Asymmetric discounting of gains and losses: A query theory account

  • Kirstin C. Appelt
  • David J. Hardisty
  • Elke U. Weber
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Intertemporal choice Discounting Losses Constructed preference Query theory 

JEL Classification

D90 

References

  1. 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
  2. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benhabib, J., Bisin, A., & Schotter, A. (2010). Present-bias, quasi-hyperbolic discounting, and fixed costs. Games and Economic Behavior, 69, 205–223. doi:10.1016/j.geb.2009.11.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benzion, U., Rapoport, A., & Yagil, J. (1989). Discount rates inferred from decisions: an experimental study. Management Science, 35, 270–284. doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.3.270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bickel, W. K., Pitcock, J. A., Yi, R., & Angtuaco, E. J. C. (2009). Congruence of BOLD response across intertemporal choice conditions: fictive and real money gains and losses. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 8839–8846. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5319-08.2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Birnbaum, M. H. (1982). Controversies in psychological measurement. In B. Wegener (Ed.), Social attitudes and psychophysical measurement. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Chabris, C. F., Laibson, D., Morris, C. L., Schuldt, J. P., & Taubinsky, D. (2008). Individual laboratory-measured discount rates predict field behavior. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 37, 237–269. doi:10.1007/s11166-008-9053-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chesson, H. W., Leichliter, J. S., Zimet, G. D., Rosenthal, S. L., Bernstein, D. I., & Fife, K. H. (2006). Discount rates and risky sexual behaviors among teenagers and young adults. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 32, 217–230. doi:10.1007/s11166-006-9520-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coble, K. H., & Lusk, J. L. (2010). At the nexus of risk and time preferences: an experimental investigation. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 41, 67–79. doi:10.1007/s11166-010-9096-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Frederick, S., & Loewenstein, G. (2008). Conflicting motives in evaluations of sequences. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 37, 221–235. doi:10.1007/s11166-008-9051-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hardisty, D. J., & Weber, E. U. (2009). Discounting future green: money versus the environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 329–340. doi:10.1037/a0016433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Hendrickx, L., Poortinga, W., & van der Kooij, R. (2001). Temporal factors in resource dilemmas. Acta Psychologica, 108, 137–154. doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(01)00032-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson, M. W., & Bickel, W. K. (2002). Within-subject comparison of real and hypothetical money rewards in delay discounting. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 77, 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson, E. J., Haübl, G., & Keinan, A. (2007). Aspects of endowment: a query theory of value construction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 33, 461–474. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Laibson, D. (1997). Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 443–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (2006). The construction of preference. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Loewenstein, G. F. (1988). Frames of mind in intertemporal choice. Management Science, 34, 200–214. doi:10.1287/mnsc.34.2.200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106, 3–19. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.106.1.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Novemsky, N., & Kahneman, D. (2005). The boundaries of loss aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 119–128. doi:10.1509/jmkr.42.2.119.62292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reimers, S., Maylor, E. A., Stewart, N., & Chater, N. (2009). Associations between a one-shot delay discounting measure and age, income, education and real-world impulsive behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 973–978. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.07.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Samuelson, P. A. (1937). A note on the measurement of utility. The Review of Economic Studies, 4, 155–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shelley, M. K. (1993). Outcome signs, questions frames and discount rates. Management Science, 39, 806–815. doi:10.1287/mnsc.39.7.806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445. doi:10.1037//1082-989X.7.4.422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thaler, R. H. (1981). Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency. Economics Letters, 8, 201–207. doi:10.1016/0165-1765(81)90067-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thaler, R. H., & Benartzi, S. (2004). Save More Tomorrow™: using behavioral economics to increase employee saving. Journal of Political Economy, 112, S164–S187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 1039–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Weber, E. U., & Johnson, E. J. (2009). Mindful judgment and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 53–85. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.
  37. Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Sokolowska, J. (1998). What folklore tells us about risk and risk taking: cross-cultural comparisons of American, German, and Chinese proverbs. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 170–186. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Weber, E. U., Shafir, S., & Blais, A. (2004). Predicting risk sensitivity in humans and lower animals: risk as variance or coefficient of variation. Psychological Review, 111(2), 430–445. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Weber, E. U., Johnson, E. J., Milch, K. F., Chang, H., Brodscholl, J. C., & Goldstein, D. G. (2007). Asymmetric discounting in intertemporal choice: a query theory account. Psychological Science, 18, 516–523. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01932.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Zauberman, G., & Lynch, J. J. G. (2005). Resource slack and propensity to discount delayed investments of time versus money. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 23–37. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.134.1.23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kirstin C. Appelt
    • 1
  • David J. Hardisty
    • 1
  • Elke U. Weber
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychology & Graduate School of BusinessColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations