This systematic investigation, accompanied by bibliometric analysis, aims to present both quantitative and qualitative insights into the rapidly developing field of behavioural finance, which has lacked comprehensive summaries in existing literature. The study analyses production and visualizes trends in 681 Scopus-indexed peer-reviewed journal articles from 2000 to 2024 on time preference. We employ citation networks, co-occurrence analysis, content analysis and co-citation analysis, as well as examination of publication trends, to uncover influential works, construct the theoretical framework of our field of study and identify research gaps, utilizing the VOSviewer tool. For mapping to conceptual, thematic and intellectual frameworks present in 203 published articles in A*, A and B categories in the ABDC 2022 ranking list of top journals, contextualized systematic review and bibliometric techniques are employed. In 2021, Stanford University led in productivity with 32 publications, while Durham University ranked high with 623 citations. The United States dominated with 77 publications and 4,309 citations in time preference research in finance. Frederick and Shane emerged as the most impactful authors, with 3,520 citations, while Charles Sprenger led in publications. The Journal of Economic Literature and the American Economic Review were top journals. Notable works include Frederick et al. (2002, Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 351–401), which has 3,468 citations. Overall, this analysis identifies key institutions, authors, journals and articles that shape the landscape of time preference research in finance, highlighting significant contributions and influential figures. The document offers a synopsis of the present state of the investigation in the time preference literature in finance and recommendations for future areas of study.
AckertL. F., DeavesR., MieleJ., & NguyenQ. (2020). Are time preference and risk preference associated with cognitive intelligence and emotional intelligence?Journal of Behavioral Finance, 21(2), 136–156.
2.
AhmadA., AlamM. R., AkhterJ., & AzizT. (2024). Research on behavioural finance: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Behavioural Accounting and Finance, 7(3), 314–335.
3.
AlamM. R., AhmadA., AkhterJ., & AzizT. (2025). Mapping the field of behavioral finance: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis. Asian Education and Development Studies, 14(4), 1–23.
4.
AlarconG. M., & JessupS. A. (2023). Propensity to trust and risk aversion: Differential roles in the trust process. Journal of Research in Personality, 103, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JRP.2023.104349
5.
AnderhubV., & GüthW. (2001). On the interaction of risk and time preferences: An experimental study. German Economic Review, 2(3), 239–253.
6.
AndersenS., HarrisonG. W., LauM. I., & RutströmE. E. (2008). Eliciting risk and time preferences. Econometrica, 76(3), 583–618.
7.
AndreoniJ., & SprengerC. (2012). Risk preferences are not time preferences. American Economic Review, 102(7), 3357–3376.
8.
AnsariZ. J., GuptaS., & BhatiaM. (2024). Mapping the conceptual and intellectual structure of the investor’s financial behaviour: A bibliometric analysis. South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases, 13(2), 228–258.
9.
AppioF. P., CesaroniF., & Di MininA. (2014). Visualizing the structure and bridges of the intellectual property management and strategy literature: A document co-citation analysis. Scientometrics, 101, 623–661.
10.
AydinA. E., & SelcukE. A. (2019). An investigation of financial literacy, money ethics and time preferences among college students: A structural equation model. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 37(3), 880–900.
11.
BakerH. K., KumarS., & PattnaikD. (2021). Research constituents, intellectual structure, and collaboration pattern in the Journal of Forecasting: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Forecasting, 40(4), 577–602.
12.
BeckerA., DeckersT., DohmenT., FalkA. & KosseF. (2012). The relationship between economic preferences and psychological personality measures. Annual Review of Economics., 4(1), 453–478.
13.
BlanchardT. C., PearsonJ. M., & HaydenB. Y. (2013). Postreward delays and systematic biases in measures of animal temporal discounting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(38), 15491–15496.
14.
Blanco-MesaF., MerigóJ. M., & Gil-LafuenteA. M. (2017). Fuzzy decision making: A bibliometric-based review. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 32(3), 2033–2050.
15.
BroadusR. N. (1987). Toward a definition of ‘bibliometrics’. Scientometrics, 12, 373–379.
16.
CamererC., LoewensteinG., & PrelecD. (2005). Neuroeconomics: How neuroscience can inform economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 43(1), 9–64.
17.
CassarA., HealyA., & Von KesslerC. (2017). Trust, risk, and time preferences after a natural disaster: Experimental evidence from Thailand. World Development, 94, 90–105.
18.
CastriottaM., LoiM., MarkuE., & NaitanaL. (2019). What’s in a name? Exploring the conceptual structure of emerging organizations. Scientometrics, 118(2), 407–437.
19.
ChowdhuryS., SutterM., & ZimmermannK. F. (2022). Economic preferences across generations and family clusters: A large-scale experiment in a developing country. Journal of Political Economy, 130(9), 2361–2410.
20.
CisnerosL., IbanescuM., KeenC., Lobato-CallerosO., & Niebla-ZatarainJ. (2018). Bibliometric study of family business succession between 1939 and 2017: Mapping and analyzing authors’ networks. Scientometrics, 117, 919–951.
21.
CoboM. J., López-HerreraA. G., Herrera-ViedmaE., & HerreraF. (2011). An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the fuzzy sets theory field. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 146–166.
22.
ComerioN., & StrozziF. (2019). Tourism and its economic impact: A literature review using bibliometric tools. Tourism Economics, 25(1), 109–131.
23.
CorazziniL., FilippinA., & VaninP. (2015). Economic behavior under the influence of alcohol: An experiment on time preferences, risk-taking, and altruism. PLoS One, 10(4), e0121530.
24.
DingY., & CroninB. (2011). Popular and/or prestigious? Measures of scholarly esteem. Information Processing & Management, 47(1), 80–96.
25.
DonthuN., KumarS., & PattnaikD. (2020). Forty-five years of journal of business research: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Business Research, 109, 1–14.
26.
DonthuN., KumarS., PattnaikD., & LimW. M. (2021). A bibliometric retrospection of marketing from the lens of psychology: Insights from Psychology & Marketing. Psychology & Marketing, 38(5), 834–865.
27.
FrederickS. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42.
28.
FrederickS., LoewensteinG., & O’DonoghueT. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 351–401.
29.
GautierP. A., & Van VuurenA. (2020). Identifying present bias and time preferences with an application to land-lease-contract data. The Econometrics Journal, 23(3), 363–385.
30.
Gin’eX, GoldbergJ, SilvermanD, & YangD. (2018) Revising commitments: Field evidence on the adjustment of prior choices. The Economic Journal, 128, 159–188.
31.
GolsteynB. H., GrönqvistH., & LindahlL. (2014). Adolescent time preferences predict lifetime outcomes. The Economic Journal, 124(580), F739–F761.
32.
HarrisC., & LaibsonD. (2013). Instantaneous gratification. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128(1), 205–248.
33.
HerberholzC. (2020). Risk attitude, time preference and health behaviours in the Bangkok Metropolitan Area. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 87, 101558.
34.
HirshJ. B. (2010). Personality and environmental concern. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(2), 245–248.
35.
HjørlandB. (2013). Facet analysis: The logical approach to knowledge organization. Information Processing & Management, 49(2), 545–557.
36.
HuK., WuH., QiK., YuJ., YangS., YuT., ZhengJ., & LiuB. (2018). A domain keyword analysis approach extending term frequency-keyword active index with Google Word2Vec model. Scientometrics, 114, 1031–1068.
37.
HuffmanD., MaurerR., & MitchellO. S. (2019). Time discounting and economic decision-making in the older population. The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, 14, 100121.
38.
IdaT., & GotoR. (2016). Simultaneous measurement of time and risk preferences: Stated preference discrete choice modeling analysis depending on smoking behaviour. In IdaT. (Ed.), Social preferences, institutional design, and self-governance: Theories and experiments (pp. 27–48). Springer Japan.
39.
KangM. I., & IkedaS. (2016). Time discounting, present biases, and health-related behaviors: Evidence from Japan. Economics & Human Biology, 21, 122–136.
40.
KesslerM. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation, 14(1), 10–25.
41.
KhanM. A., PattnaikD., AshrafR., AliI., KumarS., & DonthuN. (2021). Value of special issues in the journal of business research: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Business Research, 125, 295–313.
42.
KrčálO., PeerS., & StaněkR. (2021). Can time-inconsistent preferences explain hypothetical biases?Economics of Transportation, 25, 100207.
43.
LaibsonD. (1997). Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 443–478.
44.
LiuG., LiY., & XuD. (2024). How does financial literacy affect farmers’ agricultural investments? A study from the perspectives of risk preferences and time preferences. Applied Economics, 56(1), 1–15.
45.
MahalingamV., StillwellD., KosinskiM., RustJ., & KoganA. (2014). Who can wait for the future? A personality perspective. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(5), 573–583.
Mas-TurA., ModakN. M., MerigóJ. M., Roig-TiernoN., GeraciM., & CapecchiV. (2019). Half a century of quality & quantity: A bibliometric review. Quality & Quantity, 53, 981–1020.
48.
MeierS., & SprengerC. D. (2013). Discounting financial literacy: Time preferences and participation in financial education programs. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 95, 159–174.
49.
MerigóJ. M., Mulet-FortezaC., ValenciaC., & LewA. A. (2019). Twenty years of Tourism Geographies: a bibliometric overview. Tourism Geographies, 21(5), 881–910.
50.
NerurS. P., RasheedA. A., & NatarajanV. (2008). The intellectual structure of the strategic management field: An author co‐citation analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 29(3), 319–336.
51.
OberrauchL., & KaiserT. (2022). Cognitive ability, financial literacy, and narrow bracketing in time-preference elicitation. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 98, 101844.
52.
O’DonoghueT., & RabinM. (1999). Doing it now or later. American Economic Review, 89(1), 103–124.
53.
Palacios-CallenderM., & RobertsS. A. (2018). Scientific collaboration of Cuban researchers working in Europe: Understanding relations between origin and destination countries. Scientometrics, 117(2), 745–769.
54.
PattnaikD., HassanM. K., KumarS., & PaulJ. (2020). Trade credit research before and after the global financial crisis of 2008–A bibliometric overview. Research in International Business and Finance, 54, 101–287.
55.
PrelecD. (2004). Decreasing impatience: a criterion for non‐stationary time preference and ‘hyperbolic’ discounting. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 106(3), 511–532.
56.
PritchardA. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of documentation, 25, 348.
57.
Ramos‐RodríguezA. R., & Ruíz‐NavarroJ. (2004). Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: A bibliometric study of the strategic management journal, 1980–2000. Strategic Management Journal, 25(10), 981–1004.
58.
RazenM., HuberJ., HueberL., KirchlerM., & StefanM. (2021). Financial literacy, economic preferences, and adolescents’ field behavior. Finance Research Letters, 40, 101–728.
59.
ReadD. (2001). Is time-discounting hyperbolic or subadditive?Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 23, 5–32.
60.
RossettoD. E., BernardesR. C., BoriniF. M., & GattazC. C. (2018). Structure and evolution of innovation research in the last 60 years: Review and future trends in the field of business through the citations and co-citations analysis. Scientometrics, 115(3), 1329–1363.
61.
SamuelsonP. A. (1937). A note on measurement of utility. The Review of Economic Studies, 4(2), 155–161.
62.
SmallH. (1973). Co‐citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for information Science, 24(4), 265–269.
63.
SpasojevicB., LohmannG., & ScottN. (2018). Air transport and tourism–a systematic literature review (2000–2014). Current Issues in Tourism, 21(9), 975–997.
64.
TanakaT., CamererC. F., & NguyenQ. (2010). Risk and time preferences: Linking experimental and household survey data from Vietnam. American Economic Review, 100(1), 557–571.
65.
TranfieldD., DenyerD., & SmartP. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.
66.
TsayM. Y. (2009). Citation analysis of Ted Nelson’s works and his influence on hypertext concept. Scientometrics, 79(3), 451–472.
67.
WangM., RiegerM. O., & HensT. (2016). How time preferences differ: Evidence from 53 countries. Journal of Economic Psychology, 52, 115–135.
68.
ZupicI., & ČaterT. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472.
