Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T06:45:37.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Willpower without risk?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2021

Andre Hofmeyr Open the ORCID record for Andre Hofmeyr [Opens in a new window]
Andre Hofmeyr*
Affiliation:
School of Economics, and Research Unit in Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch7701, South Africa. andre.hofmeyr@uct.ac.zahttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andre_Hofmeyr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ainslie does not formally incorporate risk and uncertainty in his framework for modelling impulses and willpower. To provide a complete account of the motivational bases of choice behaviour, Ainslie should extend his framework to incorporate risk attitudes and subjective beliefs.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 44 , 2021 , e40
Check for updates
Creative Commons
The target article and response article are works of the U.S. Government and are not subject to copyright protection in the United States.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ainslie, G. (1974). Impulse control in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21, 485–489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ainslie, G. (1975). Specious reward: A behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control. Psychological Bulletin, 82(4), 463–496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2008). Eliciting risk and time preferences. Econometrica, 76(3), 583–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2004). Willpower and personal rules. Journal of Political Economy, 112(4), 848–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benhabib, J., & Bisin, A. (2004). Modeling internal commitment mechanisms and self-control: A neuroeconomics approach to consumption-saving decisions. Games and Economic Behavior, 52, 460–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coller, M., & Williams, M. B. (1999). Eliciting individual discount rates. Experimental Economics, 2(2), 107–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fudenberg, D., & Levine, D. K. (2006). A dual-self model of impulse control. American Economic Review, 96(5), 1449–1476.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gul, F., & Pesendorfer, W. (2001). Temptation and self-control. Econometrica, 69, 1403–1435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2010). Individual discount rates and smoking: Evidence from a field experiment in Denmark. Journal of Health Economics, 29(5), 708–717.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hofmeyr, A. (2020). The Probability Discounting Model of Choice Under Risk: A Critique. Working Paper WP 2020-13, Center for the Economic Analysis of Risk, Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University.Google Scholar
Kőszegi, B., & Rabin, M. (2009). Reference-dependent consumptions plans. American Economic Review, 99, 909–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewenstein, G., O'Donoghue, T., & Bhatia, S. (2015). Modeling the interplay between affect and deliberation. Decision, 2, 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rachlin, H., Castrogiovanni, A., & Cross, D. (1987). Probability and delay in commitment. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 48(3), 347–353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rachlin, H., Logue, A. W., Gibbon, J., & Frankel, M. (1986). Cognition and behavior in studies of choice. Psychological Review, 93(1), 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rachlin, H., Raineri, A., & Cross, D. (1991). Subjective probability and delay. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 55(2), 233–244. doi:10.1901/jeab.1991.55-233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richard, S. F. (1975). Multivariate risk aversion, utility independence and separable utility functions. Management Science, 22(1), 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar