Can asymmetric subjective opportunity cost effect explain impatience in intertemporal choice? A replication study
Journal Title: Judgment and Decision Making - Year 2019, Vol 14, Issue 2
Abstract
In “The value of nothing: asymmetric attention to opportunity costs drives intertemporal decision making” Read, Olivola and Hardisty (2017) proposed an asymmetric subjective opportunity cost (ASOC) effect to explain and predict why impatience can be detected in intertemporal choice. This work deserves to be replicated and extended for its novel and potentially important findings. The present study aimed to examine the reliability and robustness of the evidence presented by Read et al. by conducting precise replications of their key findings in Study 1. The ASOC effect (Read, et al., 2017) was important for expanding its application and reported to be typically stronger when baseline larger-but-later option (LL) and smaller-but-sooner option (SS) preferences were closer to 50% in the authors’ original condition. Therefore, the present study also aimed to replicate and test the ASOC effect when baseline LL preferences were higher or lower than those in the original condition. We intended to set two additional conditions wherein either LL or SS is more obviously favored (i.e., baseline LL preferences were higher or lower than those in the original condition) by respectively applying the common difference effect (Kirby & Herrnstein, 1995) and the unit effect (Burson, Larrick & Lynch Jr., 2009; Pandelaere, Briers & Lembregts, 2011). Having successfully generated two more obviously favored conditions, the ASOC effect was replicated and confirmed under the original condition and one additional condition wherein SS was more obviously favored. However, the ASOC effect was not detected under the other additional condition wherein LL was more obviously favored. The implications of these findings were discussed.
Authors and Affiliations
Si-Chu Shen, Yuan-Na Huang, Cheng-Ming Jiang and Shu Li
Keywords
Related Articles
- EP ID EP678412
- DOI -
- Views 140
- Downloads 0
Choices and affective reactions to negative life events: An averaging/summation analysis
Three experiments investigated individuals’ preferences and affective reactions to negative life experiences. Participants had a more intense negative affective reaction when they were exposed to a highly negative life e...
Improving acceptability of nudges: Learning from attitudes towards opt-in and opt-out policies
Policy makers should understand people’s attitudes towards opt-out nudges to smoothly promote and implement the policies. Our research compares people’s perceptions of opt-in and three improved versions of opt-out (trans...
Anticipatory stress interferes with utilitarian moral judgment
A recent study indicates that acute stress affects moral decision making (Youssef et al., in press). The current study examines whether results can be replicated using a different kind of stressor and a different kind of...
Making decision research useful - not just rewarding
An experienced decision aider reflects on how misaligned priorities produce decision research that is less useful than it could be. Scientific interest and professional standing may motivate researchers - and their funde...
Moody experts — How mood and expertise influence judgmental anchoring
Anchoring effects, the assimilation of numerical estimates to previously considered standards, are highly robust. Two studies examined whether mood and expertise jointly moderate the magnitude of anchoring. Previous rese...