Reference Dependence in Intertemporal Preference

References

• Abeler J, Falk A, Goette L, Huffman D (2011) Reference points and effort provision. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(2):470–492.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abdellaoui M, Attema AE, Bleichrodt H (2010) Intertemporal tradeoffs for gains and losses: An experimental measurement of discounted utility. Econom. J. (London) 120(545):845–866.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abdellaoui M, Bleichrodt H, l’Haridon O (2013) Sign-dependence in intertemporal choice. J. Risk Uncertainty 47(3):225–253.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J, Sprenger C (2012) Estimating time preferences from convex budgets. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(7):3333–3356.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Attema AE, Bleichrodt H, Rohde KI, Wakker PP (2010) Time-tradeoff sequences for analyzing discounting and time inconsistency. Management Sci. 56(11):2015–2030.Link, Google Scholar
• Attema AE, Bleichrodt H, Gao Y, Huang Z, Wakker PP (2016) Measuring discounting without measuring utility. Amer. Econom. Rev. 106(6):1476–1494.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bao T, Dai Y, Yu X (2018) Memory and discounting: Theory and evidence. J. Econom. Dynamic Control 88:21–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baillon A, Bleichrodt H, Spinu V (2020) Searching for the reference point. Management Sci. 66(1):93–112.Link, Google Scholar
• Barro RJ, King RG (1984) Time-separable preferences and intertemporal-substitution models of business cycles. Quart. J. Econom. 99(4):817–839.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baucells M, Sarin RK (2010) Predicting utility under satiation and habit formation. Management Sci. 56(2):286–301.Link, Google Scholar
• Baucells M, Kontek K, Lewandowski M (2018) Range and sign dependent utility for risk and time. Darden Business School Working Paper, Charlottesville, VA.Google Scholar
• Beauchamp JP, Benjamin DJ, Chabris CF, Laibson DI (2020) Measuring and controlling for the compromise effect when estimating risk preference parameters. Experiment. Econom. 23(4):1069–1099.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benhabib J, Bisin A, Schotter A (2010) Present-bias, quasi-hyperbolic discounting, and fixed costs. Games Econom. Behav. 69(2):205–223.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bell DE (1982) Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Oper. Res. 30(5):961–981.Link, Google Scholar
• Bell DE (1985) Disappointment in decision making under uncertainty. Oper. Res. 33(1):1–27.Link, Google Scholar
• Bosch-Domènech A, Silvestre J (2013) Measuring risk aversion with lists: A new bias. Theory Decision 75(4):465–496.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camerer C, Babcock L, Loewenstein G, Thaler R (1997) Labor supply of New York City cabdrivers: One day at a time. Quart. J. Econom. 112(2):407–441.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen JD, Ericson KM, Laibson D, White JM (2020) Measuring time preferences. J. Econom. Literature 58(2):299–347.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Constantinides GM (1990) Habit formation: A resolution of the equity premium puzzle. J. Political Econom. 98(3):519–543.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Delquié P (1993) Inconsistent trade-offs between attributes: New evidence in preference assessment biases. Management Sci. 39(11):1382–1395.Link, Google Scholar
• Dohmen T, Falk A, Huffman D, Sunde U (2017) The robustness and pervasiveness of sub-additivity in intertemporal choice. Working paper.Google Scholar
• Ericson KMM, Fuster A (2011) Expectations as endowments: Evidence on reference-dependent preferences from exchange and valuation experiments. Quart. J. Econom. 26(4):1879–1907.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Epper T (2015) Income expectations, limited liquidity, and anomalies in intertemporal choice. Working paper, School of Economics and Political Science, University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland.Google Scholar
• Epper T, Fehr-Duda H (2014) The missing link: Risk taking and time discounting. Working paper.Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Goette L (2007) Do workers work more if wages are high? Evidence from a randomized field experiment. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97(1):298–317.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frederick S, Read D (2002) The empirical and normative status of hyperbolic discounting and other DU anomalies. Working paper.Google Scholar
• Frederick S, Loewenstein G, O’Donoghue T (2002) Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. J. Econom. Literature 40(2):351–401.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Freeman DJ (2019) Expectations‐based reference‐dependence and choice under risk. Econom. J. (London) 129(622):2424–2458.Google Scholar
• Freeman DJ, Mayraz G (2019) Why choice lists increase risk taking. Experiment. Econom. 22(1):131–154.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Freeman D, Halevy Y, Kneeland T (2019) List elicitation of risk preference. Quant. Econom. 10(1):217–237.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Freeman D, Manzini P, Mariotti M, Mittone L (2016) Procedures for eliciting time preferences. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 126:235–242.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gill D, Prowse V (2012) A structural analysis of disappointment aversion in a real effort competition. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(1):469–503.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Goette L, Sprenger C, Zimmermann F (2012) The limits of expectations-based reference dependence. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 15(4):861–876.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gul F (1991) A theory of disappointment aversion. Econometrica 59(3):667–686.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Halevy Y (2008) Strotz meets Allais: Diminishing impatience and the certainty effect. Amer. Econom. Rev. 98(3):1145–1162.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hardie BG, Johnson EJ, Fader PS (1993) Modeling loss aversion and reference dependence effects on brand choice. Marketing Sci. 12(4):378–394.Link, Google Scholar
• He TS, Hong F (2018) Risk breeds risk aversion. Experiment. Econom. 21(4):815–835.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heffetz O, List JA (2014) Is the endowment effect an expectations effect? J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 12(5):1396–1422.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hershey JC, Schoemaker PJH (1985) Probability versus certainty equivalence methods in utility measurement: Are they equivalent? Management Sci. 31:1213–1231.Link, Google Scholar
• Holcomb JH, Nelson PS (1992) Another experimental look at individual time preference. Rationality Soc. 4(2):199–220.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Isoni A, Loomes G, Sugden B (2011) The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap, the “endowment effect,” subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(2):991–1011.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH (1991) Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. J. Econom. Perspective 5(1):193–206.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Koopmans TC (1960) Stationary ordinal utility and impatience. Econometrica 28(2):287–309.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Köszegi B, Rabin M (2006) A model of reference-dependent preferences. Quart. J. Econom. 121(4):1133–1165.Google Scholar
• Köszegi B, Rabin M (2007) Reference-dependent risk attitudes. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97(4):1047–1073.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loomes G, Sugden R (1982) Regret theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Econom. J. (London) 92(December 1982):805–824.Google Scholar
• Loomes G, Sugden R (1986) Disappointment and dynamic consistency in choice under uncertainty. Rev. Econom. Stud. 53(2):271–282.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loewenstein G (1988) Frames of mind in intertemporal choice. Management Sci. 34:220–224.Google Scholar
• Loewenstein GF, Prelec D (1993) Preferences for sequences of outcomes. Psych. Rev. 100(1):91.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Markowitz H (1952) Portfolio selection. J. Finance 7(1):77–91.Google Scholar
• Masatlioglu Y, Raymond C (2016) A behavioral analysis of stochastic reference dependence. Amer. Econom. Rev. 106(9):2760–2782.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Montiel Olea JL, Strzalecki T (2014) Axiomatization and measurement of quasi-hyperbolic discounting. Quart. J. Econom. 129(3):1449–1499.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Plott CR, Zeiler K (2005) The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap, the “endowment effect”, subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations. Amer. Econom. Rev. 95(3):530–545.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Read D (2001) Is time-discounting hyperbolic or subadditive? J. Risk Uncertainty 23(1):5–32.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Read D, Roelofsma PH (2003) Subadditive vs. hyperbolic discounting: A comparison of choice and matching. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 91(2):140–153.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shelley MK (1993) Outcome signs, question frames and discount rates. Management Sci. 39(7):806–815.Link, Google Scholar
• Sprenger C (2015) An endowment effect for risk: Experimental tests of stochastic reference points. J. Political Econom. 123(6):1456–1499.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stigler GJ, Becker GS (1977) De gustibus non est disputandum. Amer. Econom. Rev. 67(2):76–90.Google Scholar
• Tereyağoğlu N, Fader PS, Veeraraghavan S (2018) Multiattribute loss aversion and reference dependence: Evidence from the performing arts industry. Management Sci. 64(1):421–436.Link, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1991) Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. Quart. J. Econom. 106(4):1039–1061.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Slovic P, Kahneman D (1990) The causes of preference reversal. Amer. Econom. Rev. 80(1):204–217.Google Scholar
• Wathieu L (1997) Habits and the anomalies in intertemporal choice. Management Sci. 43(11):1552–1563.Link, Google Scholar