The Effects of Appetitive Stimuli on Out-of-Domain Consumption Impatience

Abstract

Earlier work in consumer research has documented the effect of appetitive stimuli (e.g., chocolate cookies) on a related consumption domain (e.g., eating). We argue that appetitive stimuli can lead to a change in temporal orientation and affect subsequent consumption impatience across domains. In a series of experiments, we find that consumers exposed to appetitive stimuli are more present oriented, more likely to choose smaller-sooner rewards or vice options, and more likely to make unplanned purchase decisions. (c) 2008 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc..

Cue-Induced Craving Increases Impulsivity via Changes in Striatal Value Signals in Problem Gamblers

“…Behaviorally, the modulatory influence of appetitive visual gambling cues on temporal discounting resembles previous effects of appetitive pavlovian stimuli on discounting behavior in healthy controls (Wilson and Daly, 2004;Li, 2008;Kim and Zauberman, 2013). It is therefore possible that the observed effects are not specific to the nature of the cues or to the particular patient group studied here, and subjectively appetitive stimuli might generally enhance impulsive responding.…”

“…Pathological gamblers show increased discounting of delayed monetary rewards (Petry, 2001b;Dixon et al, 2003;Miedl et al, 2012) similar to substance addicts such as alcoholics (Petry, 2001a), opioid-abusers (Kirby et al, 1999), cocaine dependents (Kirby and Petry, 2004), and smokers (Johnson et al, 2007;Peters et al, 2011), suggesting that temporal discounting might be a basic trait marker of addictive behavior (Bickel et al, 2014). Temporal discounting in healthy subjects is increased in the presence of appetitive pavlovian stimuli (Wilson and Daly, 2004;Li, 2008;Kim and Zauberman, 2013). Similar effects of gambling context occur in problem gamblers (Dixon et al, 2006), and such processes might have implications for cueinduced relapse.…”

Affect as a Decision-Making System of the Present

“…More recent studies show that the impatient tendencies triggered by affect-rich stimuli can even carry over to subsequent unrelated tasks. For example, exposure to affect-rich pictures of attractive women in bikinis (for heterosexual men) or appetizing desserts has been found to promote impatience in subsequent choices between smaller immediate monetary rewards and larger delayed monetary rewards (Li 2008;Van den Bergh, Dewitte, and Warlop 2008).…”

DRIFT: An analysis of outcome framing in intertemporal choice.

“…A second research stream has focused on how these choices correlate with other individual differences, such as smoking behavior (Baker, Johnson, & Bickel, 2003;Chabris, Laibson, Morris, Schuldt, & Taubinsky, 2008) or demographic characteristics (Frederick, 2005). A third focus is on the influence of ephemeral states, such as whether participants have been aroused by viewing women in bikinis ( Van den Bergh, Dewitte, & Warlop, 2008) or by the sight or scent of freshly baked cookies (Li, 2008).The present article falls into a fourth stream of research that examines whether, and how, discounting is affected by the description of options. For example, Magen, Dweck, and Gross (2008) found that respondents are markedly more patient if the choice between "receiving $100 now" and "receiving $140 in one year" is recast as "receiving $100 now and receiving nothing in one year" versus "receiving nothing now and $140 in one year."…”

“…A second research stream has focused on how these choices correlate with other individual differences, such as smoking behavior (Baker, Johnson, & Bickel, 2003;Chabris, Laibson, Morris, Schuldt, & Taubinsky, 2008) or demographic characteristics (Frederick, 2005). A third focus is on the influence of ephemeral states, such as whether participants have been aroused by viewing women in bikinis ( Van den Bergh, Dewitte, & Warlop, 2008) or by the sight or scent of freshly baked cookies (Li, 2008).…”