Purpose: When facing important decisions, people often ask themselves “What should I choose?” This question may involve intertemporal and risky decisions. The aim of our study was to test a potential discrepancy between the normative and descriptive perspective, that is, between “What should you choose?” and “What do you choose?”.
Methodology: In this study we assessed the rate of delay and probability discounting of 236 participants. The design was a 2 (“choose”/”should choose”) × 2 (small/large) × 5 (delays or probabilities) factorial design in delay and probability discounting.
Findings: People are less impulsive when taking the normative perspective than when they take the descriptive one. This phenomenon occurs in relation to large payoffs. However taking the normative rather than descriptive perspective makes no difference in risky decisions.
Research limitations: In further research it would be beneficial to study real outcomes as choice consequences and to control for variables that might moderate the impact of our manipulation, such as addictions.
Implications: The manipulation with the perspective may be applied not only in financial decision making. Our results may find a practical implementation to help impulsive people make more sensible decisions.
Originality: We demonstrated the internal conflict between the descriptive and normative mode in delay discounting decision making.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
Ainslie G. (1975). Specious reward: A behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control. Psychological Bulletin82(4): 463–496 https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076860
Baker F. Johnson M.W. and Bickel W.K. (2003). Delay discounting in current and never-before cigarette smokers: Similarities and differences across commodity sign and magnitude. Journal of Abnormal Psychology112(3): 382–392 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.112.3.382
Bazerman M.H. Tenbrunsel A.E. and Wade-Benzoni K. (1998). Negotiating with Yourself and Losing: Making Decisions with Competing Internal Preferences. The Academy of Management Review23(2): 225–241 https://doi.org/10.2307/259372
Bechara A. (2004). The role of emotion in decision-making: Evidence from neurological patients with orbitofrontal damage. Brain and Cognition55(1): 30–40 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2003.04.001
Białaszek W. Gaik M. McGoun E. and Zielonka P. (2015). Impulsive people have a compulsion for immediate gratification”certain or uncertain. Frontiers in Psychology6https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00515
Białek M. and Sawicki P. (2014). Can taking the perspective of an expert debias human decisions? The case of risky and delayed gains. Frontiers in Psychology5https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00989
Brown R. (1965). Social Psychology. New York: FreePress.
Coffey S.F. Gudleski G.D. Saladin M.E. and Brady K.T. (2003). Impulsivity and rapid discounting of delayed hypothetical rewards in cocaine-dependent individuals. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology11(1) 18–25 https://doi.org/10.1037/1064-12184.108.40.206
Du W. Green L. and Myerson J. (2002). Cross-Cultural Comparisons of Discounting Delayed and Probabilistic Rewards. The Psychological Record52(4): 479–492 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395199
Green L. Fristoe N. and Myerson J. (1994). Temporal discounting and preference reversals in choice between delayed outcomes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review1(3): 383–389 https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213979
Green L. and Myerson J. (2004). A discounting framework for choice with delayed and probabilistic rewards. Psychological Bulletin130(5): 769–792 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.5.769
Green L. and Myerson J. (2010). Experimental and correlational analyses of delay and probability discounting. In: G.J. Madden and W.K. Bickel (eds.) Impulsivity: The behavioral and neurological science of discounting. Washington: American Psychological Association https://doi.org/10.1037/12069-000
Green L. Myerson J. Lichtman D. Rosen S. and Fry A. (1996). Temporal discounting in choice between delayed rewards: The role of age and income. Psychology and Aging11(1): 79–84 https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-79220.127.116.11
Hsee C.K. and Weber E.U. (1997). A fundamental prediction error: self-other discrepancies in risk preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General126(1): 45–53 https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3418.104.22.168
Kahneman D. and Tversky A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica47(2): 263–291 https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
Kyonka E.G.E. and Schutte N.S. (2018). Probability discounting and gambling: a meta-analysis. Addiction113(12): 2173–2181 https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14397
Lerner J.S. and Keltner D. (2001). Fear anger and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology81(1): 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3522.214.171.124
Levinger G. and Schneider D.J. (1969). Test of the “risk is a value” hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology11(2): 165–169 https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026966
Loewenstein G.F. Weber E.U. Hsee C.K. and Welch N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin127(2): 267–286 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267
Loewensten G. (1996). Out of Control: Visceral Influences on Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes65(3) 272–292 https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0028
Logue A.W. (1988). Research on self-control: An integrating framework. Behavioral and Brain Sciences11(04) https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00053978
MacKillop J. Amlung M.T. Few L.R. Ray L.A. Sweet L.H. and Munafò M.R. (2011). Delayed reward discounting and addictive behavior: a meta-analysis. Psychopharmacology216(3): 305–321 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-011-2229-0
MacKillop J. Anderson E.J. Castelda B.A. Mattson R.E. and Donovick P.J. (2006). Divergent Validity of Measures of Cognitive Distortions Impulsivity and Time Perspective in Pathological Gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies22(3): 339–354 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-006-9021-9
Madden G.J. and Bickel W.K. (2010). Impulsivity. The behavioral and neurological science of discounting. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Madden G.J. Petry N.M. Badger G.J. and Bickel W.K. (1997). Impulsive and self-control choices in opioid-dependent patients and non-drug-using control patients: Drug and monetary rewards. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology5(3): 256–262 https://doi.org/10.1037/1064-12126.96.36.1996
Madden G.J. Petry N.M. and Johnson P.S. (2009). Pathological gamblers discount probabilistic rewards less steeply than matched controls. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology17(5): 283–290 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016806
Myerson J. Green L. and Warusawitharana M. (2001). Area under the curve as a measure of discounting. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior76(2): 235–243 https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2001.76-235
O’Connor K.M. De Dreu C.K.W. Schroth H. Barry B. Lituchy T.R. and Bazerman M.H. (2002). What We Want to Do Versus What We Think We Should Do: An Empirical Investigation of Intrapersonal Conflict. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making15(5): 403–418 https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.426
Prelec D. and Bodner R. (2003). Self-signaling and self-control. Time and Decisionhttp://nel.mit.edu/pdf/21PrelecBodnercopy.pdf
Rabin M. and Thaler R.H. (2001). Anomalies: Risk Aversion. Journal of Economic Perspectives15(1): 219–232 https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.15.1.219
Rachlin H. (1995). Self-control: Beyond commitment. Behavioral and Brain Sciences18(01): 109–121 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00037602
San Martín R. (2012). Event-related potential studies of outcome processing and feedback-guided learning. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience6(November): 1–17 https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00304
Slovic P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science236(4799): 280–285. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507
Slovic P. Finucane M.L. Peters E. and MacGregor D.G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research177(3): 1333–1352 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006
Worthy D.A. Byrne K.A. and Fields S. (2014). Effects of emotion on prospection during decision-making. Frontiers in Psychology5https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00591