More than five decades after Strotz (1955) modeled dynamic inconsistency, debate continues over how to represent preferences for consumption over time. Introspection, casual empiricism, and laboratory evidence have motivated theorists to develop several type of models in which consumers exhibit more impatience for near-term trade-offs than for future trade-offs. The consumption of addictive substances has been a particular focus of such models. These models share the prediction that some (self-aware, or “sophisticated”) consumers will seek to voluntarily constrain their future consumption choices: they will demand commitment devices. Yet there is little field evidence on the demand for or effectiveness of such commitment devices.

We take some initial steps toward addressing the empirical viability and effectiveness of commitment devices for smoking cessation, using evidence from a field experiment in the Philippines. Some smokers were randomly assigned an opportunity to voluntarily sign a commitment contract (branded Committed Action to Reduce and End Smoking, or “CARES”) to stop smoking. A smoker signing the contract pledged his own money that he would pass a cotinine (the primary metabolite of nicotine) urine test six months later. If the CARES client passed the urine test he got his money back (no interest accrued on the account). If he failed the test the local bank offering the savings product donated the money to charity. This is essentially the performance bond contract suggested in Gruber and Koszegi (2001). A second treatment group received “cue cards,” visually aversive wallet-sized pictures that are modeled on Canada’s mandated cigarette packaging and intended to regularly remind smokers of the health risks from smoking.