Economic inequality is associated with preferences for smaller, immediate gains over larger, delayed ones. Such temporal discounting may feed into rising global inequality, yet it is unclear whether it is a function of choice preferences or norms, or rather the absence of sufficient resources for immediate needs. It is also not clear whether these reflect true differences in choice patterns between income groups. We tested temporal discounting and five intertemporal choice anomalies using local currencies and value standards in 61 countries (N = 13,629). Across a diverse sample, we found consistent, robust rates of choice anomalies. Lower-income groups were not significantly different, but economic inequality and broader financial circumstances were clearly correlated with population choice patterns.

Aarhus University Aarhus Denmark

Ain Shams University Cairo Egypt

American University of Beirut Beirut Lebanon

Bezirkskrankenhaus Straubing Straubing Germany

Centre for Business Research Judge Business School University of Cambridge Cambridge UK

Centro de Investigación y Docencias Económicas Ciudad de México México

Charles University Prague Czech Republic

Colmena Asunción Paraguay

Columbia University New York NY USA

Copenhagen University Copenhagen Denmark

Cornell University Ithaca NY USA

Duke Kunshan University Kunshan China

Duke University Durham NC USA

Emory University Atlanta GA USA

Erasmus University Rotterdam Rotterdam Netherlands

Estácio de Sá University Rio de Janeiro Brazil

Faculty of Media and Communications Belgrade Serbia

Fundación Paraguaya Asunción Paraguay

Gombe State University Gombe Nigeria

Green Dock Hostivice Czech Republic

GREGHEC CNRS HEC Paris Jouy en Josas France

Harvard Kennedy School Cambridge MA USA

Harvard University Boston MA USA

Helmut Schmidt University Hamburg Germany

Humboldt University of Berlin Berlin Germany

International Socioeconomics Laboratory New York NY USA

IPHS Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Sofia Bulgaria

Ivo Pilar Institute of Social Sciences Zagreb Croatia

Kaplan Business School Sydney New South Wales Australia

KU Leuven Leuven Belgium

Kyiv School of Economics Kyiv Ukraine

Kyushu University Fukuoka Japan

Laboratory of Research in Social Psychology Rio de Janeiro Brazil

Leeds Beckett University Leeds UK

Leiden University Leiden the Netherlands

London School of Economics and Political Science London UK

Loyola University Chicago Chicago IL USA

Ludwig Maximilians Universität München Munich Germany

Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences Leipzig Germany

Max Planck Institute for Human Development Berlin Germany

Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics Nijmegen the Netherlands

McGill University Montreal Quebec Canada

MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit Cambridge UK

National Institute of Mental Health Klecany Czech Republic

National Scientific and Technical Research Council Buenos Aires Argentina

National University of Singapore Singapore Singapore

Nazarbayev University Nur Sultan Kazakhstan

New Bulgarian University Sofia Bulgaria

Nic Waals Institute Oslo Norway

Oslo New University College Oslo Norway

Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro Rio de Janeiro Brazil

PPR Svendborg Svendborg Denmark

Prague University of Economics and Business Prague Czech Republic

Queen's University Belfast Belfast UK

Rotman Research Institute Baycrest Toronto Ontario Canada

Sciences Po Paris France

Sofia University St Kliment Ohridski Sofia Bulgaria

Ss Cyril and Methodius University Skopje North Macedonia

St Lawrence University Canton NY USA

Sungkyunkwan University Seoul Republic of Korea

SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities Warsaw Poland

Tbilisi State University Tbilisi Georgia

Technische Universität Dresden Dresden Germany

Tel Aviv University Tel Aviv Israel

The University of Hong Kong Hong Kong SAR China

The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia PA USA

Tilburg University Tilburg the Netherlands

Transilvania University of Brasov Brasov Romania

UC Louvain Louvain Belgium

UN Major Group for Children and Youth Kathmandu Nepal

Unaffiliated Budapest Hungary

Unaffiliated London UK

Unaffiliated Prague Czech Republic

United Nations Children's Fund Kathmandu Nepal

Universidad Autónoma de Madrid Madrid Spain

Universidad Camilo José Cela Madrid Spain

Universidad Torcuato Di Tella Buenos Aires Argentina

Universitas Padjadjaran Bandung Indonesia

University College Cork Cork Ireland

University College London London UK

University of Amsterdam Amsterdam the Netherlands

University of Belgrade Belgrade Serbia

University of Bologna Bologna Italy

University of Cambridge Cambridge UK

University of Central Florida Orlando FL USA

University of Chicago Chicago IL USA

University of Cologne Cologne Germany

University of Fort Hare Alice South Africa

University of Groningen Groningen the Netherlands

University of Jos Jos Nigeria

University of Klagenfurt Klagenfurt Austria

University of Konstanz Konstanz Germany

University of Ljubljana Ljubljana Slovenia

University of Mannheim Mannheim Germany

University of Oslo Oslo Norway

University of Oxford Oxford UK

University of Padua Padua Italy

University of Porto Porto Portugal

University of St Andrews St Andrews UK

University of Tartu Tartu Estonia

University of Tehran Tehran Iran

University of Trento Trento Italy

University of Vienna Vienna Austria

University of Zagreb Zagreb Croatia

University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland

Uppsala University Uppsala Sweden

Utrecht University Utrecht the Netherlands

Workforce Development Center Nur Sultan Kazakhstan

York University Toronto Ontario Canada

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Angrisani, M., Burke, J., Lusardi, A. & Mottola, G. The Stability and Predictive Power of Financial Literacy: Evidence from Longitudinal Data Working Paper No. 28125 (NBER, 2020); 10.3386/w28125

Haushofer J, Fehr E. On the psychology of poverty. Science. 2014;344:862–867. doi: 10.1126/science.1232491. PubMed DOI

Chapman GB. Temporal discounting and utility for health and money. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 1996;22:771–791. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.22.3.771. PubMed DOI

Green L, Myerson J, Mcfadden E. Rate of temporal discounting decreases with amount of reward. Mem. Cogn. 1997;25:715–723. doi: 10.3758/BF03211314. PubMed DOI

Critchfield TS, Kollins SH. Temporal discounting: basic research and the analysis of socially important behavior. J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 2001;34:101–122. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-101. PubMed DOI PMC

Basile AG, Toplak ME. Four converging measures of temporal discounting and their relationships with intelligence, executive functions, thinking dispositions, and behavioral outcomes. Front. Psychol. 2015;6:728. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00728. PubMed DOI PMC

Green L, Myerson J, Lichtman D, Rosen S, Fry A. Temporal discounting in choice between delayed rewards: the role of age and income. Psychol. Aging. 1996;11:79–84. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.11.1.79. PubMed DOI

Falk A, et al. Global evidence on economic preferences. Q. J. Econ. 2018;133:1645–1692. doi: 10.1093/qje/qjy013. DOI

Adamkovič M, Martončik M. A review of consequences of poverty on economic decision-making: a hypothesized model of a cognitive mechanism. Front. Psychol. 2017;8:1784. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01784. PubMed DOI PMC

Brown JR, Ivković Z, Weisbenner S. Empirical determinants of intertemporal choice. J. Financ. Econ. 2015;116:473–486. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2015.04.004. DOI

Shah AK, Mullainathan S, Shafir E. Some consequences of having too little. Science. 2012;338:682–685. doi: 10.1126/science.1222426. PubMed DOI

Sheehy-Skeffington, J. & Rea, J. How Poverty Affects People’s Decision-Making Processes (JRF, 2017); https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/how-poverty-affects-peoples-decision-making-processes

Epper T, et al. Time discounting and wealth inequality. Am. Econ. Rev. 2020;110:1177–1205. doi: 10.1257/aer.20181096. DOI

Lawrance EC. Poverty and the rate of time preference: evidence from panel data. J. Polit. Econ. 1991;99:54–77. doi: 10.1086/261740. DOI

Deaton, A. COVID-19 and Global Income Inequality Working Paper No. 28392 (NBER, 2021); 10.3386/w28392 PubMed PMC

Ludwig RM, Flournoy JC, Berkman ET. Inequality in personality and temporal discounting across socioeconomic status? Assessing the evidence. J. Res. Pers. 2019;81:79–87. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2019.05.003. PubMed DOI PMC

Ruggeri, K. & Folke, T. Unstandard deviation: the untapped value of positive deviance for reducing inequalities. Perspect. Psychol. Sci.10.31234/osf.io/8wky5 (2021). PubMed

Burro G, McDonald R, Read D, Taj U. Patience decreases with age for the poor but not for the rich: an international comparison. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2022;193:596–621. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2021.11.005. DOI

Carvalho LS, Meier S, Wang SW. Poverty and economic decision-making: evidence from changes in financial resources at payday. Am. Econ. Rev. 2016;106:260–284. doi: 10.1257/aer.20140481. PubMed DOI PMC

Baker, S. R., Farrokhnia, R. A., Meyer, S., Pagel, M. & Yannelis, C. Income, Liquidity, and the Consumption Response to the 2020 Economic Stimulus Payments Working Paper No. 27097 (NBER, 2020); 10.3386/w27097

Falk A, Hermle J. Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality. Science. 2018;362:eaas9899. doi: 10.1126/science.aas9899. PubMed DOI

Rieger MO, Wang M, Hens T. Universal time preference. PLoS ONE. 2021;16:e0245692. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245692. PubMed DOI PMC

Ha, J., Ivanova, A., Montiel, P. & Pedroni, P. Inflation in Low-Income Countries Working Paper No. 8934 (World Bank, 2019); 10.1596/1813-9450-8934

Gong L. Endogenous time preference, inflation, and capital accumulation. J. Econ. 2006;87:241–255. doi: 10.1007/s00712-006-0177-7. DOI

De Mello LR, Jr., Carneiro FG. Consumption behaviour and persistently high inflation: evidence from Latin America. Rev. Bras. Econ. 2000;54:227–246. doi: 10.1590/S0034-71402000000200005. DOI

Loewenstein G, Prelec D. Anomalies in intertemporal choice: evidence and an interpretation. Q. J. Econ. 1992;107:573–597. doi: 10.2307/2118482. DOI

Read D. Is time-discounting hyperbolic or subadditive? J. Risk Uncertain. 2001;23:5–32. doi: 10.1023/A:1011198414683. DOI

Read, D. & Scholten, M. in Economic Psychology (ed. Ranyard, R.) 35–50 (John Wiley & Sons, 2017); 10.1002/9781118926352.ch3

Yarkoni, T. The generalizability crisis. Behav. Brain Sci.10.1017/S0140525X20001685 (2020). PubMed PMC

Ruggeri K, et al. Replicating patterns of prospect theory for decision under risk. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2020;4:622–633. doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-0886-x. PubMed DOI

Macchia L, Plagnol AC, Reimers S. Does experience with high inflation affect intertemporal decision making? Sensitivity to inflation rates in Argentine and British delay discounting choices. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 2018;75:76–83. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2018.05.006. DOI

Clot S, Stanton CY. Present bias predicts participation in payments for environmental services: evidence from a behavioral experiment in Uganda. Ecol. Econ. 2014;108:162–170. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.07.026. DOI

Blumenstock, J. E., Callen, M. & Ghani, T. Mobile-Izing Savings with Automatic Contributions: Experimental Evidence on Present Bias and Default Effects in Afghanistan Discussion Paper No. DP11400 (CEPR, 2016); https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2814075

Ebrahimi Sarv Olia MH, Salimi MJ, Bolo G, Ghouchifard H. Sign effect, speedup–delay asymmetry and gender effect in the Tehran stock exchange. Int. J. Finance Manage. Account. 2020;5:41–53.

Scholten M, Read D, Sanborn A. Weighing outcomes by time or against time? Evaluation rules in intertemporal choice. Cogn. Sci. 2014;38:399–438. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12104. PubMed DOI

Pedersen EJ, Miller DL, Simpson GL, Ross N. Hierarchical generalized additive models in ecology: an introduction with mgcv. PeerJ. 2019;7:e6876. doi: 10.7717/peerj.6876. PubMed DOI PMC

Wiseman DB, Levin IP. Comparing risky decision making under conditions of real and hypothetical consequences. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1996;66:241–250. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1996.0053. DOI

Kühberger A, Schulte-Mecklenbeck M, Perner J. Framing decisions: hypothetical and real. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2002;89:1162–1175. doi: 10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00021-3. DOI

Amlung M, MacKillop J. Further evidence of close correspondence for alcohol demand decision making for hypothetical and incentivized rewards. Behav. Process. 2015;113:187–191. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2015.02.012. PubMed DOI PMC

Madden GJ, Begotka AM, Raiff BR, Kastern LL. Delay discounting of real and hypothetical rewards. Exp. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 2003;11:139–145. doi: 10.1037/1064-1297.11.2.139. PubMed DOI

Locey ML, Jones BA, Rachlin H. Real and hypothetical rewards. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 2011;6:552–564. doi: 10.1017/S1930297500002515. PubMed DOI PMC

Brañas-Garza P, Estepa-Mohedano L, Jorrat D, Orozco V, Rascón-Ramírez E. To pay or not to pay: measuring risk preferences in lab and field. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 2021;16:1290–1313. doi: 10.1017/S1930297500008433. DOI

Halevy Y. Strotz meets Allais: diminishing impatience and the certainty effect. Am. Econ. Rev. 2008;98:1145–1162. doi: 10.1257/aer.98.3.1145. DOI

Chakraborty A, Halevy Y, Saito K. The relation between behavior under risk and over time. Am. Econ. Rev. Insights. 2020;2:1–16. doi: 10.1257/aeri.20190051. DOI

Epper, T. F. & Fehr-Duda, H. The missing link: unifying risk taking and time discounting. SSRN J.10.2139/ssrn.2175461 (2012).

Urassa M, et al. Cross-cultural research must prioritize equitable collaboration. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2021;5:668–671. doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01076-x. PubMed DOI

IJzerman, H. et al. Psychological science needs the entire globe. APS Obs.34 (2021).

Gini Index (World Bank) (2021); https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI

Shah AK, Mullainathan S, Shafir E. An exercise in self-replication: replicating Shah, Mullainathan, and Shafir (2012) J. Econ. Psychol. 2019;75:102127. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2018.12.001. DOI

Hensher, D. A. & Johnson, L. W. Applied Discrete-Choice Modelling (Routledge, 2018).

Camerer CF, et al. Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics. Science. 2016;351:1433–1436. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf0918. PubMed DOI

Desmond M, Wilmers N. Do the poor pay more for housing? Exploitation, profit, and risk in rental markets. Am. J. Sociol. 2019;124:1090–1124. doi: 10.1086/701697. DOI

Cardaci A. Inequality, household debt and financial instability: an agent-based perspective. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2018;149:434–458. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2018.01.010. DOI

Causa, O., Hermansen, M., Ruiz, N., Klein, C. & Smidova, Z. Inequality in Denmark through the Looking Glass (OECD, 2016).

Ruggeri, K. et al. The general fault in our fault lines. Nat. Hum. Behav.10.1038/s41562-021-01092-x (2021). PubMed

Wood, S. N. Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R 2nd edn (CRC, 2017).

Wood, S. mgcv: Mixed GAM computation vehicle with automatic smoothness estimation. R package, version 1.8-39 (2021).

Bürkner P-C. brms: an R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. J. Stat. Softw. 2017;80:1–28. doi: 10.18637/jss.v080.i01. DOI

Wesner JS, Pomeranz JPF. Choosing priors in Bayesian ecological models by simulating from the prior predictive distribution. Ecosphere. 2021;12:e03739. doi: 10.1002/ecs2.3739. DOI

Makowski D, Ben-Shachar MS, Chen SHA, Lüdecke D. Indices of effect existence and significance in the Bayesian framework. Front. Psychol. 2019;10:2767. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02767. PubMed DOI PMC

Kelter, R. How to choose between different Bayesian posterior indices for hypothesis testing in practice. Multivariate Behav. Res.10.1080/00273171.2021.1967716 (2021). PubMed

R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org/ (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2021).

Microsoft R Open: The Enhanced R Distribution (MRAN) (2021); https://mran.microsoft.com/open

Balduzzi S, Rücker G, Schwarzer G. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid. Based Ment. Health. 2019;22:153–160. doi: 10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117. PubMed DOI PMC

Simon, W. & Scheipl, F. gamm4: Generalized additive mixed models using ‘mgcv’ and ‘lme4’. R package, version 0.2-6 (2021).

Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis (Springer, 2016).

Wickham H, et al. Welcome to the tidyverse. J. Open Source Softw. 2019;4:1686. doi: 10.21105/joss.01686. DOI

A 27-country test of communicating the scientific consensus on climate change

A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19

The persistence of cognitive biases in financial decisions across economic groups