Asymmetric discounting of gains and losses: A query theory account

Appelt, Kirstin C.; Hardisty, David J.; Weber, Elke U.

doi:10.1007/s11166-011-9125-1

Cited by 79 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Each choice option contains one immediate and one future reward, thereby turning decision makers' attention toward both the short-term and long-term consequences of their choices, rather than letting them consider the two time ranges separately. This view is in line with a query theory account of temporal discounting (27,28), which posits that that the reward alternative considered first (i.e., smaller-sooner vs. larger-later) becomes more likely to be selected. By making explicit the short-term and long-term consequences of each choice, decision makers must consider future as well as immediate outcomes.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

Behavioral and neural correlates of increased self-control in the absence of increased willpower

Magen

Dweck

Gross

et al. 2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People often exert willpower to choose a more valuable delayed reward over a less valuable immediate reward, but using willpower is taxing and frequently fails. In this research, we demonstrate the ability to enhance self-control (i.e., forgoing smaller immediate rewards in favor of larger delayed rewards) without exerting additional willpower. Using behavioral and neuroimaging data, we show that a reframing of rewards (i) reduced the subjective value of smaller immediate rewards relative to larger delayed rewards, (ii) increased the likelihood of choosing the larger delayed rewards when choosing between two real monetary rewards, (iii) reduced the brain reward responses to immediate rewards in the dorsal and ventral striatum, and (iv) reduced brain activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (a correlate of willpower) when participants chose the same larger later rewards across the two choice frames. We conclude that reframing can promote self-control while avoiding the need for additional willpower expenditure.temporal discounting | judgment and decision-making | neuroeconomics | reward reframing

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

Behavioral and neural correlates of increased self-control in the absence of increased willpower

Magen

Dweck

Gross

et al. 2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It's worth mentioning that consistently with our findings, Appelt et al (2011) also reported no effect of incongruent defaults on the discount rates when accelerating losses, but the discount rates decreased for incongruent defaults when delaying losses. Hence, the effects on incongruent defaults for delaying losses requires further investigation.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Appelt et al, 2011), our findings suggest that human decision-making can be made less impulsive by presenting intertemporal choices with incongruent defaults. Surprisingly, we found that incongruence between defaults is affecting delay discounting of the gains, but not of losses.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

“…As part of these efforts, researchers developed the consider the opposite technique which became a prominent method of debiasing human cognition. For example, Appelt, Hardisty and Weber (2011) asked individuals to consider the opposite first, i.e. to describe the future alternative when presented with a delaying scenario.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Intertemporal choice, a decision between smaller sooner and larger later payoffs, is also affected by defaults (Appelt, Hardisty, & Weber, 2011;Weber et al, 2007). The reference points can be imposed externally or have internal origins, and can be made explicitly by instruction, or more subtle, i.e.…”

Section: Intertemporal Choicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Overlapping defaults. The case of intertemporal choices

Sawicki¹,

Białek²

2017

Polish Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Good or Bad, We Want it Now: Fixed‐cost Present Bias for Gains and Losses Explains Magnitude Asymmetries in Intertemporal Choice

Hardisty,

Appelt,

Weber

2012

Behavioral Decision Making

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intertemporal tradeoffs are ubiquitous in decision making, yet preferences for current versus future losses are rarely explored in empirical research. Whereas rational‐economic theory posits that neither outcome sign (gains vs. losses) nor outcome magnitude (small vs. large) should affect delay discount rates, both do, and moreover, they interact: in three studies, we show that whereas large gains are discounted less than small gains, large losses are discounted more than small losses. This interaction can be understood through a reconceptualization of fixed‐cost present bias, which has traditionally described a psychological preference for immediate rewards. First, our results establish present bias for losses—a psychological preference to have losses over with now. Present bias thus predicts increased discounting of future gains but decreased (or even negative) discounting of future losses. Second, because present bias preferences do not scale with the magnitude of possible gains or losses, they play a larger role, relative to other motivations for discounting, for small magnitude intertemporal decisions than for large magnitude intertemporal decisions. Present bias thus predicts less discounting of large gains than small gains but more discounting of large losses than small losses. The present research is the first to demonstrate that the effect of outcome magnitude on discount rates may be opposite for gains and losses and also the first to offer a theory (an extension of present bias) and process data to explain this interaction. The results suggest that policy efforts to encourage future‐oriented choices should frame outcomes as large gains or small losses. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Asymmetric discounting of gains and losses: A query theory account

Abstract: Intertemporal choice, Discounting, Losses, Constructed preference, Query theory, D90,

Cited by 79 publications

References 36 publications

Behavioral and neural correlates of increased self-control in the absence of increased willpower

Behavioral and neural correlates of increased self-control in the absence of increased willpower

Overlapping defaults. The case of intertemporal choices

Good or Bad, We Want it Now: Fixed‐cost Present Bias for Gains and Losses Explains Magnitude Asymmetries in Intertemporal Choice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About