Four experiments showed that the decisions people make for future selves and other people are similar to each other and different from their decisions for present selves. Experiments involved decisions to drink a disgusting liquid for scientific purposes (Experiment 1), tutor peers during exam week (Experiment 2), receive e-mails for charity (Experiment 3), and defer a lottery prize for a larger one (Experiment 4). These findings seemed to be at least partially rooted in the tendency for decisions regarding the ongoing, present self to be uniquely influenced by internal subjective experience. Specifically, these effects emerged for real, but not hypothetical, decisions. Also, they were mitigated by manipulations that altered participants' attention to present or future subjective experience. In addition, when participants' subjective experience primarily involved empathy for others (Experiment 3), their decisions on behalf of present selves were more generous than their decisions for future selves and others. Applications are discussed.
Ainslie, G. (1992). Picoeconomics: The interaction of successive motivational states within the person. New York: Cambridge University Press.
2.
Ainslie, G., & Haslam, N. (1992). Hyperbolic discounting. In G. F. Loewenstein & J. Elster (Eds.), Choice over time (pp. 57-92). New York: Russell Sage.
3.
Albert, S. (1977). Temporal comparison theory. Psychological Review, 84, 485-503.
4.
Andersen, S.M., & Ross, L. (1984). Self-knowledge and social inference: I. The impact of cognitive/affective and behavioral data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 280-293.
5.
Benartzi, S., & Thaler, R. (2004). “Save more tomorrow”: Using behavioral economics to increase employee saving. Journal of Political Economy, 112, 164-187.
6.
Buehler, R., Griffin, D., & Ross, M. (1994). Exploring the “planning fallacy”: Why people underestimate their task completion times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 366-381.
7.
Buehler, R., & McFarland, C. (2001). Intensity bias in affective forecasting: The role of temporal focus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 27, 1480-1493.
8.
Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
9.
Diekmann, K.A., Samuels, S.M., Ross, L., & Bazerman, M.H. (1997). Self—interest and fairness in problems of resource allocation: Allocators versus recipients . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1061-1074.
10.
Elster, J. (1984). Ulysses and the sirens. New York: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Epley, N., & Dunning, D. (2000). Feeling “holier than thou”: Are self-serving assessments produced by errors in self or social prediction?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 861-875.
12.
Frederick, S. (2003). Time preference and personal identity. In G. Loewenstein, D. Read, & R. Baumeister (Eds.), Time and decision (pp. 89-113). New York: Russell Sage.
13.
Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O'Donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature , 40, 351-401.
14.
Fujita, K., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Levin-Sagi, M. (2006). Construal levels and self-control . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 351-367.
15.
Hsee, C.K., & Weber, E.U. (1997). A fundamental prediction error: Self-other discrepancies in risk preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 126, 45-53.
16.
Idson, L.C., & Mischel, W. (2001). The personality of familiar and significant people . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 585-596.
17.
James, W. (1983). The principles of psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1890)
18.
Jones, E.E., & Nisbett, R.E. (1972). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of the behavior. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett , S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 79-94). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
19.
Jones, B., & Rachlin, H. (2006). Social discounting. Psychological Science, 17, 283-286.
20.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Intuitive prediction: Biases and corrective procedures. TIMS Studies in Management Science, 12, 313-327.
21.
Loewenstein, G. (1996). Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 272-292.
22.
Loewenstein, G.F., & Elster, J. (1992). Choice over time. New York : Russell Sage.
23.
Loewenstein, G., Read, D., & Baumeister, R. (2003). Time and decision: Economic and psychological perspectives on intertemporal choice. New York: Russell Sage.
24.
Malle, B.F., & Pearce, G.E. (2001). Attention to behavioral events during interaction: Two actor-observer gaps and three attempts to close them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 278-294.
25.
McFarland, C., & Miller, D.T. (1990). Judgments of self-other similarity: Just like other people, only more so. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 475-484.
26.
McGuire, W.J., & McGuire, C.V. (1986). Differences in conceptualizing self versus conceptualizing other people as manifested in contrasting verb types used in natural speech . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1135-1143.
27.
Nussbaum, S., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Creeping dispositionism: The temporal dynamics of behavior prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 485-497.
28.
Parfit, D. (1971). Personal identity. The Philosophical Review, 80, 3-27.
29.
Prentice, D.A. (2006). On the distinction between acting like an individual and feeling like an individual. In T. Postmes & J. Jetten (Eds.), Individuality and the group: Advances in social identity (pp. 37-55). London : Sage.
30.
Prentice, D.A., & Miller, D.T. (1996). Pluralistic ignorance and the perpetuation of social norms by unwitting actors. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 161-209). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
31.
Pronin, E., Kruger, J., Savitsky, K., & Ross, L. (2001). You don't know me, but I know you: The illusion of asymmetric insight. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 81, 639-656.
32.
Pronin, E., & Kugler, M.B. (2007). Valuing thoughts, ignoring behavior: The introspection illusion as a source of the bias blind spot. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 565-578.
33.
Pronin, E., & Ross, L. (2006). Temporal differences in trait self ascription: When the self is seen as an other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 197-209.
34.
Read, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2000). Time and decision: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making , 13, 141-144.
35.
Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279-301.
36.
Schelling, T. (1984). Self-command in practice, in policy, and in a theory of rational choice. American Economic Review, 74, 1-11.
37.
Thaler, R.H., & Shefrin, H.M. (1981). An economic theory of self-control. Journal of Political Economy, 89, 392-406.
38.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2000). Time-dependent changes in preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 876-889.
Vallacher, R.R., & Wegner, D.M. (1987). What do people think they're doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 3-15.
41.
Van Boven, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). Social projection of transient drive states. Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 1159-1168.
42.
Van Boven, L., Loewenstein, G., & Dunning, D.A. (2005). The illusion of courage in social predictions . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 130-141.
43.
Wilson, T.D., & Gilbert, D.T. (2003). Affective forecasting. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 345-411). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
