Consumers often make decisions about outcomes and events that occur over time. This research examines consumers' sensitivity to the prospective duration relevant to their decisions and the implications of such sensitivity for intertemporal trade-offs, especially the degree of present bias (i.e., hyperbolic discounting). The authors show that participants' subjective perceptions of prospective duration are not sufficiently sensitive to changes in objective duration and are nonlinear and concave in objective time, consistent with psychophysical principles. More important, this lack of sensitivity can explain hyperbolic discounting. The results replicate standard hyperbolic discounting effects with respect to objective time but show a relatively constant rate of discounting with respect to subjective time perceptions. The results are replicated between subjects (Experiment 1) and within subjects (Experiments 2), with multiple time horizons and multiple descriptors, and with different measurement orders. Furthermore, the authors show that when duration is primed, subjective time perception is altered (Experiment 4) and hyperbolic discounting is reduced (Experiment 3).

Consumers prefer larger assortments, despite the negative consequences associated with choosing from these sets. This article examines the role of psychological distance (temporal and geographical) in consumers’ assortment size decisions and rectifies contradicting hypotheses produced by construal level theory. Six studies demonstrate that while consumers prefer larger assortments when the choice takes place in the here and now, they are more likely to prefer small assortments when choices pertain to distant locations and times. This decrease in preference for large assortments is due to psychological distance increasing the similarity of the options in a category, making them appear more substitutable. This effect of psychological distance reverses when consumers consider desirability/feasibility trade-off information inherent in the assortment size decision. These findings point to important outcomes of psychological distance, resolving opposing predictions of construal level theory, and identify boundary conditions for the well-established notion that consumers are attracted to large assortments.

No abstract

This article is based on the first author's dissertation research at the University of North Carolina, chaired by the second author and Jim Bettman. The authors thank Jim Bettman for his valuable contribution. They also thank dissertation committee members John Lynch, Steve Hoeffler, and Rebecca Ratner for their help, as well as Kristen Diehl and Melissa Grills for comments on a previous draft of the article. In addition, the authors acknowledge the helpful comments of the late Dick Wittink and the three anonymous JMR reviewers.

No abstract

Behavioral decision research, Consumers, Interventions,

Decisions are often temporally separated from their outcomes. Using theories of structural alignment and temporal construal, we examined how temporal distance and the associated shift in decision processes moderate susceptibility to context effects. Specifically, in two experiments (one hypothetical, one with real outcomes), we demonstrated that people attend more to nonalignable differences when the outcome of the decision is in the distant future than when it is in the near future. This shift in decision processes was found in preference and choice data, as well as coded written protocols. We further show that this temporal shift cannot be explained by differential involvement with the decision or by the feasibility and desirability of the attributes. Our findings establish temporal distance as an important moderator of structural alignment effects and also extend the implications of temporal construal theory beyond the nature of the attributes to the structural relationships among attributes.

Many important decisions that consumers face involve choosing between options that are unattractive or undesirable—the proverbial “lesser of two evils.” Consumers, who face budget or geographical constraints, for example, end up with mostly undesirable consideration sets; yet a choice is necessary. We examine the role of option set desirability in the context of the well‐established attraction effect. In five studies, we show that the attraction effect occurs in desirable domains but is eliminated when all the options are undesirable (Experiments 1–4). We further find that this asymmetric effect is consistent with a shift in decision makers' processing styles. Decision makers show more vigilant processing when making choices among undesirable (vs. desirable) domains (Experiments 3A and 3B), which results in an attenuated attraction effect (Experiment 4). Our results indicate that the attraction effect might not be as robust as generally thought and establishes (un)desirability as an important boundary condition.