ 1 (with β < 1 and δ < 1), which captures heightened impatience for the immediate present compared to all future periods uniformly.^[40] Unlike true hyperbolic discounting from psychology, which declines inversely with delay and generates smooth but inconsistent gradients, the quasi-hyperbolic form approximates empirical patterns tractably while producing time inconsistency: agents overdiscount near-term trade-offs but align more with exponential rates for distant horizons.^[41] Phelps and Pollak analyzed its implications for aggregate consumption paths, showing how it could rationalize observed fluctuations without ad hoc adjustments. David Laibson revitalized these ideas in 1997, applying quasi-hyperbolic discounting to individual savings behavior in "Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting," demonstrating how present bias (via β < 1) motivates self-imposed constraints like illiquid assets to counter future selves' impulses.^[17] Laibson's framework explained empirical puzzles, such as low savings rates despite high marginal returns, by modeling sophisticated agents who anticipate inconsistency and naive ones who do not, bridging Phelps-Pollak's structure to behavioral anomalies in consumption data.^[42] This formalization influenced subsequent economic modeling by providing a parsimonious alternative to exponential discounting, supported by choice experiments showing reversal rates inconsistent with constant discount rates.^[43]

Integration into Behavioral Economics (1990s Onward)

In the 1990s, present bias gained prominence in behavioral economics through formal models that bridged psychological insights on time inconsistency with economic analysis of decision-making under uncertainty. David Laibson's 1997 introduction of quasi-hyperbolic discounting provided a parsimonious framework approximating the steeper discounting of immediate rewards characteristic of hyperbolic functions, while retaining analytical tractability for dynamic optimization problems.^[17] This model posited discount factors of 1 for the present, βδ for the next period, and δ thereafter (with 0 < β ≤ 1 and δ < 1), enabling predictions of undersaving and excessive consumption, as agents overvalue current liquidity despite recognizing long-term costs.^[17] Laibson's work built on earlier hyperbolic discounting ideas but integrated them into neoclassical frameworks, explaining empirical puzzles like the equity premium and low retirement savings rates observed in U.S. household data from the 1980s and 1990s.^[4] Sophisticated agents aware of their bias sought commitment devices, such as illiquid assets like whole life insurance or housing, which impose costs on premature access and thus mitigate impulsive spending; empirical evidence from consumption patterns supported this, with households holding suboptimal liquid-to-illiquid asset ratios.^[17] Naive agents, however, underestimated future self-control failures, exacerbating time inconsistency. Subsequent developments by Ted O'Donoghue and Matthew Rabin in 1999 applied present-biased preferences to procrastination and task timing, modeling agents who delay costly activities despite recognizing their necessity.^[44] Their framework distinguished sophisticated planners, who anticipate and partially correct for bias, from naive ones, who systematically postpone; calibrations to experimental data showed procrastination rates aligning with observed behaviors in deadlines and tax filing, where partial naivety (agents partially aware but overoptimistic) best fit evidence.^[44] This integration highlighted welfare losses from present bias, informing analyses of labor supply and productivity, as biased discounting led to inefficient intertemporal allocation even absent uncertainty. By the early 2000s, present bias permeated behavioral models of savings policy, with Angeletos, Laibson, Repetto, Tobacman, and Weinberg (2001) deriving equilibrium predictions for consumption responses to income shocks, revealing that β-capture (short-run impatience) explained excess sensitivity in U.S. panel data better than permanent income hypotheses.^[45] These advancements challenged exponential discounting's dominance in macroeconomics, fostering hybrid models that incorporated empirical regularities from lab and field studies, such as higher discount rates for gains versus losses. Integration spurred policy innovations, including Richard Thaler's "Save More Tomorrow" programs, which leveraged commitment to bypass present bias in 401(k) enrollment, boosting participation rates by 30-50% in field trials from the late 1990s.^[46] Overall, this period marked present bias's shift from descriptive anomaly to predictive tool, enhancing behavioral economics' explanatory power for real-world deviations from rationality.^[4]

Neurobiological Mechanisms

Reward Processing and Dopaminergic Pathways

The mesolimbic dopaminergic pathway, originating from dopamine neurons in the ventral tegmental area (VTA) and projecting to the nucleus accumbens (NAc) in the ventral striatum, plays a central role in processing reward value and motivating behavior toward immediate gratification.^[47] Dopamine release in this pathway encodes reward prediction errors (RPEs), where phasic bursts signal unexpected rewards or cues predicting them, thereby reinforcing actions associated with immediate outcomes over delayed ones.^[48] In the context of present bias, this system exhibits sensitivity to temporal proximity, with stronger dopaminergic responses to imminent rewards compared to future ones, contributing to the devaluation of delayed payoffs.^[49] Animal studies demonstrate that dopamine neurons in the VTA display sustained depressive firing patterns in response to reward delays, which parallels behavioral temporal discounting. For instance, in rhesus monkeys performing delayed reward tasks, midbrain dopamine signals diminished progressively with increasing delay durations, even when the delayed reward magnitude was larger, suggesting an intrinsic neural mechanism for hyperbolic-like discounting.^[49] This temporal discounting in dopaminergic activity is hypothesized to underlie impulsive choices by reducing the motivational salience of future rewards, as disruptions in these signals impair the ability to sustain value representation over time.^[49]^[50] In humans, neuroimaging evidence links interindividual variations in present bias to dopaminergic function in the ventral striatum. Positron emission tomography (PET) studies show an inverse correlation between ventral striatal dopamine release during reward anticipation and the degree of temporal discounting, with lower dopamine responsiveness associated with steeper discount rates and greater preference for immediate rewards.^[51] Pharmacological interventions further support this: acute administration of dopamine precursors or agonists, such as L-DOPA, has been found to flatten discount curves in systematic reviews of delay discounting tasks, reducing present bias by enhancing the perceived value of delayed rewards.^[52] Clinical populations provide additional causal evidence. In Parkinson's disease patients, who experience dopamine depletion in nigrostriatal and mesolimbic pathways, meta-analyses reveal significantly steeper delay discounting off dopaminergic medication compared to on-treatment states, with effect sizes indicating improved intertemporal choice under dopamine replacement therapy.^[53] However, the relationship is not strictly linear; some models propose a U-shaped curve where both deficient and excessive dopamine levels exacerbate discounting, as observed in hyperactivity disorders or stimulant use.^[54] This complexity underscores that optimal dopaminergic tone in reward circuits promotes balanced evaluation of immediate versus future rewards, mitigating present bias.^[55]

Evidence from Neuroimaging and Lesion Studies

Functional neuroimaging studies, particularly using fMRI, have identified distinct neural signatures for immediate versus delayed reward processing in intertemporal choice tasks. The ventral striatum, including the nucleus accumbens, exhibits heightened activation when individuals evaluate or select smaller-sooner rewards, reflecting the motivational pull of immediate gratification.^[56] In contrast, regions such as the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (vlPFC) show increased activity during choices favoring larger-later rewards, consistent with their roles in executive control and future-oriented valuation.^[56] The ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) and medial orbitofrontal cortex (mOFC) are implicated in integrating subjective reward value across time horizons, with activity patterns correlating to discount rates in tasks eliciting present bias.^[57] A meta-analysis of 78 fMRI studies confirmed reliable activation in these fronto-striatal circuits, particularly for contrasts between immediate and delayed options, underscoring their involvement in hyperbolic-like discounting dynamics.^[58] Lesion studies offer causal insights by demonstrating how targeted brain damage alters discounting behavior. Patients with vmPFC or mOFC lesions display steeper delay discounting, exhibiting a stronger preference for immediate rewards over larger delayed alternatives compared to healthy controls or patients with lesions elsewhere. ^[59] For instance, Sellitto et al. (2010) reported that individuals with mOFC damage (primarily Brodmann areas 10, 11, and adjacent medial prefrontal regions) chose immediate rewards more frequently across monetary and primary (e.g., food) reinforcers, with lesion extent in BA 11 correlating to greater impulsivity.^[60] Similarly, a 2021 investigation of vmPFC-lesioned patients (n=12) versus controls (n=41) found elevated discount rates for future rewards, attributable to deficits in episodic prospection rather than mere valuation impairments. These effects generalize beyond humans; rhesus monkeys with mOFC lesions also show increased temporal impatience.^[60] Evidence is not entirely uniform, as some earlier lesion work, such as Fellows and Farah (2005) on vmPFC patients, observed no overall shift in discount rates but noted a foreshortened future time perspective.^[60] Subsequent studies, however, predominantly support heightened present bias following vmPFC/mOFC damage, dissociating it from other frontal regions like dlPFC, which when lesioned do not consistently alter intertemporal preferences.^[61] This pattern implicates the vmPFC-mOFC network in suppressing immediate temptations to enable future-oriented decisions, with disruptions amplifying bias toward the present.^[59]

Empirical Evidence from Experiments

Laboratory Paradigms for Measuring Present Bias

Laboratory paradigms for measuring present bias primarily rely on intertemporal choice tasks, in which participants select between smaller-sooner rewards and larger-later rewards to reveal discounting patterns that deviate from exponential models, such as steeper impatience for immediate payoffs captured by quasi-hyperbolic discounting parameters like β < 1 in the β-δ framework.^[62] These tasks operationalize present bias through inconsistencies in preferences, where the discount rate declines over longer horizons, often using hypothetical monetary outcomes to facilitate repeated trials without depleting participant funds.^[63] Designs typically include both "now" conditions (one option immediate) and "later" conditions (both options delayed) to isolate present bias from general impatience.^[64] A canonical approach is the binary choice task, exemplified by the Money Earlier or Later (MEL) paradigm, where participants face pairwise options such as $5 today versus $10 in 4 weeks or $10 today versus $20 tomorrow.^[63] Choices across varying delays and amounts allow estimation of discount functions; present bias manifests as a strong preference for immediate rewards (e.g., selecting smaller-sooner when one is now but reversing for purely delayed pairs), while hyperbolic patterns emerge from declining impatience, such as preferring $10 in 10 days over $5 today less frequently than $10 in 4 weeks over $5 now.^[63]^[62] Researchers fit data to models like D(t) = 1/(1 + k t) for hyperbolic or quasi-hyperbolic forms, with examples including choices like $69 today versus $85 in 91 days to quantify short-run impatience.^[62] The multiple price list (MPL) method presents a series of binary choices in list format, with fixed immediate rewards against escalating delayed alternatives (e.g., $10 now vs. $11–$20 in 1 month, incrementing until a switch point indicates indifference).^[64] This elicits switching points to derive implied discount rates or impatience parameters (e.g., γ = 1 - (x1/x2)^(12/Δt)), applied in "now lists" (immediate vs. future) and "later lists" (delayed vs. further delayed) to compare short-run versus long-run discounting.^[64] MPLs enable structural estimation of present bias in β-δ models, with population β estimates around 0.85 in delay tasks, though designs like front-end delay lists (splitting intervals, e.g., now vs. T/2 then T) test subadditivity to distinguish true bias from cognitive errors.^[64] Variations address confounds like complexity or atemporal preferences, such as mirror treatments simulating discounting via iterative "shrunk" payments (e.g., fixed δ = 0.96 per step without real delays) to isolate errors from time perception.^[64] These paradigms, often computerized for precision, yield β estimates of 0.72–0.85 across studies, confirming present bias but highlighting inconsistencies (60–75% of choices) attributable partly to cognitive load rather than pure time inconsistency.^[64]^[62]

Replication Challenges and Meta-Analyses

Laboratory experiments measuring present bias through intertemporal choice tasks, such as delay discounting paradigms, have demonstrated moderate to high test-retest reliability for basic parameters like discount rates in simple exponential and hyperbolic models, with correlations often exceeding 0.70 across repeated administrations using consistent choice sets.^[65] However, challenges arise in parameter estimation for more complex models, such as the double exponential or tradeoff models, which exhibit poor recovery and low internal consistency across item subsets, with correlations sometimes dropping below 0.20 or turning negative.^[65] Selective exclusion of non-systematic responders can introduce biases, particularly varying by demographic factors like race, ethnicity, and body mass index, potentially skewing estimates of discounting rates.^[66] Specific manipulations, including priming effects or environmental imagery exposure, have failed replication attempts, highlighting fragility in contextual influences on discounting behavior.^[67]^[68] Meta-analyses provide robust evidence for present bias, particularly through quasi-hyperbolic discounting models, which capture immediate impatience via a present bias parameter β < 1. A 2021 meta-analysis of 44 studies estimated β = 0.82 (95% CI [0.74, 0.90]) for monetary rewards, remaining significant at β = 0.87 after correcting for selective reporting and publication bias, with stronger bias in non-student samples and certain payment methods like bank transfers.^[10] Heterogeneity in estimates stems from factors including subject pool (e.g., higher bias in general adults than students), geography (e.g., Europe vs. North America), and elicitation techniques, but the core effect persists across corrections.^[10] Additional meta-analyses link steeper delay discounting to addictive behaviors, with robust associations to severity measures (e.g., quantity-frequency of use), supporting transdiagnostic validity in psychiatric disorders, though effect sizes vary by domain (e.g., smaller for non-monetary rewards).^[69]^[70] Neuroimaging meta-analyses of 78 fMRI studies confirm consistent activation in regions like the ventral striatum during discounting tasks, underscoring underlying neural consistency despite methodological variations.^[58] Overall, while basic present bias effects withstand scrutiny, replication efforts underscore the need for standardized protocols to mitigate inconsistencies in advanced modeling and ancillary effects.

Manifestations in Everyday Behavior

Delayed Gratification and Self-Control Tasks

Delayed gratification tasks assess individuals' capacity to forgo immediate rewards in favor of larger delayed ones, serving as empirical proxies for present bias and self-control in intertemporal choice.^[71] These paradigms operationalize present bias by quantifying the subjective value decay of future outcomes, often revealing steeper discounting for choices involving immediate versus purely delayed options.^[5] Classic examples include laboratory setups where participants select between smaller-sooner rewards (e.g., $10 today) and larger-later alternatives (e.g., $20 in one week), with choices reflecting hyperbolic discounting patterns inconsistent with exponential time preferences.^[72] The Stanford marshmallow experiment, conducted by Walter Mischel and colleagues starting in 1968 at Stanford University's Bing Nursery School, exemplifies early delayed gratification research.^[71] Children aged 4-6 were offered a choice between one treat immediately or two upon the experimenter's return (typically 10-15 minutes later); about one-third waited the full duration.^[71] Longitudinal follow-ups reported in 1990 linked longer waiting times to superior outcomes, including higher SAT scores (average 210-point difference) and better adolescent self-regulation, attributing these to inherent self-control capacities.^[71] However, a 2018 conceptual replication with 183 similar-aged children found the raw bivariate correlation between waiting time and later achievement (e.g., r=0.31 for composite outcomes) weakened substantially (to near zero) when controlling for socioeconomic status, family stability, and cognitive ability at age 4, suggesting the original effects were confounded by background factors rather than isolated self-control.^[71] Beyond child-focused paradigms, adult self-control tasks employ delay discounting procedures to elicit present bias. In monetary choice questionnaires, participants indicate indifference points across hypothetical delays, yielding discount rates (k values) that quantify impatience; empirical data show immediate rewards discounted at rates 7.6-9.8% higher than delayed ones in convex time cost models, confirming a present bias premium for immediacy.^[5]^[72] Real-stakes variants, such as choosing between instant cash payouts versus banked larger sums, replicate these patterns, with discount rates often exceeding 10-20% per year for short horizons, diminishing for longer ones—a hallmark of hyperbolic over exponential discounting linked to self-control failures.^[73] Interventions like pre-commitment devices (e.g., binding savings contracts) in these tasks reduce discounting by 8-16%, implying awareness of present bias can enhance delay tolerance.^[74] Critiques of these tasks highlight measurement limitations: ecological validity concerns arise, as lab incentives may not mirror real-world stakes, and individual differences in discount rates show modest test-retest reliability (r≈0.6-0.7).^[73] Moreover, present bias in discounting tasks correlates weakly with broader self-control inventories (e.g., r<0.3), suggesting it captures temptation aversion more than global willpower.^[75] Despite such nuances, meta-analytic evidence affirms delay discounting's robustness in predicting impulsive behaviors, with higher rates associated with addictive tendencies across substances (odds ratios 1.5-2.0).^[76] These findings underscore delayed gratification tasks as valid, if imperfect, tools for dissecting present bias's role in self-regulation.^[77]

Procrastination and Task Avoidance

Present bias manifests in procrastination as the tendency to delay tasks with upfront costs and deferred rewards, prioritizing immediate relief over long-term utility. Theoretical models posit that time-inconsistent preferences, where immediate disutilities are discounted more steeply than future ones, lead agents to repeatedly postpone actions they intend to undertake, even when aware of resultant harm.^[44] This occurs because the present self undervalues the future self's welfare, resulting in suboptimal deferral unless mitigated by commitment devices.^[44] O'Donoghue and Rabin (1999) demonstrate this in a framework where an agent must perform a single activity incurring immediate costs but yielding delayed benefits; naive agents, unaware of their ongoing bias, procrastinate excessively, while sophisticated agents anticipate the issue and may preemptively act or bind themselves, though small biases can still induce severe delays under immediate costs.^[44] Empirical validation appears in field settings, such as a 2014 experiment with university students completing proofreading tasks (alphabetizing word lists) for monetary rewards; in single-task conditions, approximately 30% exhibited present bias via quasi-hyperbolic discounting (β ≈ 0.23), correlating with delayed submissions and higher perceived costs ($64 versus $42 for time-consistent discounters).^[78] In multi-task scenarios within the same study, present bias dissipated (β ≈ 0), as sequential obligations fostered internal self-control, reducing procrastination despite no external deadlines; completion rates reached 47% without deadlines but fell with self-imposed ones (36.8%), indicating partial naivety in self-regulation.^[78] Task avoidance similarly arises in domains like academic assignments or administrative duties, where present bias amplifies aversion to initiation, with evidence from structural estimates showing procrastinators under-preparing for retirement or financial planning due to analogous deferral dynamics.^[79] Complementary explanations, such as optimism about future ease, interact with present bias; experiments reveal that correcting overoptimistic beliefs about task demands reduces deferral by up to 1.08 tasks in contests, though residual commitment-seeking (0.44 units) affirms a partial role for time inconsistency.^[80] Overall, these patterns underscore procrastination not as mere laziness but as a predictable outcome of hyperbolic-like discounting, prevalent across 20-30% of individuals in controlled tests.^[78]^[79]

Impulsive Consumption and Spending

Present bias manifests in impulsive consumption and spending through the heightened valuation of immediate gratification from purchases over the deferred costs of debt accumulation or foregone savings. Individuals exhibiting present bias tend to prioritize short-term hedonic rewards, such as the pleasure of acquiring goods, which leads to elevated spending levels that exceed sustainable long-term financial plans.^[81] This dynamic is empirically linked to hyperbolic discounting, where discount rates are steeper for near-term trade-offs, prompting consumers to finance current expenditures via credit rather than drawing from savings.^[23] Field studies reveal that present-biased preferences correlate with higher credit card borrowing and slower debt repayment, as individuals undervalue future interest burdens relative to present consumption utility. For instance, analysis of transaction data shows that consumption spending spikes immediately following paycheck receipt and declines sharply toward the end of pay periods, with the pattern's steepness exceeding what liquidity constraints alone would predict, indicating self-control failures driven by impatience for immediate rewards.^[82]^[83] Measures of short-run impatience, proxied by paycheck sensitivity in spending, further predict deviations from optimal debt paydown plans, where present-biased consumers maintain higher balances despite intentions to reduce them.^[84]^[85] In consumer models incorporating present bias, early-life spending sprees financed by credit cards result in consumption paths that front-load expenditures, reducing lifetime wealth accumulation compared to exponential discounters.^[86] Empirical surveys among diverse populations, including young adults, confirm that stronger present bias predicts lower savings rates and higher propensities for immediate consumption over investment, with effects persisting across economic contexts.^[9]^[87] These patterns underscore how present bias causally contributes to suboptimal financial outcomes by amplifying the appeal of impulsive expenditures at the expense of future stability.

Economic and Societal Implications

Personal Finance, Savings, and Wealth Accumulation

Present bias manifests in personal finance through a preference for immediate consumption over deferred savings, leading individuals to allocate resources toward short-term gratification at the expense of long-term wealth building. In consumption-savings models incorporating present-biased preferences, households exhibit overconsumption of current income, resulting in depleted liquid assets and reduced precautionary buffers against future shocks.^[88] This dynamic erodes the principal available for compounding returns, a core mechanism of wealth accumulation, as empirical calibrations show present bias generates substantial welfare losses via suboptimal intertemporal allocation.^[89] Evidence from retirement planning underscores these effects, where quasi-hyperbolic discounters systematically under-save despite intentions to increase contributions in future periods, often leading to postponed retirement due to insufficient accumulated funds.^[24]^[90] Field experiments and structural estimates confirm that such time inconsistencies explain a significant portion of observed undersaving, with present-biased individuals directing less toward defined-contribution plans compared to exponential discounters, even after controlling for income and risk preferences.^[20] The bias also drives elevated borrowing and impulsive spending, amplifying debt burdens that offset potential savings. Individuals with stronger present bias maintain higher credit card balances, as the immediate utility of purchases outweighs discounted future repayment costs, with panel data revealing a direct link between elicited discount rates and outstanding debt levels.^[82]^[91] This pattern extends to payday consumption spikes, where households front-load spending post-income receipt, forgoing opportunities to build savings habits and instead accruing high-interest liabilities.^[92] Over lifetimes, these behaviors compound into lower net worth trajectories, with hyperbolic discounting models demonstrating impaired accumulation toward high wealth thresholds, such as equivalents of substantial multimillion-dollar portfolios.^[93]

Health Choices and Long-Term Outcomes

Present bias manifests in health choices through the prioritization of immediate sensory rewards or avoidance of short-term discomforts, such as consuming palatable but calorie-dense foods, skipping exercise to conserve energy, or continuing smoking for nicotine satisfaction, at the expense of delayed benefits like disease prevention and extended lifespan.^[3] Empirical models incorporating hyperbolic discounting demonstrate that individuals with stronger present bias exhibit lower adherence to preventive regimens, leading to accumulated health deficits over time.^[94] For instance, in dietary decisions, higher time discount rates correlate positively with unhealthy eating patterns and obesity across multiple cross-sectional studies.^[95] In physical activity, present-biased individuals engage in significantly less exercise compared to those with consistent time preferences, as the upfront effort outweighs anticipated future gains in cardiovascular health and metabolic function.^[96] A 2018 analysis of patient data found that those exhibiting both present bias and elevated discount rates reported lower levels of physical activity, contributing to risks of sedentary-related conditions like type 2 diabetes and hypertension.^[96] Similarly, smoking persistence reflects present bias, with smokers overestimating their future ability to quit by over 100%, aligning with partially naive preferences that undervalue long-term risks of lung cancer and cardiovascular disease.^[97] Medication non-adherence in chronic conditions exemplifies time inconsistency, where immediate side effects or forgetfulness deter compliance despite future reductions in morbidity. Among elderly diabetics, observed adherence to guidelines stands at 51.8%, but eliminating present bias (estimated β=0.38) and associated naivete could raise it by 16.4 percentage points, averting complications such as blindness, amputations, and a 2% increase in 2-year mortality risk.^[3] Present-biased preferences also causally link to earlier diabetes onset and poorer post-diagnosis management, as evidenced by merged survey and registry data showing heightened vulnerability among those with inconsistent intertemporal choices.^[98] Long-term outcomes include elevated prevalence of obesity, with intertemporal impatience associated with adult BMI status in behavioral economics analyses, and accelerated progression of chronic diseases.^[99] Such patterns contribute to broader societal burdens, including an estimated $1.48 billion in annual reducible U.S. medical spending for diabetes alone through improved self-control.^[3] While some studies find no direct tie between present bias and weight loss success in interventions, the cumulative evidence underscores its role in perpetuating suboptimal health trajectories via repeated deferral of beneficial actions.^[100]

Policy Interventions: Nudges, Incentives, and Critiques

Policy interventions targeting present bias often employ nudges, such as default options in retirement savings plans, to leverage inertia and procrastination. Automatic enrollment in 401(k plans, implemented in a large U.S. firm starting April 1, 1998, increased employee participation from 37% to 86% among those with 3-15 months of tenure by June 1999, with many adhering to the default 3% contribution rate due to status quo bias.^[101] These defaults counteract immediate opt-out tendencies driven by present bias, raising short-term savings rates. However, theoretical models incorporating present-biased preferences predict that such gains erode over time, as procrastination fosters overconsumption and funds leak from rollover IRAs upon job separation, potentially depleting balances before retirement for sufficiently biased individuals (e.g., discount factors β ≤ 0.58).^[102] Financial incentives represent another approach, particularly in health domains, where immediate rewards or penalties aim to shift preferences toward delayed benefits. Programs like the UK's "Give It Up For Baby" initiative in Tayside, Scotland, used vouchers to promote smoking cessation among pregnant women, yielding higher quit rates compared to controls, while lottery-based incentives in U.S. trials boosted physical activity levels short-term.^[103] Loss-framed incentives, such as penalties for non-adherence, have shown superior effects in contexts like medication compliance (e.g., 85% adherence with £15 incentives versus 71% without).^[103] These mechanisms directly compete with present bias by making future-oriented behaviors salient through proximate payoffs, though they require ongoing administration to sustain engagement. Critiques of these interventions highlight limited long-term efficacy and methodological flaws in supporting evidence. Auto-enrollment yields modest net savings increases of about 0.6% of annual income, per analyses of U.S. administrative data, but defaults' conservative allocations (e.g., money market funds) can hinder wealth accumulation over decades.^[104] In health applications, incentive effects often fade post-intervention, with risks of crowding out intrinsic motivation and ineffectiveness for habitual behaviors like obesity management.^[103] Broader meta-analyses reveal severe publication bias in nudge studies, with adjusted effect sizes approaching zero across domains after corrections like robust Bayesian meta-regression, undermining claims of reliable policy impact and suggesting interventions may merely exploit rather than resolve underlying time inconsistencies.^[105] Such findings urge scrutiny of scalability, as domain-specific heterogeneity (e.g., weak evidence in finance nudges) implies context-dependent outcomes rather than universal applicability.^[105]

Criticisms and Alternative Explanations

Debates on Measurement and Psychological Validity

Present bias is typically measured through intertemporal choice experiments, where participants select between smaller immediate rewards and larger delayed rewards, often revealing hyperbolic discounting patterns that imply greater impatience for near-term trade-offs.^[106] Critics argue that such laboratory tasks suffer from low external validity, as elicited present bias parameters fail to consistently predict real-world behaviors like savings or health adherence, with long-run patience measures showing stronger predictive power in longitudinal studies of student outcomes.^[107] For instance, convex time budget experiments detect present bias estimates of 0.902 to 0.924 only when immediate payments are feasible on the same day, suggesting measurement artifacts from procedural immediacy rather than inherent preferences.^[5] Debates intensify over whether present bias reflects genuine psychological impatience or confounds like liquidity constraints and uncertainty, particularly among lower-income groups where apparent bias may stem from expected future resource availability rather than intrinsic time inconsistency.^[108] The quasi-hyperbolic discounting model (β-δ), which posits a present bias factor β < 1 alongside exponential long-run discounting, dominates empirical tests but faces scrutiny for oversimplifying dynamic inconsistencies; meta-analyses confirm β averages around 0.7-0.8 across studies, yet variability arises from task framing, such as hypothetical versus incentivized choices, undermining claims of universal validity.^[10] Psychologists and economists question the model's psychological realism, noting that hyperbolic forms better fit data under short-run impatience but may capture adaptive responses to volatile environments rather than irrationality, with neural evidence from fMRI linking impatience to limbic system activation but not isolating bias from risk aversion.^[4] Further contention surrounds test-retest reliability and domain specificity: present bias elicited in monetary tasks correlates weakly with non-monetary decisions like exercise or dieting, implying it may not represent a stable trait but context-dependent heuristics.^[109] Behavioral economists defend its validity by citing field evidence, such as default effects in retirement savings where immediate opt-out temptations amplify bias, yet neoclassical critics counter that such "failures" rationalize observed choices under incomplete information, challenging the bias label as presumptive rather than evidence-based.^[110] Overall, while meta-analytic support affirms measurement robustness in controlled settings, unresolved discrepancies between lab elicitation and life outcomes fuel skepticism about present bias as a verifiably causal psychological mechanism versus an interpretive overlay on heterogeneous preferences.^[10]^[107]

Evolutionary Rationality and Adaptive Value

Present bias, often modeled through hyperbolic discounting, is posited to have evolved as an adaptive response to ancestral environments marked by high mortality rates and uncertain future prospects. In such contexts, immediate rewards were more reliably attainable than distant ones, as survival probabilities declined nonlinearly over time due to predation, disease, and resource scarcity; hyperbolic discounting approximates the optimal strategy under probabilistic survival, prioritizing near-term gains to maximize expected utility before potential death.^[111] This form of temporal preference aligns with risk-sensitive decision-making, where the steep initial discount rate reflects elevated short-term hazards, such as immediate threats that could preclude future consumption altogether. Theoretical models demonstrate that hyperbolic discounting emerges evolutionarily when future rewards face delivery uncertainty, such as variable environmental conditions or unreliable persistence of benefits. For instance, simulations of natural selection under stochastic reward horizons show that agents exhibiting hyperbolic-like impatience outperform exponential discounters by exploiting transient opportunities while hedging against total loss of delayed payoffs.^[112] Empirical analogs in nonhuman animals, including primates and rodents, reveal similar impatience patterns in foraging tasks, suggesting deep phylogenetic roots tied to adaptive exploitation of ephemeral resources in unpredictable habitats.^[113] These traits likely enhanced reproductive fitness by enabling rapid responses to caloric windfalls or mating cues, which were fleeting amid high extrinsic mortality—estimated at 20-40% infant mortality and sub-30-year life expectancies in hunter-gatherer populations.^[114] While maladaptive in modern stable settings with extended lifespans and reliable planning horizons, the evolutionary rationale underscores present bias's rationality as a heuristic for volatile ecologies rather than a mere cognitive flaw. Adaptive peak models indicate that selection pressures from temporal uncertainty constrain preferences toward present-oriented optima, balancing exploration of immediate gains against speculative long-term investments.^[114] Cross-cultural data from small-scale societies with elevated mortality risks further corroborate higher present bias, implying calibration to local hazard levels rather than universal irrationality.^[113] Thus, what appears as bias under exponential discounting assumptions reflects causal alignment with ancestral fitness landscapes, where deferring gratification excessively risked zero net payoff.

Neoclassical Counterarguments and Optimism Biases

Neoclassical economics posits that individuals exhibit time-consistent preferences through exponential discounting, where the discount rate remains constant over time, enabling rational intertemporal choice without the dynamic inconsistencies implied by present bias models.^[19] This framework assumes agents maximize utility subject to budget constraints, incorporating uncertainty and information constraints rather than invoking hyperbolic discounting as a primitive deviation from rationality.^[115] Critics of present bias within this tradition argue that empirical anomalies attributed to time inconsistency often stem from model misspecification, such as failing to account for heterogeneous discount rates or evolving beliefs about future states, rather than inherent preference reversals.^[116] Proponents of neoclassical rationality contend that observed procrastination or impulsive choices do not necessitate abandoning time consistency, as agents may rationally anticipate and mitigate potential self-control issues through commitment mechanisms or updated expectations.^[117] For instance, rational addiction models explain persistent harmful behaviors via anticipatory utility from anticipated future consumption, preserving consistency without present bias.^[115] Empirical tests, such as those examining substance use patterns, support time-consistent preferences over naïve time-inconsistent ones, suggesting that neoclassical models better fit data when controlling for foresight and learning.^[115] These counterarguments emphasize that hyperbolic models overcomplicate explanations, as exponential discounting aligns with welfare analysis under rational expectations, avoiding the policy pitfalls of assuming paternalistic interventions for "naïve" agents.^[89] Optimism biases offer an alternative rationalization for behaviors mimicking present bias, where individuals overestimate future productivity or self-control due to overly positive forecasts of costs and demands, without requiring time-inconsistent preferences.^[80] In procrastination contexts, experiments demonstrate that excessive optimism about future time availability—such as underestimating task duration—generates dynamic inconsistency patterns indistinguishable from present bias in standard tests, but refutes present bias as the primary driver when beliefs are elicited directly.^[118] This mechanism aligns with bounded rationality extensions of neoclassical theory, where biased beliefs (e.g., planning fallacy) lead to ex-post regrets, yet agents remain time-consistent in their underlying preferences, updating via Bayesian learning.^[119] Such optimism-driven explanations preserve neoclassical optimism about human agency, attributing suboptimal outcomes to informational errors correctable through education or feedback, rather than immutable preference flaws.^[80] For example, in savings decisions, over-optimism about future income or discipline can mimic hyperbolic impatience, but field data on belief updates show convergence to rational baselines over time, supporting critiques of present bias as an artifact of static belief assumptions.^[118] While behavioral models treat optimism as a separate bias amplifying present bias, neoclassical responses integrate it as a transient deviation resolvable within consistent frameworks, cautioning against overreliance on hyperbolic assumptions that may inflate estimates of irrationality.^[120]

Debiasing Strategies and Future Directions

Commitment Devices and Environmental Design

Commitment devices are mechanisms that individuals voluntarily adopt to constrain their future selves' options, thereby enforcing adherence to long-term preferences despite present bias. In quasi-hyperbolic discounting models, sophisticated agents—those who anticipate their future impulsivity—seek such devices to impose ex post costs on yielding to immediate temptations, effectively simulating time-consistent behavior.^[121] Empirical evidence supports their efficacy; for example, a 2003 field experiment in the Philippines introduced a commitment savings account (SEED) that restricted withdrawals until a self-set target date or goal, resulting in participants accumulating balances 81% higher after one year compared to those offered standard accounts.^[122] Similarly, commitment contracts for behaviors like medication adherence or exercise have boosted compliance rates by 2-3 times in randomized trials, as commitment raises the perceived stakes of deviation.^[123] Modern applications include digital tools such as app-based blockers that limit access to distracting websites during work hours, or pre-paid gym memberships that create financial penalties for non-attendance. A 2010 review of field studies found these devices particularly effective for domains prone to present bias, like savings and habit formation, with effect sizes ranging from moderate to large when tailored to users' self-perceived weaknesses.^[123] However, limitations exist: naive agents unaware of their bias underutilize them, and even sophisticates may preemptively weaken or avoid commitments when temptation looms, as evidenced by low uptake (under 10%) in experiments targeting high present-bias groups.^[124] Environmental design complements commitment by passively reshaping surroundings to minimize friction for beneficial actions and amplify it for impulsive ones, without requiring upfront binding pledges. This approach draws from choice architecture principles, where defaults and salience cues exploit inertia and attention limits to favor delayed rewards; for instance, automatic enrollment in employer-sponsored retirement plans has increased participation from 20-40% under opt-in systems to over 90% under opt-out defaults, countering present bias by eliminating immediate decision costs.^[125] In health contexts, rearranging physical environments—such as positioning water bottles prominently or hiding unhealthy snacks—has reduced caloric intake by 10-20% in cafeteria studies, as immediate cues for short-term pleasures are de-emphasized.^[126] Field evidence indicates environmental tweaks sustain long-term outcomes better than reminders alone; a meta-analysis of 100+ nudge interventions reported average effect sizes of 0.21 standard deviations for time-preference-related behaviors, with designs addressing present bias (e.g., pre-filled savings forms) outperforming others by making future-oriented choices the path of least resistance.^[125] Digital implementations, like apps that gamify delayed gratification through progress visualizations, further enhance persistence, though efficacy diminishes if environments revert to temptation-rich states or if users adapt by seeking alternatives.^[123] Overall, combining environmental design with commitment yields synergistic effects, as seen in hybrid interventions boosting savings persistence by up to 50% over isolated strategies.^[125]

Recent Research on Interventions (2020s Developments)

A 2022 field experiment involving 261 infrastructure professionals demonstrated that future-oriented framing in project descriptions—achieved by altering verb tenses to emphasize long-term outcomes—significantly reduced present bias in design recommendations, resulting in selections for longer design life, greater community usefulness, and higher financial returns compared to present-framed conditions.^[127] In a 2020 field study, temporal reframing techniques that highlighted future benefits increased participation in savings programs by prompting individuals to visualize delayed rewards more vividly, thereby mitigating the overweighting of immediate gratification inherent in present bias.^[128] Empirical tests of values activation interventions, such as a brief writing exercise clarifying personal values, yielded only marginal reductions in present bias during monetary choice tasks, with effects falling short of statistical significance in a 2020 experiment.^[129] Conversely, priming religious themes in the same period decreased measured present bias by 10.4% among student participants in intertemporal choice scenarios, suggesting context-specific efficacy for belief-based nudges.^[130] Commitment devices continue to show mixed results in recent analyses; a 2024 study found low demand for such mechanisms despite evident present bias, attributed not to misperceived self-control but to accurate foresight of potential non-adherence, challenging assumptions of sophisticated time inconsistency driving uptake.^[131] Auto-enrollment nudges in retirement savings, tested empirically in 2020, effectively countered present bias by defaulting individuals into future-oriented choices, though opt-in alternatives revealed heterogeneity based on saver types.^[132] These findings underscore the need for tailored interventions, as uniform approaches often underperform due to individual differences in bias awareness and follow-through.

References

[1]
Present Bias - The Econometric Society
Jul 1, 2021 · Present bias is the inclination to prefer a smaller present reward to a larger later reward, but reversing this preference when both rewards are equally ...
[2]
Present bias - Behavioral Economics Institute
Dec 4, 2024 · The present bias refers to the tendency of people to give stronger weight to payoffs that are closer to the present time when considering trade-offs between ...
[3]
Present bias and health - PMC - NIH
This study uses a dynamic discrete choice model to examine the degree of present bias and naivete about present bias in individuals' health care decisions.
[4]
Present Bias: Lessons Learned and to Be Learned
Empirical analyses have demonstrated how present bias can improve our understanding of behavior in various economic field contexts. Nonetheless, there is still ...Missing: evidence | Show results with:evidence
[5]
[PDF] How Soon Is Now? Evidence of Present Bias from Convex Time ...
Empirically observed intertemporal choices about money have long been thought to exhibit present bias, i.e. higher short-term compared to long-term discount ...
[6]
[PDF] Empirical Evidence on the Role of Present Bias for Credit Card ...
Consistent with present bias, I find that sophisticated agents' planned paydown is more predictive of actual paydown than that of naives, and that their paydown ...
[7]
Sticking to your plan: The role of present bias for credit card paydown
In this paper, we empirically evaluate the extent to which present bias can account for the observed household debt repayment behavior. ... present bias in ...
[8]
Full article: Is present-bias a distinctive psychological kind?
Mar 6, 2024 · Present-bias is the preference, all else being equal, for positive events to be located in the present rather than the non-present.
[9]
[PDF] Present bias and financial behavior - DigitalCommons@URI
Present bias is often examined when modeling economic consumer behavior and is considered a trait in economic research. Additionally, it is incorporated in the ...
[10]
[PDF] Quasi-Hyperbolic Present Bias: A Meta-Analysis
Quasi-hyperbolic discounting is one of the most well-known and widely-used models to capture self-control problems in the economics literature. The underlying ...<|separator|>
[11]
Quasi-hyperbolic Present Bias: A Meta-analysis
Aug 24, 2021 · Quasi-hyperbolic discounting is one of the most well-known and widely-used models to capture selfcontrol problems in the economics ...
[12]
24 Present bias - Notes on behavioural economics
Present bias is a concept developed to account for anomalies in the exponential discounting model, where people place additional weight on costs and benefits in ...
[13]
[PDF] Complexity and Hyperbolic Discounting - Harvard Business School
Dec 14, 2023 · We examine which experimental techniques to estimate present bias are. (not) confounded by complexity. Keywords: Hyperbolic discounting, present ...
[14]
A quasi-hyperbolic discounting approach to smoking behavior - PMC
The main reason for this is the present bias effect, wherein people tend to place disproportionally more emphasis on an immediate reward as opposed to a delayed ...
[15]
[PDF] Present-Biased Preferences - Sites@Duke Express
The quasi-hyperbolic discounting model has the benefit of parsimoniously incorporating present bias. However, there is also evidence to suggest a bias for the ...
[16]
Hyperbolic discounting and exponentiated demand: Modeling ... - NIH
The original formula for hyperbolic discounting offered by Mazur (1987), takes the form: V = A 1 + b Y. (1)Missing: definition | Show results with:definition<|separator|>
[17]
[PDF] Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting - Harvard University
Hyperbolic discount functions are characterized by a rela- tively high discount rate over short horizons and a relatively low. discount rate over long horizons.Missing: formula | Show results with:formula
[18]
[PDF] Hyperbolic Discounting - behaviorlab.org
Hyperbolic discounting refers to the tendency for people to increasingly choose a smaller-sooner reward over a larger-later reward as the delay occurs sooner ...
[19]
[PDF] Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting - Harvard DASH
Hyperbolic discount functions induce dynamically inconsistent preferences, implying a motive for consumers to constrain their own future choices. This paper.
[20]
[PDF] Behavioral Economics and Individual Discounting - SOA
Hyperbolic discounting is a behavioral economic principle which offered a possible explanation. When actual DROP participants' choices were evaluated using ...
[21]
[PDF] strotz-final.tex 1 - Princeton University
This is consistent with standard agents who are time-consistent but also with naive agents who expect to be time consistent but ... sophisticated (i.e., if his ...
[22]
[PDF] Naive Quasi-Hyperbolic Discounting (O'Donoghue and Rabin)
Feb 5, 2024 · Quasi-hyperbolic discounting, a present bias extension, uses (β,δ) preferences. A naive individual has β < 1, but incorrectly believes future ...
[23]
[PDF] HYPERBOLIC DISCOUNTING AND CONSUMPTION
Feb 18, 2001 · Both naive and sophisticated hyperbolics will quickly spend whatever liquidity is at their disposal. By contrast, hyperbolics hold much more ...
[24]
[PDF] Q uasi-hyperbolic discounting and retirement - MIT Economics
Laibson (1997a) analyzed actors of the above kind in detail. His key result is that sophisticated actors with a quasi-hyperbolic discount structure undersave; ...
[25]
Identifying Present Bias from the Timing of Choices
A (partially naive) quasi-hyperbolic discounter repeatedly chooses whether to complete a task. Her net benefits of task completion are drawn independently ...
[26]
[PDF] Who Saves More, the Naive or the Sophisticated Agent?
Apr 17, 2024 · The sophisticated agent saves more than the naive agent if and only if the concavity parameter (θ) is greater than 1.
[27]
Who saves more, the naive or the sophisticated agent? - ScienceDirect
A naive agent will save 'too little' in hindsight if she has a presence bias whereas she saves 'too much' if she has a future bias. Allowing this agent to ...
[28]
[PDF] Akrasia and conflict in the Nicomachean Ethics - PhilArchive
May 26, 2016 · In Nicomachean Ethics VII, Aristotle offers an account of akrasia that purports to salvage the kernel of truth in the Socratic paradox that ...
[29]
Plato's Protagoras and the Socratic Denial of Akrasia
Nov 10, 2011 · Socrates is said to have thought that what is responsible for seeming cases of akrasia is ignorance. He also seems to have freed himself, in his ...
[30]
[PDF] ARISTOTLE'S ACCOUNT OF AKRASIA - UCL Discovery
Nicomachean Ethics, furthermore, Aristotle famously distinguishes between akrasia caused by epithumia and akrasia caused by thumos, and emphasizes that the ...
[31]
Akrasia and conflict in the Nicomachean Ethics | Semantic Scholar
May 26, 2016 · ABSTRACT In Nicomachean Ethics VII, Aristotle offers an account of akrasia that purports to salvage the kernel of truth in the Socratic ...
[32]
Desire, Aversion, and Stoic Self-Control - YouTube
Jan 25, 2022 · A fundamental tenet of the Stoic philosophy, as espoused by Epictetus and others, is that self-control is the key to living well.
[33]
Mastering Self-Control 📽️ - Einzelgänger
Aug 7, 2019 · Courage and moderation are two of the four cardinal virtues in Stoicism. Courage is subdivided into confidence, endurance, cheerfulness, high- ...Missing: immediate | Show results with:immediate<|separator|>
[34]
The Duality of Pleasure: Mind over Matter
Oct 28, 2023 · The Stoics acknowledge that pleasures of the mind, such as intellectual and moral satisfaction, play a significant role in achieving this state ...
[35]
What the Bible says about Esau's Temperament
Esau seems to have been a warmhearted man who sincerely loved his aged father, with whom he was gentle and quick to respond to when he needed anything.
[36]
Who was Esau in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org
Mar 29, 2024 · Esau focused more on earthly things than on the things of God. He would rather have his physical cravings satisfied than receive God's blessings ...
[37]
Present Bias - Definitions, Causes, Risks, Advantages & Debiasing
Feb 18, 2020 · For instance, the ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius noted that 'Cunning words confound the mind; petty impatience confounds great projects. ...
[38]
Myopia and Inconsistency in Dynamic Utility Maximization
R. H. Strotz; Myopia and Inconsistency in Dynamic Utility Maximization, The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 23, Issue 3, 1 January 1955, Pages 165–180,Missing: Richard | Show results with:Richard
[39]
Myopia and Inconsistency in Dynamic Utility Maximization
Myopia and Inconsistency in Dynamic Utility Maximization · R. H. Strotz · Published 1955 · Economics · The Review of Economic Studies.Missing: Richard | Show results with:Richard
[40]
[PDF] NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES HYPERBOLIC DISCOUNT ...
Hyperbolic consumers are willing to sacrifice 9/10 of a year's worth of income to induce the government to implement optimal revenue-neutral saving incentives.Missing: 1997 | Show results with:1997
[41]
[PDF] 3 Theory
These have various names: – Present Bias. – Hyperbolic Discounting. – Quasi-hyperbolic Discounting. – - Preferences. Page 4. 23. Strotz, R.H., “Myopia and ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[42]
(PDF) Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting - ResearchGate
Aug 9, 2025 · Citation David Laibson. 1997. Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(2): 443-477. Published Version ...
[43]
Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting - IDEAS/RePEc
David Isaac Laibson. Abstract. Hyperbolic discount functions induce dynamically inconsistent preferences, implying a motive for consumers to constrain their own ...
[44]
Doing It Now or Later - American Economic Association
The authors examine self-control problems--modeled as time-inconsistent, present-biased preferences--in a model where a person must do an activity exactly once.Missing: integration behavioral 1990s Laibson
[45]
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.91.4.969
[46]
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/000282803321946688
[47]
Dopaminergic reward system: a short integrative review - PMC
Oct 6, 2010 · In this review, we examine the current view of the role of DA in learning and behavioral, with particular regard to reward-seeking behavior.Missing: present | Show results with:present
[48]
Dopamine firing plays a dual role in coding reward prediction errors ...
Recent studies have confirmed the role of dopamine firing in reward prediction error, even under perceptual uncertainty.
[49]
Influence of Reward Delays on Responses of Dopamine Neurons
Jul 30, 2008 · Interestingly, delay discounting ... A tempting hypothesis is that temporal discounting in the dopamine system relates to behavioral impulsivity.
[50]
Dopamine and temporal discounting: revisiting pharmacology and ...
Aug 29, 2024 · Disorders characterised by changes in dopamine (DA) neurotransmission are often linked to changes in the temporal discounting of future rewards.
[51]
Dopaminergic function and intertemporal choice - Nature
Jan 6, 2015 · Temporal discounting also correlates with lower ventral striatal dopamine release in response to high-reward magnitude suggesting that dopamine- ...
[52]
Pharmacological Modulation of Temporal Discounting: A Systematic ...
Apr 6, 2023 · Thus, it can be concluded that dopamine is a crucial modulator for temporal discounting ... Delay Discounting Task [13,22,25,28,29,33,42] ...
[53]
Delay discounting in Parkinson's disease: A systematic review and ...
Jan 5, 2023 · Delay discounting in Parkinson's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis ... Dopamine Agents.
[54]
Altered delay discounting in neurodegeneration - ScienceDirect.com
A U-shaped relationship between dopamine and delay discounting. Observed ... Temporal discounting across adulthood: a systematic review and meta-analysis ( ...
[55]
Dopamine and temporal discounting: revisiting pharmacology and ...
Apr 10, 2025 · In the current work, we revisited the role of dopamine (DA) neurotransmission in temporal discounting, and the role of interindividual ...
[56]
The neural correlates of temporal reward discounting
Jul 29, 2013 · Specifically, they hypothesized that limbic areas such as ventral striatum (VS), ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC), and posterior cingulate ...
[57]
The neural basis of cultural differences in delay discounting - PMC
Recent neuroimaging findings suggest that differences in discounting may arise from differential involvement of either brain reward areas or regions in the ...
[58]
A meta-analysis of neural systems underlying delay discounting
Aug 4, 2023 · We conducted a meta-analysis of 78 fMRI studies of delay discounting, testing which statistical contrasts yield reliable effects across studies.
[59]
The neurobiology of intertemporal choice: Insight from imaging and ...
Aug 5, 2025 · Lesion studies have shown that vmPFC lesion increases delay discounting (i.e. impulsivity), compared with healthy controls or with individuals ...
[60]
[PDF] The neurobiology of intertemporal choice: insight from imaging and ...
Lesion studies. Functional neuroimaging studies in humans highlight the role of the mOFC in the evaluation of intertemporal rewards when a choice is required.
[61]
Does Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex Damage Really Increase ...
Jul 7, 2021 · In contrast, vMPFC-lesioned individuals discounted delayed rewards more steeply but probabilistic rewards more shallowly than controls. These ...
[62]
[PDF] intertemporal choice
Decisions that have consequences in multiple time periods are intertemporal choices. Individuals typically discount delayed rewards much more than can.
[63]
Money Earlier or Later? Simple Heuristics Explain Intertemporal ...
The canonical experimental task used to measure discount functions is an intertemporal choice task in which individuals choose between a smaller-earlier ...
[64]
[PDF] Complexity and Hyperbolic Discounting Benjamin Enke, Thomas ...
We examine which experimental techniques to estimate present bias are (not) confounded by complexity. Benjamin Enke. Department of Economics. Harvard University.
[65]
A systematic investigation into the reliability of inter-temporal choice ...
Mar 6, 2023 · We examine the reliability of parameter estimates from 11 prominent models of inter-temporal choice by (a) fitting each model to data from three previous ...<|separator|>
[66]
Removing non-systematic responding data in the delay discounting ...
Removing NSR data may introduce bias, as it reveals important health-related patterns. NSR varies by race, ethnicity, and BMI, but not by sex or gender.
[67]
Thinking about neither death nor poverty affects delay discounting ...
We outline three attempts to replicate experiments that reported priming effects on time preferences measured by delay discounting.
[68]
DOES EXPOSURE TO NATURAL IMAGERY IMPROVE DELAY ...
Despite some methodological limitations, we failed to replicate the finding that exposure to natural imagery reduced delay discounting. Data collection is ...
[69]
Steep Delay Discounting and Addictive Behavior: A Meta-Analysis of ...
Delayed reward discounting is robustly associated with continuous measures of addiction severity and quantity-frequency.
[70]
Delay Discounting as a Transdiagnostic Process in Psychiatric ...
Aug 28, 2019 · This meta-analysis reviews articles from PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, and Web of Science to examine the role of delay discounting in ...
[71]
Revisiting the Marshmallow Test: A Conceptual Replication ... - NIH
We replicated and extended Shoda, Mischel, and Peake's (1990) famous marshmallow study, which showed strong bivariate correlations between a child's ability ...
[72]
Delay Discounting: I'm a k, You're a k - PMC - NIH
This is the empirical demonstration of delay discounting: The value of money is degraded systematically as the money becomes more remote.
[73]
Experimental Reductions of Delay Discounting and Impulsive Choice
This review evaluates methods to reduce delay discounting, which is linked to impulsive choice. Most methods produced significant reductions, with learning- ...
[74]
[PDF] Self-Control Awareness and Intertemporal Choice Behavior
The results show the treatment was more willing to delay gratification, choosing a later reward 8% to 16% larger than the control.
[75]
Self-control ≠ temporal discounting - ScienceDirect.com
This paper explores self-control beyond the framework of time discounting, as is conventional in economics and decision research.Review · Keywords · Affective Temporal...Missing: tasks | Show results with:tasks
[76]
A systematic review focused on treatment outcomes and discounting ...
Apr 16, 2023 · Delay discounting—the tendency to choose small, immediate rewards over larger, delayed rewards—is robustly associated with substance use.
[77]
Is It Really Self-Control? Examining the Predictive Power of the ...
This investigation tests whether the predictive power of the delay of gratification task (colloquially known as the “marshmallow test”) derives from its ...Study 1 · Study 2 · Analytic Strategy
[78]
Present-Bias, Procrastination and Deadlines in a Field Experiment
Jan 30, 2014 · We find that present-bias is relatively widespread but that having multiple repeated tasks appears to activate effective internal self-control ...
[79]
[PDF] Procrastination, Present-Biased Preferences, and Financial Behaviors
biased preferences, and thus evidence that present-bias is a fundamental contributor to understanding why so many individuals under-prepare for retirement.
[80]
[PDF] Why Do We Procrastinate? Present Bias and Optimism
Jun 18, 2023 · Procrastination is commonly modeled as originating from present biased dis- counting that favors the present at the expense of the future ( ...
[81]
(PDF) Present bias and financial behavior - ResearchGate
Empirical research finds that present bias is associated with undesirable spending, borrowing, and saving behaviors.
[82]
[PDF] Evidence on the Effect of Present-Biased Preferences on Credit ...
We provide direct evidence that indeed present-biased individuals borrow more on credit cards and might therefore be less sensitive to interest rate changes.
[83]
[PDF] A Monthly Struggle for Self-Control? Hyperbolic Discounting, Mental ...
We formalize this prediction using the quasi-hyperbolic discounting model (see. Laibson, 1997), which incorporates dynamic inconsistency by allowing for ...<|separator|>
[84]
[PDF] The Role of Present Bias for Credit Card Paydown
Present bias, where individuals are overly impatient in the short run, explains why many consumers fail to stick to their credit card debt paydown plans.<|control11|><|separator|>
[85]
Sticking to Your Plan: Hyperbolic Discounting and Credit Card Debt ...
I first measure the sensitivity of consumption spending to paycheck receipt for each user and argue that it provides a proxy for short-run impatience. To ...Missing: studies | Show results with:studies
[86]
[PDF] The Hyperbolic Consumption Model: Calibration, Simulation, and ...
At the beginning of life, consumers with hyperbolic discount rates go on a spending spree financed with credit cards, leading to higher consumption than the ...
[87]
(PDF) Present Bias and Financial Behavior - ResearchGate
Aug 7, 2025 · Those who are more present-biased are more prone to consuming rather than saving and investing their money in terms of current and future ...
[88]
[PDF] Present Bias Amplifies the Household Balance-Sheet Channels of ...
Jul 14, 2021 · We study the effect of monetary and fiscal policy in a heterogeneous-agent model where households have present-biased time preferences and ...
[89]
Consumption, Welfare, and the Present-Bias Dilemma
There is widespread evidence that consumers exhibit “present bias” across a variety of decision-making contexts. This evidence exists in lab settings (Frederick ...
[90]
Inconsistent Retirement Timing - Journal of Human Resources
May 1, 2024 · They find that hyperbolic discounters plan to retire early but then have to postpone retirement due to insufficient savings. The hyperbolic ...
[91]
Present-Biased Preferences and Credit Card Borrowing
Aug 7, 2025 · The results indicate that present-biased individuals are more likely to have credit card debt, and have significantly higher amounts of credit ...
[92]
Present bias, mental budget constraint, and the payday consumption ...
These findings suggest that present bias together with mental budget constraints provide an explanation for the payday consumption cycle. Introduction.
[93]
The Impact of Hyperbolic Discounting on Asset Accumulation ... - MDPI
The results show that hyperbolic discounting significantly impairs asset accumulation at the JPY 100 million level but not at lower thresholds.
[94]
[PDF] The Health Consequences of Intertemporal Preferences
This widely documented inconsistency in time preference, often referred to as hyperbolic discounting or present bias, has been proposed as a model of why people ...
[95]
Unhealthy diets, obesity and time discounting: a systematic literature ...
Jun 3, 2016 · Nineteen out of 25 cross‐sectional studies found time discount rates positively associated with overweight, obesity and unhealthy diets.Missing: adherence | Show results with:adherence
[96]
Association between time preference, present-bias and physical ...
Dec 19, 2018 · Those who were present-biased and who had higher discount rates did significantly less physical activity than their patient and non present- ...
[97]
Estimating Biases in Smoking Cessation: Evidence from a Field ...
Dec 5, 2019 · We find that cigarette smokers overestimate their likelihood of future abstinence by more than 100%, consistent with partially-naïve present-biased preferences.
[98]
Can present biasedness explain early onset of diabetes and ...
We present empirical evidence that present biased individuals are more prone to onset of diabetes at an early age, and have a poorer prognosis after diagnosis.
[99]
Time discounting, present biases, and health-related behaviors
Second, present bias, which is measured by the degree of declining impatience, is positively associated with unhealthy behaviors for naïve respondents, who are ...
[100]
[PDF] Impatience and present bias do not determine weight loss in obesity
However, there is no evidence that participants who are less impatient or less present-biased are more successful in reducing body fat or weight.
[101]
[PDF] The Power of Suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) Participation and Savings ...
We have two key findings. First, 401(k) participation is significantly higher under automatic enrollment. Second, the default contribution rate and investment ...<|separator|>
[102]
None
### Summary of Present Bias Effects on Auto-Enrollment Savings
[103]
Changing health behaviors using financial incentives: a review from ...
Aug 7, 2019 · Recent interest has been shown in using financial incentives to promote desirable health behaviors and discourage unhealthy ones.
[104]
Do Nudges Help Americans Save for Retirement? Not as Much as ...
Sep 23, 2024 · Automatic enrollment and automatic escalation increase net savings by just 0.6% and 0.3% of income per year, respectively.
[105]
No evidence for nudging after adjusting for publication bias - PNAS
Jul 19, 2022 · Despite its popularity, the “nudge approach” has been criticized for having a “limited evidence base” (e.g., ref. 2). Mertens et al. (3) seek to ...
[106]
[PDF] Present bias: Definition and measurement - HAL
May 18, 2019 · Hyperbolic discounting is taken as an equivalent expression for de- creasing impatience, which means that when considering trade-offs between ...
[107]
Do preferences and biases predict life outcomes? Evidence from ...
We find that students' long-run patience is a significant predictor of dropout decisions, whereas the impact of present bias is small and insignificant.
[108]
Are the poor so present-biased? | Institute for Fiscal Studies - IFS
Estimates of present-bias among the poor may be exaggerated if poor individuals are credit-constrained and expect to have greater liquidity in the future.
[109]
[PDF] Present Bias and Everyday Self-Control Failures - University of Stirling
Jul 28, 2015 · Present bias is the economist's favorite explanation for self-control problems. However, the relationship between present bias and self-.
[110]
[PDF] Experimental Evidence on Present Bias and Default Effects in ...
Abstract. This paper reports on an experiment examining why default savings assignments affect behavior. Working with Afghanistan's largest firm, ...
[111]
The Evolutionary Theory of Time Preferences and Intergenerational ...
For example, Sozou (1998) has shown how hyperbolic discounting and preference reversals may evolve through natural selection when discounting reflects risk.
[112]
The evolution of hyperbolic discounting: Implications for truly social ...
We explore the standard expected utility model and alternatives to it. We then examine the behavioral and neurological evidence for hyperbolic discounting.
[113]
Evolutionary origins of temporal discounting: Modeling how time and ...
The evolution of hyperbolic discounting: Implications for truly social valuation of the future. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 2013. Jun 1;90 ...
[114]
(PDF) The evolutionary origins of temporal discounting: an adaptive ...
Jan 30, 2023 · The evolutionary origins of temporal discounting: an adaptive ... Hyperbolic Discounting. American Economic. Review 95: 1290-1299. 25 ...
[115]
Rational addiction and time-consistency: An empirical test
The test's purpose is to check whether the consumers behind our data reveal time-consistent or naïve time-inconsistent preferences. Our estimates of the general ...
[116]
[PDF] On multiple discount rates and present bias - HAL-SHS
Dec 5, 2022 · This paper axiomatizes a quasi-hyperbolic model using multiple discount rates and present bias parameters, where present bias is measured by β ...
[117]
[PDF] Time-inconsistent preferences and consumer self-control.
The idea of overcoming desires is inimical to the rational choice perspective, which assumes that people try to satisfy, rather than to overcome, desires.
[118]
[PDF] Why Do We Procrastinate? Present Bias and Optimism - EconStor
Experimental results refute the hypothesis that present bias is the sole source of dynamic inconsistency, but they are consistent with optimism. These findings ...
[119]
[PDF] Why Do We Procrastinate? Present Bias and Optimism - Zachary Breig
Procrastination is commonly modeled as originating from present biased dis- counting that favors the present at the expense of the future (Strotz, 1955, Laibson ...
[120]
The behavioral economics of dynamically inconsistent behavior
Jul 14, 2023 · People's choices often are dynamically inconsistent. They make a plan for a future period but revise that plan when the future period arrives ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[121]
Why don't present-biased agents make commitments? - PMC
Researchers have frequently emphasized that dynamically inconsistent preferences, such as present-biased preferences, engender a demand for commitment.
[122]
[PDF] tying odysseus to the mast: evidence from a commitment savings ...
The savings product was intended for individuals who want to commit now to restrict access to their savings, and who were sophisticated enough to engage in such ...
[123]
Commitment Devices by Gharad Bryan, Dean S. Karlan, Scott Nelson
Oct 18, 2010 · We review the recent evidence on commitment devices and discuss how this evidence relates to theoretical questions about the demand for, and effectiveness of, ...Missing: Gampeny Trope
[124]
[PDF] When Commitment Fails – Evidence from a Field Experiment
I identify as hyperbolic discounter (or 'present biased') those who put a higher premium on waiting for one month in the present than in the future.
[125]
The effectiveness of nudging: A meta-analysis of choice architecture ...
The effectiveness of nudging: A meta-analysis of choice architecture interventions across behavioral domains ... present bias, bias in probability weighting, and/ ...Results · Moderator Analyses · Discussion
[126]
The Benefits of Behavioral Nudges: Using Choice Architecture to ...
Mar 1, 2024 · This paper will first summarize several successful examples of choice architecture, where the deliberate integration of behavioral nudges into ...
[127]
Framing to reduce present bias in infrastructure design intentions
Mar 18, 2022 · Present bias can be overcome by priming future considerations so that they are considered first or more extensively. One way in which this ...<|separator|>
[128]
https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2019.1197
[129]
https://doi.org/10.4018/IJABE.2020040104
[130]
https://doi.org/10.4018/IJABE.2020070103
[131]
People do not demand commitment devices because they might not ...
This low demand for commitment is not driven by a perceived lack of present bias, but rather subjects' accurate belief that they may fail to follow through.
[132]
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2108337118