Distancia Psicológica

Moreno-Okuno, Alejandro and Aguilera Navarrete, Natividad (2014): Distancia Psicológica.

Abstract

The utility function with traditional exponential discount cannot explain individuals´ problems of inter-temporal inconsistence and self-control. Several economists have explained these problems with what is known as “present-bias”. The present-bias means that a good becomes more tempting when it is in the present than when it is in the future. Nevertheless, how tempting a good is depends on other factors as well. For example, a good becomes more tempting the closer it is in spatial distance from an individual. The psychological theory of “psychological distance” assumes that individuals give more importance to those goods that are closer to us (we give more importance to the present because it is closer in temporal distance). In this article we generalize the concept of present bias to include other dimensions of psychological distance. We propose a model in which individuals give more importance not only to those goods that are closer in temporal distance, but to those which are closer, for example in spatial distance. This allows individuals to control their present-bias by moving away their temptations in any psychological distance different than the temporal distance.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• English Title: Psychological Distance
• Language: Spanish
• Keywords: Quasi-Hyperbolic Discount, Present-Bias, Psychological Distance
• Subjects: D - Microeconomics > D1 - Household Behavior and Family Economics > D11 - Consumer Economics: Theory; D - Microeconomics > D6 - Welfare Economics > D60 - General; D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty > D80 - General; D - Microeconomics > D9 - Intertemporal Choice > D91 - Intertemporal Household Choice ; Life Cycle Models and Saving

References

Akerlof, G. (1991). “Procrastination and Obedience”, American Economics Review, 81(2), pp. 1-19.

Becker G. S. and C. B. Mulligan (1997). “The Endogenous Determination of Time Preference”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(3), 729-758.

Gruber J. y Koszegi B. (2001) “Is Addiction Rational? Theory and Evidence”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(4), pp. 1261-1305.

Heidhues, P y Koszegi P. (2010) “Exploiting Naïvete about Self-Control in the Credit Market”, American Economic Review, 100(5), pp. 2279--2303.

Laibson, D. (1997), “Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), pp. 443-477.

Lehrer, J. (2009), “Don´t! The secret of self-control”, The New Yorker, 2009 mayo 18.

Mischel, W. (1958), “Preference for delayed reinforcement: An experimental study of a cultural observation” The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 56(1), pp. 57-61.

Mischel W., Y. Shoda y M.L. Rodriguez, (1989). “Delay of Gratification of Children” Science, New Series, Vol. 244, No. 4907, pp. 933-938.

Mischel, W., M.L. Rodriguez, (1993). Psychological Distance in Self-Imposed Delay of Gratification en Cocking, R., Renninger, K. A. y Renninger, K., editores, The development and meaning of psychological distance, Psychology Press, Londres.

O'Donoghue T. y Rabin M. (1999), “Doing it Now or Later”, American Economic Review, 89(1), pp. 103-124.

O´Donoghue T. y Rabin M. (2001), “Choice and Procrastination”, Quarterly Journal of Economics 116(1), pp. 121-160.

O´Donoghue T. y Rabin M. (2003) “Studying Optimal Paternalism, Illustrated by a Model of Sin Taxes”, American Economic Review, 93(2), pp. 186-191.

O´Donoghue T. y Rabin M. (2006) “Optimal sin taxes”, Journal of Public Economics, 90, Issues 10--11, pp. 1825--1849.

Phelps, E. S., and R. A. Pollak (1968), “On Second-Best National Saving and Game-Equilibrium Growth”, Review of Economic Studies, 35(2), pp. 185--99.

Trope, Y. y Liberman, N. (2010), “Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance”, Psychological Review, 117(2), pp. 440-463.