Asymmetric discounting of gains and losses: A query theory account
- 533 Downloads
People discount delayed gains (where the default is to receive a smaller gain sooner) more than accelerated gains (where the default is to receive a larger gain later). For losses, the pattern reverses—people discount delayed losses less than accelerated losses. In Study 1, confirming a Query Theory process account, this sign by direction interaction is mediated by the prominence of thoughts in favor of the default. Thoughts in favor of the smaller, sooner amount are more prominent in delay scenarios than acceleration scenarios, and this increases discounting for gains and decreases discounting for losses. Study 2 confirms the causal role of the order of option consideration. Participants considering thoughts in the natural order (pro-default thoughts first) replicate the sign by direction interaction, whereas participants considering thoughts in the opposite, unnatural order (pro-alternative thoughts first) do not. Reversing the order of option consideration eliminates the sign by direction interaction.
KeywordsIntertemporal choice Discounting Losses Constructed preference Query theory
Support for this research was provided by the National Institute of Aging, grant R01AG027931-01A2, and the National Science Foundation, grant SES-0820496. The authors wish to thank the participants of the 2nd Annual Princeton Conference on Psychology and Policymaking for many helpful comments.
- Appelt, K. C., Johnson, E. J., Knoll, M. A. Z., & Westfall, J. E. (2011, June). Time to retire: Why Americans claim benefits early and how to encourage them to delay. Paper presented at the 2nd annual Boulder Summer Conference on Consumer Financial Decision Making, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
- Bickel, W. K., Jones, B. A., Landes, R. D., Christensen, D. R., Jackson, L., & Mancino, M. (2010). Hypothetical intertemporal choice and real economic behavior: delay discounting predicts voucher redemptions during contingency-management procedures. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 18(6), 546–552. doi: 10.1037/a0021739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Birnbaum, M. H. (1982). Controversies in psychological measurement. In B. Wegener (Ed.), Social attitudes and psychophysical measurement. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Figner, B., Weber, E. U., Steffener, J., Krosch, A., Wager, T. D., & Johnson, E. J. (2010). Framing the future first: Brain mechanisms that increase patience in intertemporal choice. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
- Franklin, B. (1965). Advice to a young tradesman. In R. L. Ketcham (Ed.), The political thought of Benjamin Franklin. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. (Original work published 1748).Google Scholar
- Hardisty, D. J., Orlove, B., Krantz, D. H., Small, A., & Milch, K. F. (2011). It’s about time: An integrative approach to effective policy. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
- Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: the endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 193–206.Google Scholar
- Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (2006). The construction of preference. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Mazur, J. E. (1987). An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. In M. L. Commons, J. E. Mazur, J. A. Nevin, & H. Rachlin (Eds.), Quantitative analyses of behavior (vol. 5: the effect of delay and intervening events on reinforcement value) (pp. 55–73). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Weber, B. J., & Chapman, G. B. (2005). The combined effects of risk and time on choice: does uncertainty eliminate the immediacy effect? Does delay eliminate the certainty effect? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 104–118. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Weber, E. U., & Johnson, E. J. (2011). Query theory: knowing what we want by arguing with ourselves. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 91–92. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X10002797.
- Weber, E. U., Treuer, G., Appelt, K. C., Goll, A., Filbin, R. W., & Crookes, R. (2011). Smoking or non-smoking? Query Theory explains public reactions to changes in status quo. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar