We experimentally investigate the time-inconsistent taste for immediate gratification and future-preference misprediction. Across 7 weeks, 100 participants choose the number of unpleasant transcription tasks given various wages to complete immediately and at different future dates. Participants preferred 10–12% fewer tasks in the present compared to any future date, leading to an estimated $β $ of 0.83. Comparing predictions with actual immediate-work choices provides evidence against substantial sophistication, with estimates implying that participants understand no more than 24% of their present bias. Finally, we find evidence of “projection bias”: participants wished to complete 4–12% fewer tasks when decisions were elicited right after completing tasks rather than before.

We develop a model of the gambler's fallacy—the mistaken belief that random sequences should exhibit systematic reversals. We show that an individual who holds this belief and observes a sequence of signals can exaggerate the magnitude of changes in an underlying state but underestimate their duration. When the state is constant, and so signals are i.i.d., the individual can predict that long streaks of similar signals will continue—a hot-hand fallacy. When signals are serially correlated, the individual typically under-reacts to short streaks, over-reacts to longer ones, and under-reacts to very long ones. Our model has implications for a number of puzzles in finance, e.g. the active-fund and fund-flow puzzles, and the presence of momentum and reversal in asset returns.

Fixed differences loom smaller when compared to large differences. We propose a model of relative thinking where a person weighs a given change along a consumption dimension by less when it is compared to bigger changes along that dimension. In deterministic settings, the model predicts context effects such as the attraction effect but predicts meaningful bounds on such effects driven by the intrinsic utility for the choices. In risky environments, a person is less likely to sacrifice utility on one dimension to gain utility on another that is made riskier. For example, a person is less likely to exert effort for a fixed monetary return if there is greater overall income uncertainty. We design and run experiments to test basic model predictions and find support for these predictions.