Suchergebnisse

We examined the effects of time perspective (present vs. future) and salience (high vs. low) of possible monetary losses on intertemporal choices in 2 experiments and found that people with high future time perspective (FTP) preferred larger but later rewards while those with low FTP
preferred smaller but immediate rewards. When the future possibility of zero gain was explicitly cued in the present option, this reminded participants of the chance of future loss and eliminated the differences in temporal preferences between those with high and low FTP. In contrast, present
zero gain cued in the future option neither raised the participants' consideration of possible present loss nor changed their temporal preference. Possible future losses were determined to be chronically salient in high FTP participants and situationally salient in conditions in which future
zero was explicitly cued. Moreover, the tradeoff process was found to mediate the relationship between the salience of possible future losses and temporal preferences.

The equivalence of two elicitation methods (sequences and matching) has been assumed when empirically testing the traditional discounting model even though the respective literature has revealed results that are dependent on the procedure used. Three common anomalies revealed (gain/loss asymmetry, short/long asymmetry, and the absolute magnitude effect) are investigated using the two different methods in a within-subjects experiment. In both procedures, it appears that the participants in this study evaluate monetary outcomes over time differently than the discounting model predicts. Patterns consistent with two of the anomalies (gain/loss and absolute magnitude effect) surface and interact in both elicitation techniques. Finally, a systematic inconsistency exists between the two methods. We observe significantly more consistency between the two elicitation techniques when the outcome is a gain in the relatively far future than when it is a future loss. This may be due to the participants' inability to display a preference for spreading losses, which they revealed in the sequences task, in the matching task.