IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joepsy/v46y2015icp26-38.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Temporal distance reduces the attractiveness of p-bets compared to $-bets

Author

Listed:
  • Savadori, Lucia
  • Mittone, Luigi

Abstract

Although people normally prefer a more certain option over a riskier option of equal expected value, sometimes they are tempted to choose the riskier, but more rewarding one. Such temptation is even stronger when people decide for the distant future as compared with the near future. In Experiments 1 and 2 we showed that increasing temporal distance makes people more likely to choose a high risk $-bet (€400, 0.02;0) over a low risk p-bet (€14, 0.60;0). Furthermore, the risk aversion shift increased proportionally to the time delay and persisted even for long delays (6months). In Experiment 3, we showed that this temporal effect is associated with a decrease in positive feelings towards the p-bet, and with a decrease in the positive evaluation of the high-probability (60%) of the p-bet, but not with an increase of the positive evaluation of the high-payoff (400 euro) of the p-bet. In Experiment 4, we showed that increasing the salience of the probability feature tended to decrease the temporal effect, while increasing the salience of the prize did not vary the strength of the effect. Results are in line with an affect-based explanation of the temporal effect.

Suggested Citation

  • Savadori, Lucia & Mittone, Luigi, 2015. "Temporal distance reduces the attractiveness of p-bets compared to $-bets," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 26-38.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:46:y:2015:i:c:p:26-38
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joep.2014.11.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167487014000877
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joep.2014.11.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    2. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Enrico Diecidue & Ayse Öncüler, 2011. "Risk Preferences at Different Time Periods: An Experimental Investigation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 975-987, May.
    3. Tal Shavit & Mosi Rosenboim & Yaniv Shani, 2013. "What is more important, the outcome or the probability?," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(2), pages 127-130, February.
    4. Hansen, Jochim & Wänke, Michaela, 2011. "The abstractness of luxury," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 789-796.
    5. Smith, Vernon L & Walker, James M, 1993. "Rewards, Experience and Decision Costs in First Price Auctions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 31(2), pages 237-245, April.
    6. Charles Noussair & Ping Wu, 2006. "Risk tolerance in the present and the future: an experimental study," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(6), pages 401-412.
    7. Arora, Poonam & Peterson, Nicole D. & Krantz, David H. & Hardisty, David J. & Reddy, Kavita S., 2012. "To cooperate or not to cooperate: Using new methodologies and frameworks to understand how affiliation influences cooperation in the present and future," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 842-853.
    8. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa L. & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2007. "The affect heuristic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1333-1352, March.
    9. Leiser, David & Azar, Ofer H. & Hadar, Liat, 2008. "Psychological construal of economic behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 762-776, November.
    10. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 251-278, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daniela Di Bucci & Lucia Savadori, 2018. "Defining the acceptable level of risk for civil protection purposes: a behavioral perspective on the decision process," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 90(1), pages 293-324, January.
    2. Joanna Rudzinska-Wojciechowska, 2017. "If you want to save, focus on the forest rather than on trees. The effects of shifts in levels of construal on saving decisions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-18, May.
    3. Samuel N. Kirshner & Brent B. Moritz, 2023. "For the future and from afar: Psychological distance and inventory decision‐making," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(1), pages 170-188, January.
    4. Charles-Cadogan, G., 2021. "Market Instability, Investor Sentiment, And Probability Judgment Error in Index Option Prices," CRETA Online Discussion Paper Series 71, Centre for Research in Economic Theory and its Applications CRETA.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brad R. Taylor, 2020. "The psychological foundations of rational ignorance: biased heuristics and decision costs," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 70-88, March.
    2. Lipman, Stefan A. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Attema, Arthur E., 2020. "Living up to expectations: Experimental tests of subjective life expectancy as reference point in time trade-off and standard gamble," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    3. Wardley, Marcus & Alberhasky, Max, 2021. "Framing zero: Why losing nothing is better than gaining nothing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    4. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2019. "How related are risk preferences and time preferences?," CLTS Working Papers 4/19, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 16 Oct 2019.
    5. Thomas Kourouxous & Thomas Bauer, 2019. "Violations of dominance in decision-making," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 209-239, April.
    6. A. Peter McGraw & Eldar Shafir & Alexander Todorov, 2010. "Valuing Money and Things: Why a $20 Item Can Be Worth More and Less Than $20," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 816-830, May.
    7. Cousse, Julia, 2021. "Still in love with solar energy? Installation size, affect, and the social acceptance of renewable energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    8. Patrick DeJarnette & David Dillenberger & Daniel Gottlieb & Pietro Ortoleva, 2020. "Time Lotteries and Stochastic Impatience," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(2), pages 619-656, March.
    9. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    10. Eisenbach, Thomas M. & Schmalz, Martin C., 2016. "Anxiety in the face of risk," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(2), pages 414-426.
    11. Garret Ridinger & Richard S. John & Michael McBride & Nicholas Scurich, 2016. "Attacker Deterrence and Perceived Risk in a Stackelberg Security Game," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1666-1681, August.
    12. Hammond, Peter J & Zank, Horst, 2013. "Rationality and Dynamic Consistency under Risk and Uncertainty," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1033, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    13. Arora, Poonam & Bert, Federico & Podesta, Guillermo & Krantz, David H., 2015. "Ownership effect in the wild: Influence of land ownership on agribusiness goals and decisions in the Argentine Pampas," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 162-170.
    14. Jeeva Somasundaram & Vincent Eli, 2022. "Risk and time preferences interaction: An experimental measurement," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(2), pages 215-238, October.
    15. Robert Tobias, 2016. "Communication About Micropollutants in Drinking Water: Effects of the Presentation and Psychological Processes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(10), pages 2011-2026, October.
    16. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier, 2013. "Prospect theory in the health domain: A quantitative assessment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1057-1065.
    17. Kemel, Emmanuel & Paraschiv, Corina, 2023. "Risking the future? Measuring risk attitudes towards delayed consequences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 208(C), pages 325-344.
    18. Jaap Sok & Egil A J Fischer, 2020. "Farmers' heterogeneous motives, voluntary vaccination and disease spread: an agent-based model," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 47(3), pages 1201-1222.
    19. Bart de Langhe & Stefano Puntoni, 2015. "Bang for the Buck: Gain-Loss Ratio as a Driver of Judgment and Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(5), pages 1137-1163, May.
    20. Peter Fraser‐Mackenzie & Ming‐Chien Sung & Johnnie E.V. Johnson, 2014. "Toward an Understanding of the Influence of Cultural Background and Domain Experience on the Effects of Risk‐Pricing Formats on Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(10), pages 1846-1869, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Psychological distance; Risk taking; Probability;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General
    • D90 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eee:joepsy:v:46:y:2015:i:c:p:26-38. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joep .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.