Overlapping defaults. The case of intertemporal choices

Open access

Abstract

People make different choices depending on which decision is the default option. In intertemporal choices, the default option is typically imposed externally. For example, people expect more for delaying the gain (default in the present) than are willing to pay for accelerating the future gain over the same period (default in the future). We claim that apart from the external default, people’s choices are also influenced by the internal (natural) default such as the time perspective resulting in the reference point in the present. By manipulating the congruency between the internal and external defaults, we show that incongruence between defaults decreases the strength of discounting of gains, but not of losses.

Appelt, K.C., Hardisty, D.J., & Weber, E.U. (2011). Asymmetric discounting of gains and losses: A query theory account. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 43(2), 107-126.

Bauer, P.J., & Mandler, J.M. (1992). Putting the horse before the cart: The use of temporal order in recall of events by one-year-old children. Developmental Psychology, 28(3), 441-452.

Białaszek, W., Bakun, P., McGoun, E., & Zielonka, P. (2016). Standing in Your Peer’s Shoes Hurts Your Feats: The Self-Others Discrepancy in Risk Attitude and Impulsivity. Frontiers in Psychology, 7.

Bialek, M., & Sawicki, P. (2014). Can taking the perspective of an expert debias human decisions? The case for risky and delayed gains. Name: Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 989.

Charness, G., Gneezy, U., & Kuhn, M.A. (2012). Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 81(1), 1-8.

Cichońska, D., & Iltchev, P. (2011). Czynniki wpływające na wybór form oszczędzania w celu zabezpieczenia emerytalnego. Polityka Społeczna, 2, 2-5.

Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(3), 371.

Dinner, I., Johnson, E.J., Goldstein, D.G., & Liu, K. (2011). Partitioning default effects: why people choose not to choose. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(4), 332.

Franco-Watkins, A.M., Mattson, R.E., & Jackson, M.D. (2016). Now or later? Attentional processing and intertemporal choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29(2-3), 206-217.

Frederick , S., Loewenstein, G., & O’Donoghue, T. (2002). Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 351-401.

Hess, B. J., Lipner, R.S., Thompson, V., Holmboe, E.S., & Graber, M.L. (2015). Blink or think: can further refl ection improve initial diagnostic impressions? Academic Medicine, 90(1), 112-118.

Israel, A ., Rosenboim, M., & Shavit, T. (2014). Using priming manipulations to affect time preferences and risk aversion: An experimental study. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 53, 36-43.

Johnson, E.J., Häubl, G., & Keinan, A. (2007). Aspects of endowment: A query theory of value construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(3), 461-474.

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(2), 129.

Johnson, M .W., & Bickel, W.K. (2008). An algorithm for identifying nonsystematic delay-discounting data. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 16(3), 264-274.

Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L., & Thaler, R.H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1325-1348.

Karbowski, A. (2016). Discussion on the Social Rate of Discount: from Sen to Behavioural Economics. Economics & Sociology, 9(2), 46-60.

Killeen, P.R. (2015). The arithmetic of discounting. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 103(1), 249-259.

McKerchar, T.L., Green, L., Myerson, J., Pickford, T.S., Hill, J.C., & Stout, S.C. (2009). A comparison of four models of delay discounting in humans. Behavioural Processes, 81(2), 256-259. doi:

Moffi tt, T.E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R.J., et al. (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, 2693-2698.

Münte, T.F., Schiltz, K., & Kutas, M. (1998). When temporal terms belie conceptual order. Nature, 395(6697), 71-73.

Myerson, J. , Green, L., & Warusawitharana, M. (2001). Area under the curve as a measure of discounting. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 76(2), 235-243.

Nuerk, H.-C ., Patro, K., Cress, U., Schild, U., Friedrich, C.K., & Göbel, S.M. (2015). How space-number associations may be created in preliterate children: six distinct mechanisms. Frontiers in psychology, 6.

Patro, K., & Haman, M. (2012). The spatial-numerical congruity effect in preschoolers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 111(3), 534-542.

Sawicki, P., & Białek, M. (2016). Side Effects in Time Discounting Procedures: Fixed Alternatives Become the Reference Point. PLoS ONE, 11(10), e0165245. doi:

Shelley, M.K. (1 993). Outcome signs, question frames and discount rates. Management Science, 39(7), 806-815.

Shelley, M.K . (1994). Gain/loss asymmetry in risky intertemporal choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59(1), 124-159.

Spelke, E.S. (2000). Core knowledge. American Psychologist, 55(11), 1233.

Spelke, E.S. , & Kinzler, K.D. (2007). Core knowledge. Developmental Science, 10(1), 89-96.

Weber, E.U., & Johnson, E.J. (2009). Mindful judgment and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 53-85.

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(6), 516-523. doi:

Polish Psychological Bulletin

The Journal of Committee for Psychological Sciences of Polish Academy of Sciences

Journal Information


CiteScore 2016: 0.33

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.185
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.258

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 317 277 21
PDF Downloads 114 109 9