A framing effect of intertemporal and spatial choice

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Spatial choice intertemporal choice framing effect invariance principle attribute-comparison model utility comparison model

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Block

R. A.

Hancock

P. A.

Zakay

(2016). Physical load affects duration judgments: A meta-analytic review. Acta Psychologica, 165, 43–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.01.002

Bostic

Herrnstein

R. J.

Luce

R. 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

Casasanto

Boroditsky

(2008). Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition, 106(2), 579–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.03.004

Casasanto

Fotakopoulou

Boroditsky

(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

Cavusgil

S. T.

Das

(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

Chiodo

D. S.

(2017). Ideality of beauty. Materiali Di Estetica, 4.1, 96–114.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587

Cokely

E. T.

Galesic

Schulz

Garcia-Retamero

Ghazal

(2012). Measuring risk literacy: The Berlin numeracy test. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(1), 25–47.

De Neys

. (Ed.). (2017). Dual process theory 2.0 (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315204550

10.

Eikmeier

Schröter

Maienborn

Alex-Ruf

Ulrich

(2013). Dimensional overlap between time and space. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(6), 1120–1125. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0431-2

11.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A.-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.

Green

Myerson

(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

13.

Hannon

(1994). Sense of place: Geographic discounting by people, animals and plants. Ecological Economics, 10(2), 157–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(94)90006-X

14.

Hauser

D. J.

Schwarz

(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.

Hayes

A. 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.

G.-B.

Liang

Z.-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.

Xue

Chen

Dong

Lei

Ding

Chen

Moyzis

R. K.

Bechara

(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.

Jiang

C.-M.

Liu

H.-Z.

Cai

X.-H.

(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.

Johnson

M. W.

Bickel

W. 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.

Kahneman

Tversky

(1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185

21.

Kahneman

Tversky

(1982). The psychology of preferences. Scientific American, 246(1), 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0182-160

22.

Larrick

R. P.

Soll

J. B.

(2008). The MPG illusion. Science, 320(5883), 1593–1594. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1154983

23.

Lee

(1971). Decision theory and human behavior. John Wiley & Sons.

24.

Levin

I. P.

(1987). Associative effects of information framing. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 25(2), 85–86. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03330291

25.

Levin

I. P.

Gaeth

G. J.

Schreiber

Lauriola

(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.

Levin

I. P.

Johnson

R. D.

Davis

M. 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.

Levin

I. P.

Johnson

R. D.

Russo

C. P.

Deldin

P. 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.

Levin

I. P.

Schneider

S. L.

Gaeth

G. 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.

(1994). Equate-to-differentiate theory: A coherent bi-choice model across certainty, uncertainty and risk [Doctoral dissertation, University of New South Wales].

30.

(1998). Can the conditions governing the framing effect be determined? Journal of Economic Psychology, 19(1), 133–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(97)00039-1

31.

(2004a). A behavioral choice model when computational ability matters. Applied Intelligence, 20(2), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:APIN.0000013337.01711.c7

32.

(2004b). Equate-to-differentiate approach: An application in binary choice under uncertainty. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 12(3), 269–294.

33.

(2016). An equate-to-differentiate way of decision making (in Chinese). East China Normal University Press.

34.

Xie

(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.

Liang

Z.-Y.

L.-J.

Rao

L.-L.

Jiang

T.-Z.

(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.

Liu

H.-Z.

Jiang

C.-M.

Rao

L.-L.

(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.

Luckman

Donkin

Newell

(2020). An evaluation and comparison of models of risky intertemporal choice. Psychological Review, 127(6), 1097–1138. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000223

38.

Markowitz

(1952). The utility of wealth. Journal of Political Economy, 60(2), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1086/257177

39.

Mazur

J. E.

(1987). An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. In Commons

M. L.

Mazur

J. E.

Nevin

J. A.

Rachlin

(Eds.), Quantitative analysis of behavior: Vol. 5. The effect of delay and of intervening events on reinforcement value (pp. 55–73). Lawrence Erlbaum.

40.

McNeil

B. J.

Pauker

S. G.

Sox

H. C.

Tversky

(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.

McNemar

(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.

Montoya

A. K.

Hayes

A. 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.

Mühlhoff

Stevens

J. R.

Reader

S. 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.

Oppenheimer

D. M.

Meyvis

Davidenko

(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

45.

Perrings

Hannon

(2001). An introduction to spatial discounting. Journal of Regional Science, 41(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4146.00205

46.

Peters

Västfjäll

Slovic

Mertz

C. K.

Mazzocco

Dickert

(2006). Numeracy and decision making. Psychological Science, 17(5), 407–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01720.x

47.

Pieters

(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.

Prajapati

Dunne

Armstrong

(2010). Sample size estimation and statistical power analyses. Optometry Today, 16(7), 10–18.

49.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. 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.

Rinaldi

Merabet

L. B.

Vecchi

Cattaneo

(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

51.

Roxani

(2021). Travel time perception of active mode users [Master thesis]. http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:0e12bfd9-59cc-434d-897d-68c7101a81c7

52.

Samuelson

P. A.

(1937). A note on measurement of utility. The Review of Economic Studies, 4(2), 155–161. https://doi.org/10.2307/2967612

53.

Sarukkai

(2009). Phenomenology of untouchability. Economic and Political Weekly, 44(37), 39–48.

54.

Schalewski

(2020). Student engagement and high-impact practices: Pathways to social reproduction or social mobility? [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Arizona].

55.

Schoemann

A. M.

Boulton

A. J.

Short

S. 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.

Scholten

Read

(2010). The psychology of intertemporal tradeoffs. Psychological Review, 117(3), 925–944. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019619

57.

Scholten

Read

(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.

Schönbrodt

F. D.

Perugini

(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.

Schwarz

M. A.

Winkler

Sedlmeier

(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.

Simon

A. F.

Fagley

N. S.

Halleran

J. 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

61.

Smith

S. M.

Levin

I. P.

(1996). Need for cognition and choice framing effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9(4), 283–290. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199612)9:4<283::AID-BDM241>3.0.CO;2-7

62.

Stanovich

K. E.

West

R. F.

(1998). Individual differences in framing and conjunction effects. Thinking & Reasoning, 4(4), 289–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/135467898394094

63.

Stevens

J. R.

Rosati

A. G.

Ross

K. R.

Hauser

M. 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.

Thaler

R. H.

Sunstein

C. R.

(2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.

65.

Tversky

(1969). Intransitivity of preferences. Psychological Review, 76(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026750

66.

Tversky

Kahneman

(1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683

67.

Tversky

Kahneman

(1989). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. In Karpak

Zionts

(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.

Tversky

Kahneman

(1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122574

69.

Tversky

Sattath

Slovic

(1988). Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological Review, 95(3), 371–384. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.3.371

70.

von Winterfeldt

Edwards

. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge University Press.

71.

Zauberman

Kim

B. K.

Malkoc

S. A.

Bettman

J. 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.

Zhang

Y.-Y.

Zhou

You

Liang

Z.-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.

0.00 MB

0.44 MB