This work examines consumers' preferences for consumption timing. Specifically, the authors examine how temporal framing (deferring versus expediting) of a decision moderates the sensitivity of consumers' pattern of discounting to changes in time horizon. The results from three experiments show greater decline in consumers' discount rates with time horizon (i.e., greater present bias) when they defer than when they expedite consumption. These results are robust to using monetary and nonmonetary outcomes, as well as to different time horizons (months, days). The authors further demonstrate that the different levels of mental representations (concreteness) triggered by the two decision frames moderate this difference in sensitivity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AinslieGeorge (1975), “Specious Reward: A Behavioral Theory of Impulsiveness and Impulse Control,”Psychological Bulletin, 82 (4), 463–69.
2.
AinslieGeorge, and HaslamNick (1992), “Hyperbolic Discounting,” in Choice Over Time, LoewensteinG., and ElsterJ., eds. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 57–92.
3.
AinslieGeorge, and HerrnsteinRichard R. (1981), “Preference Reversal and Delayed Reinforcement,”Animal Learning and Behavior, 9 (4), 476–82.
4.
BenzionUri, RapoportAmnon, and YagilJoseph (1989), “Discount Rates Inferred from Decisions: An Experimental Study,”Management Science, 35 (3), 270–84.
5.
CarmonZiv, and ArielyDan (2000), “Focusing on the Forgone: How Value Can Appear So Different to Buyers and Sellers,”Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (December), 360–70.
6.
FeldmanJack M., and LynchJohn G.Jr. (1988), “Self-Generated Validity and Other Effects of Measurement on Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior,”Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 (3), 421–35.
7.
FörsterJens, FriedmanRonald S., and LibermanNira (2004), “Temporal Construal Effects of Abstract and Concrete Thinking: Consequences for Insight and Creative Cognition,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87 (2), 177–89.
8.
FrederickShane, LoewensteinGeorge F., and O'DonoghueTed (2002), “Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review,”Journal of Economic Literature, 40 (2), 351–401.
9.
HochStephen J. (1984), “Availability and Interference in Predictive Judgment,”Journal of Experimental Psychology, 10 (4), 649–62.
10.
JohnsonEric J., HäublGerald, and KeinanAnat (2004), “Aspects of Endowment: A Query Theory Account of Loss Aversion, ” working paper, Marketing Department, Columbia Business School, Columbia University.
11.
KirbyKris N. (1997), “Bidding on the Future: Evidence Against Normative Discounting of Delayed Rewards,”Journal of Experimental Psychology, 126 (1), 54–70.
12.
LaibsonDavid (1997), “Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting,”Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112 (May), 443–78.
13.
LibermanNira, and TropeYaacov (1998), “The Role of Feasibility and Desirability Considerations in Near and Distant Future Decisions: A Test of Temporal Construal Theory,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (1), 5–18.
14.
LoewensteinGeorge F. (1988), “Frames of Mind in Intertemporal Choice,”Management Science, 34 (2), 200–214.
15.
LoewensteinGeorge F. (1996), “Out of Control: Visceral Influences on Behavior,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65 (February), 272–92.
16.
LoweRichard (2004), “Interrogation of a Dynamic Visualization During Learning,”Learning and Instruction, 14 (3), 257–74.
17.
MalkocSelin A., ZaubermanGal, and UluCanan (2005), “Consuming Now or Later? The Interactive Effect of Timing and Attribute Alignability,”Psychological Science, 16 (5), 411–17.
18.
MetcalfeJanet, and MischelWalter (1999), “A Hot/Cool-System Analysis of Delay of Gratification: Dynamics of Willpower,”Psychological Review, 106 (1), 3–19.
19.
MillerRalph R., BarnetRobert C., and GrahameNicholas J. (1995), “Assessment of the Rescorla-Wagner Model,”Psychological Bulletin, 117 (3), 363–86.
20.
MussweilerThomas, and StarckFritz (2001), “The Semantics of Anchoring,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86 (2), 234–55.
21.
O'DonoghueTed, and RabinMatthew (1999), “Doing It Now or Later,”American Economic Review, 89 (March), 103–24.
22.
PaivioAllen (1971), Imagery and Verbal Processes.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23.
RachlinHoward, and RaineriAndres (1992), “Irrationality, Impulsiveness and Selfishness as Discount Reversal Effects,” in Choice Over Time, LoewensteinG., and ElsterJ., eds. New York: Russel Sage Foundation, 93–118.
24.
RescorlaRobert A., and WagnerAllan R. (1972), “A Theory of Pavlovian Conditioning: Variations in the Effectiveness of Reinforcement and Non-Reinforcement,” in Classical Conditioning II: Current Research and Theory, BlackA.H., and ProkasyW.F., eds. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 64–99.
25.
RubinsteinAriel (2003), “Economics and Psychology? The Case of Hyperbolic Discounting,”International Economic Review, 44 (4), 1207–1216.
26.
SamuelsonPaul (1937), “A Note on Measurement of Utility,”Review of Economic Studies, 4 (2), 151–61.
27.
ShelleyMarjorie K. (1993), “Outcome Signs, Question Frames and Discount Rates,”Management Science, 39 (7), 806–815.
28.
SomanDilip (1998), “The Illusion of Delayed Incentives: Evaluating Future Effort–Money Transactions,”Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (November), 427–37.
29.
StrotzRobert H. (1955), “Myopia and Inconsistency in Dynamic Utility Maximization,”Review of Economic Studies, 23 (3), 165–80.
TropeYaacov, and LibermanNira (2000), “Temporal Construal and Time-Dependent Changes in Preference,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (6), 876–89.
The Wall Street Journal (2002), “E-Commerce (A Special Report): Selling Strategies: Delivery—Click and … Drive? If Home Delivery Is More Nuisance Than Convenience, Retailers Have a Solution: Order Online and Pick It Up Offline, ” (July 15), R11.
34.
ZaubermanGal (2003), “The Intertemporal Dynamics of Consumer Lock-In,”Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (3), 405–419.
35.
ZaubermanGal, and LynchJohn (2005), “Resource Slack and Propensity to Discount Delayed Investments of Time Versus Money,”Journal of Experimental Psychology, 134 (1), 23–37.
