Inconsistent Planning and the Allocation of Tasks Over Time

We test the hypothesis of inconsistent planning proposed by Strotz (1955). In the laboratory, participants allocated time between ‘work’ and ‘leisure’ tasks, and were offered a commitment device. Original plans tended to delay leisure, and to involve a moderate degree of spreading between work and leisure tasks. Most participants preferred commitment over flexibility. Although most were denied commitment, few altered their plans. Those that did make changes tended to further postpone leisure. We find limited evidence of discounting or impatience, contrary to the predictions of most theoretical models of inconsistent planning. Instead, our results imply a preference for improving sequences.