Author
Listed:
- Fan, Zhuoyi
- Zhang, Xuhui
- Shen, Yue
- Dai, Junyi
Abstract
While most research on time preference has focused on gains, understanding time preference for losses is also crucial in practice. Some studies have shown that people prefer to bear a loss earlier rather than later, suggesting negative delay discounting. Nonetheless, most previous research either disallowed an exhibition of negative discounting or analyzed data suggesting opposite directions of discounting together. Furthermore, such research tended to draw conclusions based on aggregate data, although individual behavioral patterns could differ starkly from aggregate ones. To improve knowledge on individual time preference for losses, we conducted 3 experiments examining how systematically changing attribute values affected such preference. Using a choice method with delayed losses, Experiment 1 revealed 3 behavioral effects (i.e., the magnitude, common difference, and delay duration effects) at the aggregate level. For each effect, opposite changes in discount rate were found in data suggesting positive versus negative discounting. Similar results emerged in Experiment 2 using a matching task with delayed losses. Experiment 3 adopted a special form of the matching paradigm, where the amount of an immediate loss should be filled (i.e., an evaluation method). Distinct influences of loss amount were again found under opposite directions of delay discounting. Additionally, a reverse magnitude effect was found more often in Experiment 3 than the other experiments under positive discounting, illustrating the distinctiveness of the evaluation method. Finally, individual analyses revealed more diverse behavioral patterns than aggregate analyses in each study. This underscored the importance of understanding time preference for losses based on individual data.
Suggested Citation
Fan, Zhuoyi & Zhang, Xuhui & Shen, Yue & Dai, Junyi, 2025.
"Behavioral effects in time preference for losses depend on direction of delay discounting and level of data analysis,"
Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20, pages 1-1, January.
Handle:
RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:20:y:2025:i::p:-_28
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:20:y:2025:i::p:-_28. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.