IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v66y2020i8p3754-3770.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Future Ambiguity Effect: How Narrow Payoff Ranges Increase Future Payoff Appeal

Author

Listed:
  • Yuanyuan Liu

    (School of Management, State Key Laboratory for Manufacturing Systems Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, 710049 Xi'an, Shaanxi, People’s Republic of China)

  • Timothy B. Heath

    (Muma College of Business, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida 33620)

  • Ayse Onculer

    (ESSEC Business School, 95021 Cergy, France)

Abstract

Increasing a current payoff’s ambiguity from a precise value (e.g., $150) to a range (e.g., $140–$160) generally reduces the payoff’s appeal, as does delaying the payoff from, for example, now to one year from now. However, we report five studies in which adding small ranges to future payoffs increases future payoff appeal, an emergent property designated the future ambiguity effect . This effect generalizes across various choice sets, payoff levels, and delays, and it prevails even when a future smaller ambiguous payoff is preferred more than a future larger precise payoff. Two underlying processes are proposed and supported: (1) the payoff ambiguity’s explicit risk of receiving a smaller payoff distracts people from the future’s larger implicit risk of receiving nothing, and (2) payoff ambiguity restores some of the excitement lost to the future’s psychological distance. Nonetheless, the future ambiguity effect is not universal, given that larger ranges can reduce and even eliminate it (boundary condition).

Suggested Citation

  • Yuanyuan Liu & Timothy B. Heath & Ayse Onculer, 2020. "The Future Ambiguity Effect: How Narrow Payoff Ranges Increase Future Payoff Appeal," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(8), pages 3754-3770, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:66:y:2020:i:8:p:3754-3770
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2019.3375
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3375
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3375?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yih Hwai Lee & Cheng Qiu, 2009. "When Uncertainty Brings Pleasure: The Role of Prospect Imageability and Mental Imagery," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 36(4), pages 624-633, December.
    2. Manel Baucells & Franz H. Heukamp, 2012. "Probability and Time Trade-Off," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(4), pages 831-842, April.
    3. Indranil Goswami & Oleg Urminsky, 2016. "When should the ask be a nudge? The Effect of Default Amounts on Charitable Donations," Natural Field Experiments 00659, The Field Experiments Website.
    4. Martin Ahlbrecht & Martin Weber, 1997. "An Empirical Study on Intertemporal Decision Making Under Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(6), pages 813-826, June.
    5. Loewenstein, George, 1996. "Out of Control: Visceral Influences on Behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 272-292, March.
    6. Drazen Prelec & George Loewenstein, 1991. "Decision Making Over Time and Under Uncertainty: A Common Approach," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(7), pages 770-786, July.
    7. Uri Gneezy & John A. List & George Wu, 2006. "The Uncertainty Effect: When a Risky Prospect is Valued Less than its Worst Possible Outcome," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1283-1309.
    8. David J. Hardisty & Jeffrey Pfeffer, 2017. "Intertemporal Uncertainty Avoidance: When the Future Is Uncertain, People Prefer the Present, and When the Present Is Uncertain, People Prefer the Future," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(2), pages 519-527, February.
    9. Keren, Gideon & Roelofsma, Peter, 1995. "Immediacy and Certainty in Intertemporal Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 287-297, September.
    10. Antoine Bommier, 2006. "Uncertain Lifetime And Intertemporal Choice: Risk Aversion As A Rationale For Time Discounting," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 47(4), pages 1223-1246, November.
    11. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. Ariel Rubinstein, 2003. ""Economics and Psychology"? The Case of Hyperbolic Discounting," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 44(4), pages 1207-1216, November.
    13. Shelley, Marjorie K., 1994. "Gain/Loss Asymmetry in Risky Intertemporal Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 124-159, July.
    14. Yoram Halevy, 2008. "Strotz Meets Allais: Diminishing Impatience and the Certainty Effect," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(3), pages 1145-1162, June.
    15. Weber, Bethany J. & Chapman, Gretchen B., 2005. "The combined effects of risk and time on choice: Does uncertainty eliminate the immediacy effect? Does delay eliminate the certainty effect?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 104-118, March.
    16. Lisa Anderson & Sarah Stafford, 2009. "Individual decision-making experiments with risk and intertemporal choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 51-72, February.
    17. Shane Frederick & George Loewenstein & Ted O'Donoghue, 2002. "Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(2), pages 351-401, June.
    18. 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.
    19. Malkoc, Selin A. & Zauberman, Gal & Bettman, James R., 2010. "Unstuck from the concrete: Carryover effects of abstract mindsets in intertemporal preferences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 112-126, November.
    20. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2012. "Salience Theory of Choice Under Risk," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(3), pages 1243-1285.
    21. Read, Daniel & van Leeuwen, Barbara, 1998. "Predicting Hunger: The Effects of Appetite and Delay on Choice, , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 189-205, November.
    22. Daniel M. Bartels & Oleg Urminsky, 2015. "To Know and to Care: How Awareness and Valuation of the Future Jointly Shape Consumer Spending," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 41(6), pages 1469-1485.
    23. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    24. Michael R Mullen, 1995. "Diagnosing Measurement Equivalence in Cross-National Research," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 26(3), pages 573-596, September.
    25. Ning Du & David V. Budescu, 2005. "The Effects of Imprecise Probabilities and Outcomes in Evaluating Investment Options," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(12), pages 1791-1803, December.
    26. Rashi Glazer & Joel H. Steckel & Russell S. Winer, 1992. "Locally Rational Decision Making: The Distracting Effect of Information on Managerial Performance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(2), pages 212-226, February.
    27. Curley, Shawn P. & Yates, J. Frank, 1985. "The center and range of the probability interval as factors affecting ambiguity preferences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 273-287, October.
    28. David J. Hardisty & Jeffrey Pfeffer, 2017. "Intertemporal Uncertainty Avoidance: When the Future Is Uncertain, People Prefer the Present, and When the Present Is Uncertain, People Prefer the Future," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(2), pages 519-527, February.
    29. Stevenson, Mary Kay, 1992. "The impact of temporal context and risk on the judged value of future outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 455-491, August.
    30. 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.
    31. Hsee, Christopher K., 1996. "The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 247-257, September.
    32. Ho, Joanna L Y & Keller, L Robin & Keltyka, Pamela, 2002. "Effects of Outcome and Probabilistic Ambiguity on Managerial Choices," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 47-74, January.
    33. Du, Ning & Budescu, David V. & Shelly, Marjorie K. & Omer, Thomas C., 2011. "The appeal of vague financial forecasts," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 179-189, March.
    34. Daniel Read & Christopher Y. Olivola & David J. Hardisty, 2017. "The Value of Nothing: Asymmetric Attention to Opportunity Costs Drives Intertemporal Decision Making," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(12), pages 4277-4297, December.
    35. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    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. Attari, Amin & Chatterjee, Promothesh & Singh, Surendra N., 2022. "Taking a chance for a discount: An investigation into consumers’ choice of probabilistic vs. sure price promotions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 366-374.

    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. Jinrui Pan & Craig S. Webb & Horst Zank, 2019. "Delayed probabilistic risk attitude: a parametric approach," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(2), pages 201-232, September.
    2. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda & Adrian Bruhin, 2011. "Viewing the future through a warped lens: Why uncertainty generates hyperbolic discounting," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 169-203, December.
    3. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda, 2012. "The missing link: unifying risk taking and time discounting," ECON - Working Papers 096, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Oct 2018.
    4. David J. Hardisty & Jeffrey Pfeffer, 2017. "Intertemporal Uncertainty Avoidance: When the Future Is Uncertain, People Prefer the Present, and When the Present Is Uncertain, People Prefer the Future," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(2), pages 519-527, February.
    5. David J. Hardisty & Jeffrey Pfeffer, 2017. "Intertemporal Uncertainty Avoidance: When the Future Is Uncertain, People Prefer the Present, and When the Present Is Uncertain, People Prefer the Future," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(2), pages 519-527, February.
    6. Mark Schneider, 2018. "A Dual System Model of Risk and Time Preferences," Working Papers 18-18, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    7. Scholten, Marc & Read, Daniel, 2006. "Beyond discounting: the tradeoff model of intertemporal choice," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 22710, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Anke Gerber & Kirsten I. M. Rohde, 2018. "Weighted temporal utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 66(1), pages 187-212, July.
    9. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier l’Haridon, 2013. "Sign-dependence in intertemporal choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 225-253, December.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Mark Schneider, 2016. "Dual Process Utility Theory: A Model of Decisions Under Risk and Over Time," Working Papers 16-23, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    13. Takeuchi, Kan, 2011. "Non-parametric test of time consistency: Present bias and future bias," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 456-478, March.
    14. Ali al-Nowaihi & Sanjit Dhami, 2021. "Preferences over Time and under Uncertainty: Theoretical Foundations," CESifo Working Paper Series 9215, CESifo.
    15. Manel Baucells & Franz H. Heukamp, 2012. "Probability and Time Trade-Off," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(4), pages 831-842, April.
    16. Epper, Thomas & Fehr-Duda, Helga, 2017. "A Tale of Two Tails: On the Coexistence of Overweighting and Underweighting of Rare Extreme Events," Economics Working Paper Series 1705, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    17. Yan Sun & Shu Li, 2010. "The effect of risk on intertemporal choice," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(6), pages 805-820, September.
    18. Eisenbach, Thomas M. & Schmalz, Martin C., 2016. "Anxiety in the face of risk," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(2), pages 414-426.
    19. Keith Coble & Jayson Lusk, 2010. "At the nexus of risk and time preferences: An experimental investigation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 67-79, August.
    20. Jean Desrochers & J. Francois Outreville, 2013. "Uncertainty, Ambiguity and Risk Taking: an experimental investigation of consumer behavior and demand for insurance," ICER Working Papers 10-2013, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:66:y:2020:i:8:p:3754-3770. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.