Comparison of Preferences For Sequences of Consumption with that of Money: The Mediating Role of Goal Salience

Jiang Chengming; Chen Lina; Ma Jiatao; Wang Lei; He Quan; Sun Qingzhou; Sun Hongyue

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20230612

PDF(357 KB)

Journal of Psychological Science ›› 2023, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (6) : 1368-1374. DOI: 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20230612

Social，Personality & Organizational Psychology

Comparison of Preferences For Sequences of Consumption with that of Money: The Mediating Role of Goal Salience

Jiang Chengming¹, Chen Lina¹, Ma Jiatao¹, Wang Lei¹, He Quan², Sun Qingzhou¹, Sun Hongyue³

Author information +

History +

Abstract

Researchers have generally accepted the conclusion that people prefer improving sequences to deteriorating ones since the work of Loewenstein and his colleagues in the 1990s. Nevertheless, recent research using unlabeled money as outcomes has found the opposite preference. Because these contradictions are found in different studies, it is difficult to compare them directly. The aim of the current study is to directly compare the preference for sequences of unlabeled money with the preference for sequences of consumption.

This research consisted of four experiments. A total of 1498 participants finished those experiments. One hundred and ninety-nine participated in Experiment 1A, 428 in Experiment 1B, 445 in Experiment 2A, and 426 in Experiment 2B. Experiments 1A and 1B used between-subject and within-subject designs respectively to compare the sequence preferences for money outcome with that for consumable outcome, with these two outcomes controlled (Experiment 1B) or not (Experiment 1A). Experiment 2A asked participants to recall and qualify the importance of two goals which are “getting better outcomes as soon as possible” and “outcomes becoming better” in the decision-making process. The aim of Experiment 2A was to examine the mediating roles of these two goals. Experiment 2B further tested the roles of the two goals in the preference for monetary sequence by manipulating the gradient of the sequence outcomes.

The results of Experiments 1A and 1B showed that the preference for deteriorating sequences was stronger in the sequence of monetary outcomes than for the sequence of consumable outcomes (in Experiment 1A: χ²(1) = 68.37, p < .001, φ = .59; in Experiment 1B: χ² (1) = 88.53, p < .001, φ = .45). Furthermore, participants preferred deteriorating monetary sequence, while preferred improving consumable sequence. Experiment 2A indicated the mediating role of the goals of “getting better outcomes as soon as possible” and “outcomes becoming better”. Specifically, it demonstrated that, compared to participants in the condition of consumable outcomes, those in the condition of monetary outcomes attached more importance to the goal of “getting better outcomes quickly” while attached less importance to the goal of “outcomes becoming better”. That is, they preferred deteriorating sequences to improve ones(the indirect effect value of “getting better outcomes quickly” is .246 (95% CI: .120~ .404), and the indirect effect value of “outcomes becoming better” is .131 (95% CI: .042~ .239)). Furthermore, Experiment 2B showed that in the condition of sequence of monetary outcomes, “getting more money quickly” may be a salient goal which is not susceptible to the gradients of sequence, while the goal of “outcomes becoming better” is susceptible to the gradients of sequence, thus weakening a preference for deteriorating sequence when the gradient is smaller (the indirect effect value of “getting better outcomes quickly” is -.069 (95% CI: -.209~ .067), the indirect effect value of “outcomes becoming better” is -.070 (95% CI: -.159~-.003)). In summary, the results of four experiments show that participants are more preferable to deteriorating sequences when outcomes are money than when outcomes are consumable ones and the preference is meditated by the goals of “getting better outcomes quickly” and “outcomes becoming better”.

The results have implications for researchers when studying intertemporal choice and for practitioners when designing policies or management measures involving intertemporal sequences.

Key words

intertemporal choice / sequence choice / consumption / money / discounting

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

Jiang Chengming, Chen Lina, Ma Jiatao, Wang Lei, He Quan, Sun Qingzhou, Sun Hongyue. Comparison of Preferences For Sequences of Consumption with that of Money: The Mediating Role of Goal Salience[J]. Journal of Psychological Science. 2023, 46(6): 1368-1374 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20230612

References

[1] Bickel W. K., Miller M. L., Yi R., Kowal B. P., Lindquist D. M., & Pitcock J. A. (2007). Behavioral and neuroeconomics of drug addiction: Competing neural systems and temporal discounting processes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 90(1), S85-S91.
[2] Frederick, S., & Loewenstein, G. (2008). Conflicting motives in evaluations of sequences. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 37(2), 221-235.
[3] Frederick S., Loewenstein G., & O'Donoghue T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 351-401.
[4] Garcia A., Torrecillas M. J. M., & Rambaud S. C. (2020). The improving sequence effect on monetary sequences. Heliyon, 6(12), Article E05643.
[5] Hershfield H. E., Goldstein D. G., Sharpe W. F., Fox J., Yeykelis L., Carstensen L. L., & Bailenson J. N. (2011). Increasing saving behavior through age-progressed renderings of the future self. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(SPL), S23-S37.
[6] JASP Team. (2020). JASP (Version 0.13.1). https://jasp-stats.org/
[7] Jiang C. M., Sun H. M., Zhu L. F., Zhao L., Liu H. Z., & Sun H. Y. (2017). Better is worse, worse is better: Reexamination of violations of dominance in intertemporal choice. Judgment and Decision Making, 12(3), 253-259.
[8] 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.
[9] Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
[10] Krantz, D. H., & Kunreuther, H. C. (2007). Goals and plans in decision making. Judgment and Decision Making, 2(3), 137-168.
[11] Lempert, K. M., & Phelps, E. A. (2016). The malleability of intertemporal choice. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(1), 64-74.
[12] Loewenstein, G., & Sicherman, N. (1991). Do workers prefer increasing wage profiles? Journal of Labor Economics, 9(1), 67-84.
[13] Loewenstein, G. F., & Prelec, D. (1991). Negative time preference. American Economic Review, 81(2), 347-352.
[14] Loewenstein, G. F., & Prelec, D. (1993). Preferences for sequences of outcomes. Psychological Review, 100(1), 91-108.
[15] Madden G. J., Begotka A. M., Raiff B. R., & Kastern L. L. (2003). Delay discounting of real and hypothetical rewards. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 11(2), 139-145.
[16] Scholten M., Read D., & Sanborn A. (2016). Cumulative weighing of time in intertemporal tradeoffs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(9), 1177-1205.
[17] Thaler, R. (1981). Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency. Economics Letters, 8(3), 201-207.
[18] Urminsky, O., & Kivetz, R. (2011). Scope insensitivity and the "mere token" effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(2), 282-295.
[19] Warren C., McGraw A. P., & van Boven L. (2011). Values and preferences: Defining preference construction. WIREs Cognitive Science, 2(2), 193-205.
[20] Wilson, J. M. (2021). Financial literacy, experience, and age differences in monetary sequence preferences (Unpublished master's thesis). West Virginia University.