Many studies which describe the relationship between obesity and economic preference rely on healthy, clinically-irrelevant populations. Instead, we study economic decision-making of a clinically-relevant population of 299 people with obesity who participated in a 6-months Randomized Controlled Trial in two Sydney-based hospitals to prevent diabetes onset. To elicit preferences, we use incentive-compatible experimental tasks that participants completed during their medical screening examination. In this population, we find that participants are risk averse, show no evidence of present bias, and have impatience levels comparable to healthy samples described in the international literature. Variations in present bias and impatience are not significantly associated with variations in markers of obesity. We find however a statistically significant negative association between risk tolerance and markers of obesity for women. Importantly, impatience moderates the link between risk tolerance and obesity, a finding which we are able to replicate in nationally-representative survey data. We discuss explanations for why our findings deviate markedly from the literature for this understudied but highly policy-relevant population. One explanation is that our specific population consists of forward-looking, well-educated individuals, who are willing to participate in an intensive health intervention. Hence, other factors may be at play for why these individuals live with obesity.
Keywords: impatience; incentive-compatible economic experiment; lab-in-field; obesity; risk tolerance.
© 2023 The Authors. Health Economics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.