A given spatial distance can be measured using either a length or a time unit. A spatial-choice problem with given distances represented in a space frame and in a time frame is logically equivalent. Different representations of the same choice problem should yield the same preferences according to the invariance principle. To test invariance in the context of spatial choice, we used a constant velocity to construct six spatial (intertemporal) choice problems with single-placed (single-dated) outcomes in a space (time) frame and investigated whether invariance-violating behaviour could be detected under the two frames (Studies 1–3). If such behaviour existed, we then aimed to determine whether two models—the attribute-comparison model, which predicts a framing effect occurs if framing shifts people’s judgement of the inequality relationship between the differences of two options in time/space dimension and that in outcome dimension, and the utility comparison model, which predicts that a framing effect occurs if framing shifts people’s judgement of the inequality relationship between two options’ overall utility—could account for it, and which of these two models is better supported by the data (Studies 2–3). The results indicate that a time–space framing effect existed, as people’s preference orders were significantly changed by the different descriptions of spatial-choice problems, and this new time–space framing effect could be satisfactorily explained by the attribute-comparison rather than the utility comparison model. Our findings could support the creation of new forms of choice architecture that improve decisions about health, wealth, and happiness.
BosticR.HerrnsteinR. J.LuceR. D. (1990). The effect on the preference-reversal phenomenon of using choice indifferences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 13(2), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(90)90086-S
CasasantoD.FotakopoulouO.BoroditskyL. (2010). Space and time in the child’s mind: Evidence for a cross-dimensional asymmetry. Cognitive Science, 34(3), 387–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01094.x
5.
CavusgilS. T.DasA. (1997). Methodological issues in empirical cross-cultural research: A survey of the management literature and a framework. MIR: Management International Review, 37(1), 71–96. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40228388
6.
ChiodoD. S. (2017). Ideality of beauty. Materiali Di Estetica, 4.1, 96–114.
EikmeierV.SchröterH.MaienbornC.Alex-RufS.UlrichR. (2013). Dimensional overlap between time and space. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(6), 1120–1125. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0431-2
11.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
12.
GreenL.MyersonJ. (2004). A discounting framework for choice with delayed and probabilistic rewards. Psychological Bulletin, 130(5), 769–792. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.5.769
HauserD. J.SchwarzN. (2016). Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavior Research Methods, 48(1), 400–407. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0578-z
15.
HayesA. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360
16.
HeG.-B.LiS.LiangZ.-Y. (2018). Behavioral decision-making is nudging China toward the overall revitalization. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(8), 803–813. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00803
17.
HeQ.XueG.ChenC.LuZ.DongQ.LeiX.DingN.LiJ.LiH.ChenC.LiJ.MoyzisR. K.BecharaA. (2010). Serotonin transporter gene-linked polymorphic region (5-HTTLPR) influences decision making under ambiguity and risk in a large Chinese sample. Neuropharmacology, 59(6), 518–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2010.07.008
18.
JiangC.-M.LiuH.-Z.CaiX.-H.LiS. (2016). A process test of priority models of intertemporal choice. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 48(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2016.00059
19.
JohnsonM. W.BickelW. K. (2002). Within-subject comparison of real and hypothetical money rewards in delay discounting. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 77(2), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2002.77-129
20.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
LeeW. (1971). Decision theory and human behavior. John Wiley & Sons.
24.
LevinI. P. (1987). Associative effects of information framing. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 25(2), 85–86. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03330291
25.
LevinI. P.GaethG. J.SchreiberJ.LauriolaM. (2002). A new look at framing effects: Distribution of effect sizes, individual differences, and independence of types of effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88(1), 411–429. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2983
26.
LevinI. P.JohnsonR. D.DavisM. L. (1987). How information frame influences risky decisions: Between-subjects and within-subject comparisons. Journal of Economic Psychology, 8(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4870(87)90005-5
27.
LevinI. P.JohnsonR. D.RussoC. P.DeldinP. J. (1985). Framing effects in judgment tasks with varying amounts of information. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36(3), 362–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(85)90005-6
28.
LevinI. P.SchneiderS. L.GaethG. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149–188. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2804
29.
LiS. (1994). Equate-to-differentiate theory: A coherent bi-choice model across certainty, uncertainty and risk [Doctoral dissertation, University of New South Wales].
LiS. (2004b). Equate-to-differentiate approach: An application in binary choice under uncertainty. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 12(3), 269–294.
33.
LiS. (2016). An equate-to-differentiate way of decision making (in Chinese). East China Normal University Press.
34.
LiS.XieX. (2006). A new look at the “Asian disease” problem: A choice between the best possible outcomes or between the worst possible outcomes?Thinking & Reasoning, 12(2), 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780500145652
35.
LiangZ.-Y.XuL.-J.RaoL.-L.JiangT.-Z.LiS. (2012). “20% probability to gain a cake” = “gain 20% of the cake”? Testing the expectation rule of risky decision making (in Chinese). Chinese Science Bulletin, 57(35), 3421–3433. https://doi.org/10.1360/972012-691
36.
LiuH.-Z.JiangC.-M.RaoL.-L.LiS. (2015). Discounting or priority: Which rule dominates the intertemporal choice process?Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47(4), 522–532. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.00522
37.
LuckmanA.DonkinC.NewellB. (2020). An evaluation and comparison of models of risky intertemporal choice. Psychological Review, 127(6), 1097–1138. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000223
MazurJ. E. (1987). An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. In CommonsM. L.MazurJ. E.NevinJ. A.RachlinH. (Eds.), Quantitative analysis of behavior: Vol. 5. The effect of delay and of intervening events on reinforcement value (pp. 55–73). Lawrence Erlbaum.
40.
McNeilB. J.PaukerS. G.SoxH. C.TverskyA. (1982). On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. New England Journal of Medicine, 306(21), 1259–1262. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198205273062103
41.
McNemarQ. (1947). Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrika, 12(2), 153–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02295996
42.
MontoyaA. K.HayesA. F. (2017). Two-condition within-participant statistical mediation analysis: A path-analytic framework. Psychological Methods, 22(1), 6–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000086
43.
MühlhoffN.StevensJ. R.ReaderS. M. (2011). Spatial discounting of food and social rewards in guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Frontiers in Psychology, 2, Article 68. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00068
44.
OppenheimerD. M.MeyvisT.DavidenkoN. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 867–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009
PietersR. (2017). Meaningful mediation analysis: Plausible causal inference and informative communication. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(3), 692–716. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx081
48.
PrajapatiB.DunneM.ArmstrongR. (2010). Sample size estimation and statistical power analyses. Optometry Today, 16(7), 10–18.
49.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
50.
RinaldiL.MerabetL. B.VecchiT.CattaneoZ. (2018). The spatial representation of number, time, and serial order following sensory deprivation: A systematic review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 90, 371–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.04.021
SamuelsonP. A. (1937). A note on measurement of utility. The Review of Economic Studies, 4(2), 155–161. https://doi.org/10.2307/2967612
53.
SarukkaiS. (2009). Phenomenology of untouchability. Economic and Political Weekly, 44(37), 39–48.
54.
SchalewskiL. (2020). Student engagement and high-impact practices: Pathways to social reproduction or social mobility? [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Arizona].
55.
SchoemannA. M.BoultonA. J.ShortS. D. (2017). Determining power and sample size for simple and complex mediation models. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 379–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617715068
56.
ScholtenM.ReadD. (2010). The psychology of intertemporal tradeoffs. Psychological Review, 117(3), 925–944. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019619
57.
ScholtenM.ReadD. (2014). Prospect theory and the “forgotten” fourfold pattern of risk preferences. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 48(1), 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-014-9183-2
58.
SchönbrodtF. D.PeruginiM. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize?Journal of Research in Personality, 47(5), 609–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009
59.
SchwarzM. A.WinklerI.SedlmeierP. (2013). The heart beat does not make us tick: The impacts of heart rate and arousal on time perception. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75(1), 182–193. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-012-0387-8
60.
SimonA. F.FagleyN. S.HalleranJ. G. (2004). Decision framing: Moderating effects of individual differences and cognitive processing. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17(2), 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.463
StanovichK. E.WestR. F. (1998). Individual differences in framing and conjunction effects. Thinking & Reasoning, 4(4), 289–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/135467898394094
63.
StevensJ. R.RosatiA. G.RossK. R.HauserM. D. (2005). Will travel for food: Spatial discounting in two new world monkeys. Current Biology, 15(20), 1855–1860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2005.09.016
64.
ThalerR. H.SunsteinC. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1989). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. In KarpakB.ZiontsS. (Eds.), Multiple criteria decision making and risk analysis using microcomputers (pp. 81–126). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-74919-3_4
68.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122574
von WinterfeldtD.EdwardsW. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge University Press.
71.
ZaubermanG.KimB. K.MalkocS. A.BettmanJ. R. (2009). Discounting time and time discounting: Subjective time perception and intertemporal preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(4), 543–556. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.4.543
72.
ZhangY.-Y.ZhouL.YouX.LiS.LiangZ.-Y. (2018). Is intertemporal decision-making based on a temporal discounting process? Evidence from double-dissociation paradigm (in Chinese). SCIENTIA SINICA Vitae, 48(5), 592–608. https://doi.org/10.1360/N052017-001
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.
