Time preferences for financial and air quality gains and losses at delays of up to 50 years were elicited using three different methods: matching, fixed-sequence choice titration, and a dynamic "multiple staircase" choice method. Results indicate that the choice-based methods are prone to influencing participants' discount rates through the magnitude and order of options presented to participants. However, choice-based methods are easier for participants to understand than matching is, and are better at predicting consequential intertemporal choices such as smoking. No consistent advantages were found for the multiple staircase over simple titration. Implications for best practice are discussed.
Hardisty, D., K. Thompson, David Krantz, and Elke Weber. "How to measure time preferences: An experimental comparison of three methods." Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 8, no. 3 (2013): 236-249.
Each author name for a Columbia Business School faculty member is linked to a faculty research page, which lists additional publications by that faculty member.
Each topic is linked to an index of publications on that topic.