Who Chooses Commitment? Evidence and Welfare Implications

This article investigates whether offers of commitment contracts, in the form of self-imposed choice-set restrictions and penalties with no financial upside, are well-targeted tools for addressing self-control problems. In an experiment on gym attendance (N =1,248), we examine take-up of commitment...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Carrera, M. (Author), Royer, H. (Author), Stehr, M. (Author), Sydnor, J. (Author), Taubinsky, D. (Author)
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Oxford University Press 2022
Subjects:
C9
D9
I12
Online Access:View Fulltext in Publisher
LEADER 02201nam a2200277Ia 4500
001 10.1093-restud-rdab056
008 220706s2022 CNT 000 0 und d
020 |a 00346527 (ISSN) 
245 1 0 |a Who Chooses Commitment? Evidence and Welfare Implications 
260 0 |b Oxford University Press  |c 2022 
856 |z View Fulltext in Publisher  |u https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdab056 
520 3 |a This article investigates whether offers of commitment contracts, in the form of self-imposed choice-set restrictions and penalties with no financial upside, are well-targeted tools for addressing self-control problems. In an experiment on gym attendance (N =1,248), we examine take-up of commitment contracts and also introduce a separate elicitation task to identify actual and perceived time inconsistency. There is high take-up of commitment contracts for greater gym attendance, resulting in significant increases in exercise. However, this take-up is influenced both by noisy valuation and incorrect beliefs about one's time inconsistency. Approximately half of the people who take up commitment contracts for higher gym attendance also take up commitment contracts for lower gym attendance. There is little association between commitment contract take-up and reduced-form and structural estimates of actual or perceived time inconsistency. A novel information treatment providing an exogenous shock to awareness of time inconsistency reduces demand for commitment contracts. Structural estimates of a model of quasi-hyperbolic discounting and gym attendance imply that offering our commitment contracts lowers consumer surplus and is less socially efficient than utilizing linear exercise subsidies that achieve the same average change in behaviour. © 2021 The Author(s) 2021. 
650 0 4 |a Behaviour change 
650 0 4 |a C9 
650 0 4 |a Commitment contract 
650 0 4 |a D9 
650 0 4 |a I12 
650 0 4 |a Quasi-hyperbolic discounting 
650 0 4 |a Time inconsistency 
650 0 4 |a Welfare 
700 1 |a Carrera, M.  |e author 
700 1 |a Royer, H.  |e author 
700 1 |a Stehr, M.  |e author 
700 1 |a Sydnor, J.  |e author 
700 1 |a Taubinsky, D.  |e author 
773 |t Review of Economic Studies