This paper reports measures of preference parameters relating to risk tolerance, time preference, and intertemporal substitution. These measures are based on survey responses to hypothetical situations constructed using an economic theorist's concept of the underlying parameters. The individual measures of preference parameters display heterogeneity. Estimated risk tolerance and the elasticity of intertemporal substitution are essentially uncorrelated across individuals. Measured risk tolerance is positively related to risky behaviors, including smoking, drinking, failing to have insurance, and holding stocks rather than Treasury bills. These relationships are both statistically and quantitatively significant, although measured risk tolerance explains only a small fraction of the variation of the studied behaviors.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. University of Wisconsin Press andThe Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Human Resources. ABSTRACT This paper examines the scientific, public policy, and organizational background out of which the Health and Retirement Study emerged. It describes the evolution of the major parameters of the survey and the unique planning structure designed to ensure that the substantive insights of the research community were fully reflected in the content of the database, highlights key survey innovations contained in the HRS, and provides a preliminary assessment of the quality of the data as reflected by sample size, sample composition, response rate, and survey content. The paper also describes the several types of administrative data that are expected to be added to the HRS data: earnings and benefits from Social Security files, and health insurance and pension data from the employers of survey respondents. F. Thomas Juster is the Principal Investigator of the Health and Retirement Study. Richard Suzman is the National Institute on Aging Program Officer responsible for the Health and Retirement Study. THE JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES * XXX * Supplement 1995 This content downloaded from 195.78.108.131 on Fri, 9 May 2014 18:31:50 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions S8The Journal of Human Resources fruits of this major investment in multidisciplinary data. Its creation was not an accident, nor was it the master plan of a single creator. Rather it reflects the efforts of government researchers and program managers, along with academic social scientists from several disciplines, who first articulated the scientific need for such a survey and then convinced the relevant executive agencies, and ultimately Congress, that this major investment in social science was worth its costs.' This chapter provides a brief history of the origins of the HRS (Section II), the forces that shaped its conceptualization and design (Section III), the structure and content of the survey itself (Section IV), and a descriptive summary of the survey and the major innovations that it contains (Section V). II. Background of the HRS A. General Issues of Survey DesignThe theory of survey design is one of the least developed aspects of research in the economic, social and behavioral sciences. In the United States, most scientific surveys are designed by academics with public support and are motivated by the theoretical constructs of the principal investigator. Others are designed by federal government statisticians associated with federal statistical agencies and are motivated by the public policy responsibiliti...

No abstract

Although time use has received much attention by social scientists as an index of resource allocation and social relations across groups, only a few studies have carefully assessed the relative strengths and weaknesses of the existing methods of measuring time use: time diary (TD), stylized (S) respondent report, and experiential sampling method (ESM). We note the varying degree of biases that arise in part from the extent of detail in the information collected by the three methods. Using findings from our analysis of the structure of these methods, we hypothesize that there are empirical exceptions to previously reported common findings that TD provides less biased information on time use than does S-namely (a) when labor market workers report their time spent on labor market work, and (b) when the historical trend in time, rather than the absolute level, is studied. Empirical results confirm our prediction and show that, among individuals who work

No abstract