We compared the extent to which people discounted positive and negative events in the future and in the past. We found that the tendency to discount gains more than losses (i.e., the sign effect) emerged more strongly for future than for past outcomes. We present evidence from six studies (total N = 1,077) that the effect of tense on discounting is tied to differences in the contemplation emotion of these events, which we assessed by measuring participants’ emotions while they either anticipated or remembered the event. We ruled out loss aversion, uncertainty, utility curvature, thought frequency, and connection to the future and past self as explanations for this phenomenon, and we discuss why people experience a distinct mixture of emotions when contemplating upcoming events.
BartelsD. M.RipsL. J. (2010). Psychological connectedness and intertemporal choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 49–69.
2.
BartelsD. M.UrminskyO. (2011). On intertemporal selfishness: How the perceived instability of identity underlies impatient consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 182–198.
3.
BartelsD. M.UrminskyO. (2015). To know and to care: How awareness and valuation of the future jointly shape consumer spending. Journal of Consumer Research, 41, 1469–1485.
4.
BaucellsM.BellezaS. (2017). Temporal profiles of instant utility during anticipation, event, and recall. Management Science, 63, 729–748.
5.
BernsG. S.ChappelowJ.CekicM.ZinkC. F.PagnoniG.Martin-SkurskiM. E. (2006). Neurobiological substrates of dread. Science, 312, 754–758.
6.
BilginB.LeBoeufR. A. (2010). Looming losses in future time perception. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 520–530.
7.
BrandimarteL.VosgerauJ.AcquistiA. (2018). Differential discounting and present impact of past information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147, 74–92.
8.
CarusoE. M. (2010). When the future feels worse than the past: A temporal inconsistency in moral judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 610–624.
9.
CarusoE. M.GilbertD. T.WilsonT. D. (2008). A wrinkle in time: Asymmetric valuation of past and future events. Psychological Science, 19, 796–801.
10.
CarusoE. M.Van BovenL. (2019). Temporal asymmetries in prospection and retrospection. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles.
11.
ChapmanG. B. (1996). Temporal discounting and utility for health and money. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 771–791.
12.
HardistyD. J.ThompsonK. F.KrantzD. H.WeberE. U. (2013). How to measure time preferences: An experimental comparison of three methods. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 236–249.
13.
HardistyD. J.WeberE. U. (2009). Discounting future green: Money versus the environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 329–340.
HarrisC. R. (2012). Feelings of dread and intertemporal choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25, 13–28.
16.
HeJ. M.HuangX. T.YuanH.ChenY. G. (2012). Neural activity in relation to temporal distance: Differences in past and future temporal discounting. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 1662–1672.
17.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–292.
18.
LiY.WallD.JohnsonE.ToubiaO. (2016). Cognitively optimized measurement of preferences. In MoreauP.PuntoniS. (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 44, pp. 532–535). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.
19.
LitmanL.RobinsonJ.AbberbockT. (2017). TurkPrime.com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 433–442.
20.
LoewensteinG. (1987). Anticipation and the valuation of delayed consumption. The Economic Journal, 97, 666–684.
21.
LoewensteinG.PrelecD. (1992). Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evidence and an interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, 573–597.
22.
McLainD. L. (1993). The MSTAT-I: A new measure of an individual’s tolerance for ambiguity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 183–189. doi:10.1177/0013164493053001020
23.
MischelW.GrusecJ.MastersJ. C. (1969). Effects of expected delay time on the subjective value of rewards and punishments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11, 363–373.
24.
MullerD.JuddC. M.YzerbytV. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 852–863.
25.
NowlisS. M.MandelN.McCabeD. B. (2004). The effect of a delay between choice and consumption on consumption enjoyment. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 502–510.
26.
ReadD. (2004). Intertemporal choice. In KoehlerD. J.HarveyN. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment & decision making (pp. 424–443). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
27.
RoetsA.Van HielA. (2011). Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version of the Need for Closure scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 90–94. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.004
28.
SuhlerC.CallenderC. (2012). Thank goodness that argument is over: Explaining the temporal value asymmetry. Philosopher’s Imprint, 12, Article 15. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3521354.0012.015
29.
TanakaS. C.YamadaK.YonedaH.OhtakeF. (2014). Neural mechanisms of gain–loss asymmetry in temporal discounting. The Journal of Neuroscience, 34, 5595–5602.
30.
ThalerR. H. (1981). Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency. Economics Letters, 8, 201–207.
31.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 1039–1061.
32.
Van BovenL.AshworthL. (2007). Looking forward, looking back: Anticipation is more evocative than retrospection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 289–300.
33.
XuL.LiangZ. Y.WangK.LiS.JiangT. (2009). Neural mechanism of intertemporal choice: From discounting future gains to future losses. Brain Research, 1261, 65–74.
34.
YiR.GatchalianK. M.BickelW. K. (2006). Discounting of past outcomes. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 14, 311–317.
35.
YoonH.ChapmanG. B. (2016). A closer look at the yardstick: A new discount rate measure with precision and range. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29, 470–480.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
