Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 4 - Preference Biases

  • Mario J. Rizzo, New York University, Glen Whitman, California State University, Northridge
  • Book:
    Escaping Paternalism
    Published online:
    02 December 2019
    Print publication:
    05 December 2019, pp 91-118

  • Summary

    The evidence for preference biases is very often flawed, incomplete, or misinterpreted. For example, inconsistent rates of time discount are largely eliminated when considered relative to the individual’s perception of time. Preference reversals in real time from patient to impatient behavior occur only in a minority of cases. Time inconsistency, when it occurs, need not be associated with actual harms to decision-makers. Evidence for the existence of endowment effects is problematic. Gaps between willingness to pay and willingness to accept have no normative significance. The evidence for impact bias is confused and weak, and to the extent that it occurs, its function has eluded most analysts. In addition to these concerns, we find that the preferences typically treated as normatively superior by behavioral paternalists are often implicated by biases as well.