Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Rationality of Near Bias toward both Future and Past Events

Review of Philosophy and Psychology volume 12, pages 905–922 (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

In recent years, a disagreement has erupted between two camps of philosophers about the rationality of bias toward the near (“near bias”) and bias toward the future (“future bias”). According to the traditional hybrid view, near bias is rationally impermissible, while future bias is either rationally permissible or obligatory. Time neutralists, meanwhile, argue that the hybrid view is untenable. They claim that those who reject near bias should reject both biases and embrace time neutrality. To date, experimental work has focused on future-directed near bias. The primary aim of this paper is to shed light on the debate by investigating past-directed near bias. If people treat the past and future differently with respect to near bias, by being future-directed but not past-directed near biased, then this supports a particular version of the hybrid view: temporal metaphysic hybridism. If people treat the past and future the same with respect to near bias, then this supports a simple version of time neutralism, which explains both future bias and near bias in terms of the functioning of a single mechanism: the anticipatory/retrospectory mechanism. Our results undermine the claim that people are future-directed, but not past-directed, near biased, and hence do not support temporal metaphysic hybridism. They also fail to support simple time-neutralism; instead, they suggest that there are multiple mechanisms that differently shape future- and past-directed preferences.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. While discount rates feature prominently in economic models of decision making, there is an important difference between the discounting of positive and negative experiences—which John Broome (1991) calls “pure” discounting—and the discounting of commodities used by economists in cost-benefit analysis. This paper concerns pure discounting.

  2. See Greene and Sullivan (2015, §2). Sidgwick (1884, 380–1) writes, “The mere difference of priority and posteriority in time is not a reasonable ground for having more regard to the consciousness of one moment than to that of another. The form in which it practically presents itself to most men is ‘that a smaller present good is not to be preferred to a greater future good’ (allowing for difference of certainty).” Rawls (1971, 293) reiterates the point: “A present or near future advantage may be counted more heavily on account of its greater certainty or probability, and we should take into consideration how our situation and capacity for particular enjoyments will change. But none of these things justifies our preferring a lesser present to a greater future good simply because of its nearer temporal position.” (See also Lewis (1946); Nagel (1970); Broome (1991); and Brink (2011)).

  3. Explicit supporters of the rationality of hedonic future bias include Prior (1959); Hare (2007, 2008), and Heathwood (2008).

  4. Defenders of this view include Prior (1959); Schlesinger (1976); Craig (1999); and Pearson (2018).

  5. Critics of hedonic future bias include Brink (2011); Greene and Sullivan (2015); and Dougherty (2015).

  6. To our knowledge this literature is exhausted by Yi et al. (2006); Bickel et al. (2008) and Molouki et al. (2019).

  7. Heathwood (2008, 56–7): “[A future-biased agent] is being completely reasonable in preferring that his pain be in the past. In fact, even his no longer caring at all that it occurred is perfectly fitting—not at all in inappropriate. Why should he care about it now? No reason—it’s over and done with.” Likewise, Sullivan (2018, 58) claims that “we assign no value to a merely past painful experience or pleasurable experience”. See also Parfit (1984, 173) and Dorsey (2018) (though neither defends this view as part of a commitment to temporal metaphysic hybridism.).

  8. This view is suggested by Hume (1738) and by Suhler and Callender (2012, 5). It is endorsed by Yehezkel (2014, 11).

  9. Early experiments on future-directed near bias—what social scientists call temporal discounting—indicate a “pervasive devaluation of the future” (Ainslie and Haslam (1992, 59)). For example, in the experiments of Thaler (1981); Hausman (1979); and Akerlof (1991), people assigned less value to future money, time, and effort, respectively, than their present analogues. Similar results in animal studies backed this idea; e.g., Green et al. (1981). However, a meta-analysis done between 1978 and 2002 (Frederick et al. (2002, 377)), found “tremendous variability” in estimates of people’s average discount rate.

  10. These vignettes are based on those used in Greene et al. (2020).

  11. Cf. Greene et al. (2020).

  12. One might worry that these results are due to using hypothetical scenarios to test participants’ preferences. At least in some behavioural economics studies, participants’ preferences are tested under non-hypothetical conditions in which, for instance, they gain or miss out on real money. Clearly, the testing of past-directed preferences cannot be done in anything other than a hypothetical manner. Nevertheless, it’s worth noting that a number of studies have found very similar results when comparing participants’ responses to hypothetical and non-hypothetical scenarios (Lagorio and Madden (2005); Johnson and Bickel (2002)).

  13. See Benzion et al. (1989); Loewenstein (1987); and MacKeigan et al. (1993).

References

  • Ainslie, G., and N. Haslam. 1992. Self-control. In Choice over time, eds. G. Loewenstein & J. Elster. Russell Sage Foundation.

  • Akerlof, G.A. 1991. Procrastination and obedience. The American Economic Review 81 (2): 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Anan, Y., T. D. Wilson, and D. T. Gilbert. 2009. The feeling of uncertainty intensifies affective reactions. Emotion 9 (1): 123–127.

  • Benzion, U., A. Rapoport, and J. Yagil. 1989. Discount rates inferred from decisions: An experimental study. Management Science 35 (3): 270–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bickel, W.K., R. Yi, B.P. Kowell, and K.M. Gatchalian. 2008. Cigarette smokers discount past and future rewards symmetrically and more than controls: Is discounting a measure of impulsivity? Drug and Alcohol Dependence 96: 256–262.

  • Brink, D.O. 2011. Prospects for temporal neutrality. In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Time, ed. Craig Callender. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broome, J. 1991. Weighing goods: Equality, Uncertainty and Time. Basil Blackwell.

  • Byrne, C.A., I.E. Hyman, and K.L. Scott. 2001. Comparisons of memories for traumatic events and other experiences. Applied Cognitive Psychology 15: 119–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caruso, E., D.T. Gilbert, and T.D. Wilson. 2008. A wrinkle in time: Asymmetric valuation of past and future events. Psychological Science 19 (8): 796–801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, W.L. 1999. Tensed time and our differential experience of the past and future. Southern Journal of Philosophy 37: 515–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Argembeau, A., C. Comblain, and M. Van der Linden. 2003. Phenomenal characteristics of autobiographical memories for positive, negative, and neutral events. Applied Cognitive Psychology 17: 281–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Destun, L.M., and N.A. Kuiper. 1999. Phenomenal characteristics associated with real and imagined events: The effects of event valence and absorption. Applied Cognitive Psychology 13: 175–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorsey, D. 2018. Prudence and past selves. Philosophical Studies 175 (8): 1901–1925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, T. 2015. Future-bias and practical reason. Philosophers’ Imprint 15(30): 1–16.

  • Frederick, S., G. Loewenstein, and T. O'donoghue. 2002. Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature 40 (2): 351–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frijda, N.H. 1988. The laws of emotion. American Psychologist 43: 349–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, L., E.B. Fisher, S. Perlow, and L. Sherman. 1981. Preference reversal and self control: Choice as a function of reward amount and delay. Behaviour Analysis Letters 1: 43–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, P. and M Sullivan, (2015). ‘Against time bias’ Ethics 125 (4): 947–970.

  • Greene, P., A.J. Latham, K. Miller, and J. Norton. 2020. Hedonic and non-hedonic bias towards the future. Australasian Journal of Philosophy. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2019.1703017.

  • Hare, C. 2007. Self-Bias, time-Bias, and the metaphysics of the self and time. Journal of Philosophy 104 (7): 350–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hare, C. 2008. A puzzle about other-directed time-Bias. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 86 (2): 269–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hare, C. (2013). Time—The emotional asymmetry. In A Companion to the Philosophy of Time, eds. Adrian Bardon and Heather Dyke, Wiley Blackwell, pp. 507-520.

  • Hausman, J.A. 1979. Individual discount rates and the purchase and utilization of energy-using durables. The Bell Journal of Economics 10: 33–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heathwood, C. 2008. Fitting attitudes and welfare. Oxford Studies in Metaethics 3: 47–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hume, D. 1738. A treatise of human nature. Oxford University Press.

  • Johnson, M. K., M. A. Foley, A. G. Suengas, and C. L. Raye. 1988. Phenomenal characteristics of memories for perceived and imagined autobiographical events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 117: 371–376.

  • Johnson, M.W., and W.K. Bickel. 2002. Within-subject comparison of real and hypothetical money rewards in delay discounting. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 77: 129–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lagorio, C.H., and G.J. Madden. 2005. Delay discounting of real and hypothetical rewards III: Steady-state assessments, forced choice trials, and all real rewards. Behavioural Processes 69: 173–187.

  • Lewis, C.I. 1946. An analysis of knowledge and valuation. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liberman, N., M. Sagristano, and Y. Trope. 2003. The effect of temporal distance on level of construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 38: 523–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G. 1987. Anticipation and the valuation of delayed consumption. The Economic Journal 97 (387): 666–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G. 1996. Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 65 (3): 272–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G., and D. Prelec. 1991. Negative time preference. The American Economic Review 81 (2): 347–352.

  • MacKeigan, L.D., L.N. Larson, J.R. Draugalis, J.L. Bootman, and L.R. Burns. 1993. Time preference for health gains versus health losses. Pharmacoeconomics 3 (5): 374–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molouki, S., D.J. Hardisty, and E.M. Caruso. 2019. The sign effect in past and future discounting. Psychological Science 30 (12): 1674–1695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, T. 1970. The possibility of altruism. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parfit, D. 1984. Reasons and persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, O. 2018. Appropriate emotions and the metaphysics of time. Philosophical Studies 175 (8): 1945–1961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prior, A.N. 1959. Thank goodness that’s over. Philosophy 34 (128): 12–17.

  • Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Belknap: Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlesinger, G. 1976. The stillness of time and philosophical equanimity. Philosophical Studies 30: 145–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidgwick, H. 1884. The methods of ethics. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soman, D., G. Ainslie, S. Frederick, X. Li, J. Lynch, P. Moreau, A. Mitchell, D. Read, A. Sawyer, Y. Trope, K. Wertenbroch, and G. Zauberman. 2005. The psychology of intertemporal discounting: Why are distant events valued differently from proximal ones? Marketing Letters 16 (3/4): 347–360.

  • Suchman, Edward A. 1950. The intensity component in attitude and opinion research, in Measurement and Prediction, Samuel Stoffer et al., eds., Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Suhler, C., and C. Callender. 2012. Thank goodness that argument is over: explaining the temporal value asymmetry. Philosophers Imprint 12: 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, M. 2018. Time biases. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. 1981. Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency. Economics Letters 8 (3): 201–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Boven, L., and L. Ashworth. 2007. Looking forward, looking back: Anticipation is more evocative than retrospection. Journal of Experimental Psychology 136 (2): 289–300.

  • Van Boven, L., J. Kane, A.P. McGraw, and J. Dale. 2010. Feeling close: Emotional intensity reduces perceived psychological distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98 (6): 872–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakslak, C.J., S. Nussbaum, N. Liberman, and Y. Trope. 2006. The effect of temporal distance on the structure of the self concept. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Yehezkel, G. 2014. Theories of time and the asymmetry in human attitudes. Ratio 27 (1): 68–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yi, R., K.M. Gatchalian, and W.K. Bickel. 2006. Discounting of past outcomes. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 14 (3): 311–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    Preston Greene

  2. School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Alex Holcombe

  3. The Department of Philosophy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Andrew J. Latham & Kristie Miller

  4. Department of Philosophy, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland

    James Norton

Authors
  1. Preston Greene
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alex Holcombe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrew J. Latham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kristie Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. James Norton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristie Miller.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Greene, P., Holcombe, A., Latham, A.J. et al. The Rationality of Near Bias toward both Future and Past Events. Rev.Phil.Psych. 12, 905–922 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-020-00518-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-020-00518-1

search

Navigation