David Hardisty
Impatience and savoring versus dread: Asymmetries in anticipation explain consumer time preferences for positive versus negative eventsDavid J. HardistyElke U. WeberUniversity of British ColumbiaPrinceton University Author note: Address correspondence to David J. Hardisty, david.hardisty@sauder.ubc.ca, 2053 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2, 604-827-3158. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation grant SES-0820496 and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Special thanks to Shane Frederick for substantial contributions to theory and experimental design in the early stages of this project, and to the editorial team of Professors Anirban Mukhopadhyay, Ashwani Monga, and three anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback.AbstractFor positive experiences (e.g., when to eat a snack) consumers generally prefer to have them immediately, and for negative experiences (e.g., when to pay a bill) consumers often prefer to delay. Yet, across three studies (plus twelve supplemental studies) we find that anticipatory feelings push in the opposite direction, and do so differently for positive versus negative events, leading to different time preferences: the desire for immediate positives is stronger than the desire to delay negatives. For negative events, anticipatory utility is strongly negative, reducing the desire to delay bad things (i.e., consumers want to “get it over with” to minimize the psychological discomfort), but for positive events, overall anticipatory utility is weakly positive, and therefore does little to reduce consumers’ desire to expedite good things. This anticipatory asymmetry happens because when consumers think about a future positive event, they both enjoy imagining it (savoring) while simultaneously disliking the feeling of waiting for it (impatience), but when consumers think about a negative event, they both dislike imagining it (dread) and dislike the feeling of waiting for it. We demonstrate the managerial implications of these findings in a pair of field studies using online advertisements for retirement planning. Keywords: intertemporal choice, delay discounting, framing, affect Impatience and savoring versus dread: Asymmetries in anticipation explain consumer time preferences for positive versus negative eventsConsumers constantly make choices about what to do or have now, and what to put off until later. For example, when to have a nice dinner out? When to schedule a dentist appointment? One of the biggest intertemporal choices concern retirement: how much income should consumers put away now to enjoy larger benefits in retirement? Often, consumers are short-sighted, “temporally discounting” the future and overly-prioritizing immediate needs and wants PEVuZE5vdGU+PENpdGU+PEF1dGhvcj5GcmVkZXJpY2s8L0F1dGhvcj48WWVhcj4yMDAyPC9ZZWFy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 EN.CITE PEVuZE5vdGU+PENpdGU+PEF1dGhvcj5GcmVkZXJpY2s8L0F1dGhvcj48WWVhcj4yMDAyPC9ZZWFy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 EN.CITE.DATA (Frederick & Loewenstein, 2008; Frederick, Loewenstein, & O'Donoghue, 2002; Lynch & Zauberman, 2006). In other words, consumers often want to have good things now, and to put bad things off until later, even at a cost to their long-term wellbeing. How can marketers counteract this tendency, and motivate consumers to care more about the future? For example, how can marketers more effectively advertise retirement planning and investment services? The prototypical retirement advertisement features an older couple on a tropical beach enjoying a sunset. This type of advertisement attempts to use pleasurable anticipation to motivate consumers to set aside immediate income for future benefits. However, retirement budgets can alternatively be framed in terms of expenses: perhaps consumers who are worried about retirement expenses would be motivated to take care of those expenses today. Which messaging strategy is likely to be more effective to motivate consumers? Savoring of future retirement benefits, or dread of future retirement expenses? In this paper, we argue for the latter. We propose that the overall anticipatory utility for negative events is stronger than the anticipatory utility for equivalent positive events, and that this asymmetry in anticipation translates into differences in consumer time preferences and choices. In this introduction, we first review the literature on consumer time preferences for positive versus negative events. Next, we introduce two major process theories of intertemporal choice for positive versus negative events: anticipation asymmetry and subjective magnitude. Subsequently, we detail our hypotheses and reasoning for each theory. We close the introduction with an overview of our empirical studies and findings. Intertemporal choice for positive versus negative eventsFrom a rational economic perspective, consumers should have equivalent temporal preferences for positive and negative events; they should generally prefer to have good things now, and put bad things off until later. Put another way, temporal “discount rates” should be the same for positives and negatives. Indeed, many factors have symmetric impacts on positives and negatives. For example, the uncertainty that a future event will happen provides as strong a reason to postpone something negative as to accelerate something positive. Similarly, the interest lost by delaying a $100 reward for a year is equivalent to the interest gained by delaying a $100 loss, and the more that a consumer is connected to their future self, the more they should care about both obtaining future rewards and avoiding future problems ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite><Author>Zhang</Author><Year>2015</Year><RecNum>503</RecNum><DisplayText>(Zhang & Aggarwal, 2015)</DisplayText><record><rec-number>503</rec-number><foreign-keys><key app="EN" db-id="ps05de90q9zfz1eprrsxd9entrap2v5x99e0" timestamp="1499586561">503</key></foreign-keys><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author>Zhang, Meng</author><author>Aggarwal, Pankaj</author></authors></contributors><titles><title>Looking ahead or looking back: Current evaluations and the effect of psychological connectedness to a temporal self</title><secondary-title>Journal of Consumer Psychology</secondary-title></titles><periodical><full-title>Journal of Consumer Psychology</full-title></periodical><pages>512-518</pages><volume>25</volume><number>3</number><dates><year>2015</year></dates><isbn>1057-7408</isbn><urls></urls></record></Cite></EndNote>(Zhang & Aggarwal, 2015). Thus, consumers want to have good things now, and bad things later. Despite these rational reasons for symmetry, lab studies of intertemporal choice typically find that the desire to have good things immediately is much stronger than the desire to postpone negative outcomes PEVuZE5vdGU+PENpdGU+PEF1dGhvcj5IYXJkaXN0eTwvQXV0aG9yPjxZZWFyPjIwMDk8L1llYXI+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ADDIN EN.CITE PEVuZE5vdGU+PENpdGU+PEF1dGhvcj5IYXJkaXN0eTwvQXV0aG9yPjxZZWFyPjIwMDk8L1llYXI+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ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (Hardisty & Weber, 2009; Mischel, Grusec, & Masters, 1969; Thaler, 1981). Put another way, discount rates for positive events are much higher than discount rates for negative events. For example, one study found annualized discount rates for gains in the range of 30%, and discount rates for losses in the range of 6%, for both financial and environmental outcomes ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite><Author>Hardisty</Author><Year>2009</Year><IDText>Discounting Future Green: Money Versus the Environment</IDText><DisplayText>(Hardisty & Weber, 2009)</DisplayText><record><titles><title>Discounting Future Green: Money Versus the Environment</title><secondary-title>Journal of Experimental Psychology: General</secondary-title><short-title>Discounting Future Green: Money Versus the Environment</short-title></titles><pages>329-340</pages><number>3</number><contributors><authors><author>Hardisty, David J.</author><author>Weber, Elke U.</author></authors></contributors><added-date format="utc">1531537190</added-date><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><dates><year>2009</year></dates><rec-number>231</rec-number><last-updated-date format="utc">1531537190</last-updated-date><electronic-resource-num>10.1037/a0016433</electronic-resource-num><volume>138</volume></record></Cite></EndNote>(Hardisty & Weber, 2009). This difference in time preferences for positives versus negatives has been called the “sign effect”. Though the sign effect is quite robust, the reasons for it are not well understood. Perhaps as a result, the dominant formal models of intertemporal choice do not address differences in discounting between positives and negatives ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite><Author>Loewenstein</Author><Year>1992</Year><RecNum>203</RecNum><Prefix>though see </Prefix><DisplayText>(though see Loewenstein & Prelec, 1992; Scholten & Read, 2010)</DisplayText><record><rec-number>203</rec-number><foreign-keys><key app="EN" db-id="ps05de90q9zfz1eprrsxd9entrap2v5x99e0" timestamp="1321382978">203</key></foreign-keys><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author>Loewenstein, George</author><author>Prelec, Drazen</author></authors></contributors><titles><title>Anomalies in intertemporal choice: evidence and interpretation</title><secondary-title>The Quarterly Journal of Economics</secondary-title></titles><periodical><full-title>The Quarterly Journal of Economics</full-title></periodical><pages>573-597</pages><volume>107</volume><number>2</number><dates><year>1992</year></dates><urls></urls><electronic-resource-num>10.2307/2118482</electronic-resource-num></record></Cite><Cite><Author>Scholten</Author><Year>2010</Year><RecNum>133</RecNum><record><rec-number>133</rec-number><foreign-keys><key app="EN" db-id="ps05de90q9zfz1eprrsxd9entrap2v5x99e0" timestamp="0">133</key></foreign-keys><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author>Scholten, M.</author><author>Read, Daniel</author></authors></contributors><titles><title>The Psychology of Intertemporal Tradeoffs</title><secondary-title>Psychological Review</secondary-title></titles><periodical><full-title>Psychological Review</full-title></periodical><pages>925-944</pages><volume>117</volume><number>3</number><dates><year>2010</year></dates><urls></urls><electronic-resource-num>10.1037/a0019619</electronic-resource-num></record></Cite></EndNote>(though see Loewenstein & Prelec, 1992; Scholten & Read, 2010). This is a major oversight, given that identical outcomes can be framed as positive or negative events merely by changing the reference point (e.g., energy savings vs energy costs, or time gained vs lost).Two theories explaining the sign effect In the present research, we test two different explanations for the sign effect: anticipation asymmetry and subjective magnitude. The first theory, anticipation asymmetry, is grounded in the idea that anticipation pushes against our natural tendency to want good things now and bad things later ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite><Author>Loewenstein</Author><Year>1987</Year><IDText>Anticipation and the Valuation of Delayed Consumption</IDText><DisplayText>(Loewenstein, 1987)</DisplayText><record><titles><title>Anticipation and the Valuation of Delayed Consumption</title><secondary-title>Economic Journal</secondary-title><short-title>Anticipation and the Valuation of Delayed Consumption</short-title></titles><pages>666-684</pages><contributors><authors><author>Loewenstein, George</author></authors></contributors><added-date format="utc">1531537190</added-date><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><dates><year>1987</year></dates><rec-number>312</rec-number><last-updated-date format="utc">1531537190</last-updated-date><electronic-resource-num>10.2307/2232929</electronic-resource-num><volume>97</volume></record></Cite></EndNote>(Loewenstein, 1987). For example, research on dread PEVuZE5vdGU+PENpdGU+PEF1dGhvcj5IYXJyaXM8L0F1dGhvcj48WWVhcj4yMDEwPC9ZZWFyPjxJ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 EN.CITE PEVuZE5vdGU+PENpdGU+PEF1dGhvcj5IYXJyaXM8L0F1dGhvcj48WWVhcj4yMDEwPC9ZZWFyPjxJ
RFRleHQ+RmVlbGluZ3Mgb2YgRHJlYWQgYW5kIEludGVydGVtcG9yYWwgQ2hvaWNlPC9JRFRleHQ+
PERpc3BsYXlUZXh0PihCZXJucyBldCBhbC4sIDIwMDY7IEhhcnJpcywgMjAxMDsgU3RvcnkgZXQg
YWwuLCAyMDEzKTwvRGlzcGxheVRleHQ+PHJlY29yZD48dGl0bGVzPjx0aXRsZT5GZWVsaW5ncyBv
ZiBEcmVhZCBhbmQgSW50ZXJ0ZW1wb3JhbCBDaG9pY2U8L3RpdGxlPjxzZWNvbmRhcnktdGl0bGU+
Sm91cm5hbCBvZiBCZWhhdmlvcmFsIERlY2lzaW9uIE1ha2luZzwvc2Vjb25kYXJ5LXRpdGxlPjxz
aG9ydC10aXRsZT5GZWVsaW5ncyBvZiBEcmVhZCBhbmQgSW50ZXJ0ZW1wb3JhbCBDaG9pY2U8L3No
b3J0LXRpdGxlPjwvdGl0bGVzPjxjb250cmlidXRvcnM+PGF1dGhvcnM+PGF1dGhvcj5IYXJyaXMs
IENocmlzdGluZSBSLjwvYXV0aG9yPjwvYXV0aG9ycz48L2NvbnRyaWJ1dG9ycz48YWRkZWQtZGF0
ZSBmb3JtYXQ9InV0YyI+MTUzMTUzNzE5MDwvYWRkZWQtZGF0ZT48cmVmLXR5cGUgbmFtZT0iSm91
cm5hbCBBcnRpY2xlIj4xNzwvcmVmLXR5cGU+PGRhdGVzPjx5ZWFyPjIwMTA8L3llYXI+PC9kYXRl
cz48cmVjLW51bWJlcj4yMzc8L3JlYy1udW1iZXI+PGxhc3QtdXBkYXRlZC1kYXRlIGZvcm1hdD0i
dXRjIj4xNTMxNTM3MTkwPC9sYXN0LXVwZGF0ZWQtZGF0ZT48ZWxlY3Ryb25pYy1yZXNvdXJjZS1u
dW0+MTAuMTAwMi9iZG0uNzA5PC9lbGVjdHJvbmljLXJlc291cmNlLW51bT48L3JlY29yZD48L0Np
dGU+PENpdGU+PEF1dGhvcj5TdG9yeTwvQXV0aG9yPjxZZWFyPjIwMTM8L1llYXI+PElEVGV4dD5E
cmVhZCBhbmQgdGhlIGRpc3ZhbHVlIG9mIGZ1dHVyZSBwYWluPC9JRFRleHQ+PHJlY29yZD48aXNi
bj4xNTUzLTczNTg8L2lzYm4+PHRpdGxlcz48dGl0bGU+RHJlYWQgYW5kIHRoZSBkaXN2YWx1ZSBv
ZiBmdXR1cmUgcGFpbjwvdGl0bGU+PHNlY29uZGFyeS10aXRsZT5QTG9TIGNvbXB1dGF0aW9uYWwg
YmlvbG9neTwvc2Vjb25kYXJ5LXRpdGxlPjwvdGl0bGVzPjxwYWdlcz5lMTAwMzMzNTwvcGFnZXM+
PG51bWJlcj4xMTwvbnVtYmVyPjxjb250cmlidXRvcnM+PGF1dGhvcnM+PGF1dGhvcj5TdG9yeSwg
R2lsZXMgVzwvYXV0aG9yPjxhdXRob3I+VmxhZXYsIEl2YXlsbzwvYXV0aG9yPjxhdXRob3I+U2V5
bW91ciwgQmVuPC9hdXRob3I+PGF1dGhvcj5XaW5zdG9uLCBKb2VsIFM8L2F1dGhvcj48YXV0aG9y
PkRhcnppLCBBcmE8L2F1dGhvcj48YXV0aG9yPkRvbGFuLCBSYXltb25kIEo8L2F1dGhvcj48L2F1
dGhvcnM+PC9jb250cmlidXRvcnM+PGFkZGVkLWRhdGUgZm9ybWF0PSJ1dGMiPjE1NDQwMjkxMjM8
L2FkZGVkLWRhdGU+PHJlZi10eXBlIG5hbWU9IkpvdXJuYWwgQXJ0aWNsZSI+MTc8L3JlZi10eXBl
PjxkYXRlcz48eWVhcj4yMDEzPC95ZWFyPjwvZGF0ZXM+PHJlYy1udW1iZXI+NTY3PC9yZWMtbnVt
YmVyPjxsYXN0LXVwZGF0ZWQtZGF0ZSBmb3JtYXQ9InV0YyI+MTU0NDAyOTEyMzwvbGFzdC11cGRh
dGVkLWRhdGU+PHZvbHVtZT45PC92b2x1bWU+PC9yZWNvcmQ+PC9DaXRlPjxDaXRlPjxBdXRob3I+
QmVybnM8L0F1dGhvcj48WWVhcj4yMDA2PC9ZZWFyPjxJRFRleHQ+TmV1cm9iaW9sb2dpY2FsIFN1
YnN0cmF0ZXMgb2YgRHJlYWQ8L0lEVGV4dD48cmVjb3JkPjx0aXRsZXM+PHRpdGxlPk5ldXJvYmlv
bG9naWNhbCBTdWJzdHJhdGVzIG9mIERyZWFkPC90aXRsZT48c2Vjb25kYXJ5LXRpdGxlPlNjaWVu
Y2U8L3NlY29uZGFyeS10aXRsZT48c2hvcnQtdGl0bGU+TmV1cm9iaW9sb2dpY2FsIFN1YnN0cmF0
ZXMgb2YgRHJlYWQ8L3Nob3J0LXRpdGxlPjwvdGl0bGVzPjxwYWdlcz43NTQtNzU4PC9wYWdlcz48
Y29udHJpYnV0b3JzPjxhdXRob3JzPjxhdXRob3I+QmVybnMsIEcuIFMuPC9hdXRob3I+PGF1dGhv
cj5DaGFwcGVsb3csIEouPC9hdXRob3I+PGF1dGhvcj5DZWtpYywgTS48L2F1dGhvcj48YXV0aG9y
PlppbmssIEMuIEYuPC9hdXRob3I+PGF1dGhvcj5QYWdub25pLCBHLjwvYXV0aG9yPjxhdXRob3I+
TWFydGluLVNrdXJza2ksIE0uIEUuPC9hdXRob3I+PC9hdXRob3JzPjwvY29udHJpYnV0b3JzPjxh
ZGRlZC1kYXRlIGZvcm1hdD0idXRjIj4xNTMxNTM3MTg4PC9hZGRlZC1kYXRlPjxyZWYtdHlwZSBu
YW1lPSJKb3VybmFsIEFydGljbGUiPjE3PC9yZWYtdHlwZT48ZGF0ZXM+PHllYXI+MjAwNjwveWVh
cj48L2RhdGVzPjxyZWMtbnVtYmVyPjkxPC9yZWMtbnVtYmVyPjxsYXN0LXVwZGF0ZWQtZGF0ZSBm
b3JtYXQ9InV0YyI+MTUzMTUzNzE4ODwvbGFzdC11cGRhdGVkLWRhdGU+PGVsZWN0cm9uaWMtcmVz
b3VyY2UtbnVtPjEwLjExMjYvc2NpZW5jZS4xMTIzNzIxPC9lbGVjdHJvbmljLXJlc291cmNlLW51
bT48dm9sdW1lPjMxMjwvdm9sdW1lPjwvcmVjb3JkPjwvQ2l0ZT48L0VuZE5vdGU+
ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (Berns et al., 2006; Harris, 2010; Story et al., 2013) has found that consumers’ natural tendency to delay bad things is mitigated somewhat by negative anticipation; people sometimes choose to “get it over with” to avoid worry. However, the opposite may not be true for positives. Thus, according to this theory, the desire to postpone negatives is weaker than the desire to accelerate positives because the overall anticipatory utility of negatives is stronger than the overall anticipatory utility of positives. In other words: while people have a natural impulse to postpone a negative experience (such as paying a bill), the desire to minimize dread pushes in the opposite direction, leading a moderate preference to delay negatives, yet the impulse to receive positive experiences (such as a package in the mail) as soon as possible is barely influenced by overall anticipatory feelings, resulting in a strong preference to receive the reward immediately. The second theory, subjective magnitude (also sometimes called “loss aversion” or “negativity bias”) is elegant: we know that consumers weigh negative events roughly twice as much as positive events PEVuZE5vdGU+PENpdGU+PEF1dGhvcj5LYWhuZW1hbjwvQXV0aG9yPjxZZWFyPjE5Nzk8L1llYXI+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ADDIN EN.CITE PEVuZE5vdGU+PENpdGU+PEF1dGhvcj5LYWhuZW1hbjwvQXV0aG9yPjxZZWFyPjE5Nzk8L1llYXI+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ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001; Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Rozin & Royzman, 2001), and that consumers are more “patient” for larger magnitude events ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite><Author>Thaler</Author><Year>1981</Year><IDText>Some Empirical Evidence on Dynamic Inconsistency</IDText><DisplayText>(Kirby, 1997; Thaler, 1981)</DisplayText><record><titles><title>Some Empirical Evidence on Dynamic Inconsistency</title><secondary-title>Economics Letters</secondary-title><short-title>Some Empirical Evidence on Dynamic Inconsistency</short-title></titles><pages>201-207</pages><contributors><authors><author>Thaler, Richard</author></authors></contributors><added-date format="utc">1531537192</added-date><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><dates><year>1981</year></dates><rec-number>477</rec-number><last-updated-date format="utc">1531537192</last-updated-date><electronic-resource-num>10.1016/0165-1765(81)90067-7</electronic-resource-num><volume>8</volume></record></Cite><Cite><Author>Kirby</Author><Year>1997</Year><IDText>Bidding on the future: Evidence against normative discounting of delayed rewards</IDText><record><titles><title>Bidding on the future: Evidence against normative discounting of delayed rewards</title><secondary-title>Journal of Experimental Psychology: General</secondary-title><short-title>Bidding on the future: Evidence against normative discounting of delayed rewards</short-title></titles><pages>54-70</pages><contributors><authors><author>Kirby, K. N.</author></authors></contributors><added-date format="utc">1531537190</added-date><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><dates><year>1997</year></dates><rec-number>274</rec-number><last-updated-date format="utc">1531537190</last-updated-date><electronic-resource-num>10.1037//0096-3445.126.1.54</electronic-resource-num><volume>126</volume></record></Cite></EndNote>(Kirby, 1997; Thaler, 1981), therefore consumers are more patient for negative events than positive events. (In the language of intertemporal choice: the combination of “loss aversion” and the “magnitude effect” logically yields the “sign effect.”) Here, we define “subjective magnitude” as the predicted value of experiencing an event, which tends to be greater for negative events than positive events (Baumeister et al., 2001). Many researchers loosely use the phrase “loss aversion” to mean the same thing, but formally loss aversion is about the predicted experience of losses and gains (more narrowly) with respect to a reference point (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). The sign effect in intertemporal choice is about negative and positive events (more broadly), hence we use the term “subjective magnitude”. To illustrate: eating a vomit-flavored jellybean is not a loss per se, so it would not be subject to loss aversion, strictly speaking. Rather, it is a negative experience that would be predicted to be quite intense, as compared with, say, eating a watermelon flavored jellybean. In other words, the prospect of eating the vomit-flavored jellybean might be larger in “subjective magnitude” than the prospect of eating the watermelon-flavored jellybean.The elegance and simplicity of the subjective magnitude theory has led to its inclusion in several formal models of intertemporal choice PEVuZE5vdGU+PENpdGU+PEF1dGhvcj5Mb2V3ZW5zdGVpbjwvQXV0aG9yPjxZZWFyPjE5OTI8L1ll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 EN.CITE PEVuZE5vdGU+PENpdGU+PEF1dGhvcj5Mb2V3ZW5zdGVpbjwvQXV0aG9yPjxZZWFyPjE5OTI8L1ll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 EN.CITE.DATA (al-Nowaihi & Dhami, 2009; Baucells & Bellezza, 2016; Loewenstein & Prelec, 1992). However, intuitively it feels wrong: if a negative event is quite strong, wouldn’t consumers want to push it away into the future, thus leading to higher (rather than lower) discount rates for losses? Indeed, research on the magnitude effect with losses has found that larger losses are more likely to be postponed ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite><Author>Hardisty</Author><Year>2013</Year><IDText>Good or bad, we want it now: Fixed-cost present bias for gains and losses explains magnitude asymmetries in intertemporal choice</IDText><DisplayText>(Hardisty, Appelt, & Weber, 2013)</DisplayText><record><titles><title>Good or bad, we want it now: Fixed-cost present bias for gains and losses explains magnitude asymmetries in intertemporal choice</title><secondary-title>Journal of Behavioral Decision Making</secondary-title><short-title>Good or bad, we want it now: Fixed-cost present bias for gains and losses explains magnitude asymmetries in intertemporal choice</short-title></titles><pages>348-361</pages><contributors><authors><author>Hardisty, David J.</author><author>Appelt, Kirstin C.</author><author>Weber, Elke U.</author></authors></contributors><added-date format="utc">1531537189</added-date><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><dates><year>2013</year></dates><rec-number>220</rec-number><last-updated-date format="utc">1531537189</last-updated-date><electronic-resource-num>10.1002/bdm.1771</electronic-resource-num><volume>26</volume></record></Cite></EndNote>(Hardisty, Appelt, & Weber, 2013). In this paper, we present three studies (plus an additional twelve studies reported in the Methodological Details Appendix) that support the anticipation asymmetry explanation of the sign effect, and fail to support the subjective magnitude explanation. In the sections below, we lay out the reasoning behind our theory and hypotheses. Anticipation utility of positive versus negative eventsThe language for discussing the feelings that accompany waiting is impoverished and often ambiguous. We will use the term overall anticipatory utility to indicate the overall level of pleasure (and/or pain) experienced while thinking about a future event. Anticipatory utility comes in many varieties PEVuZE5vdGU+PENpdGU+PEF1dGhvcj5CYXVjZWxsczwvQXV0aG9yPjxZZWFyPjIwMTY8L1llYXI+
PElEVGV4dD5UZW1wb3JhbCBwcm9maWxlcyBvZiBpbnN0YW50IHV0aWxpdHkgZHVyaW5nIGFudGlj
aXBhdGlvbiwgZXZlbnQsIGFuZCByZWNhbGw8L0lEVGV4dD48RGlzcGxheVRleHQ+KEJhdWNlbGxz
ICZhbXA7IEJlbGxlenphLCAyMDE2OyBCYXVtZWlzdGVyLCBWb2hzLCBOYXRoYW4gRGVXYWxsLCAm
YW1wOyBaaGFuZywgMjAwNzsgQmlsZ2luICZhbXA7IExlQm9ldWYsIDIwMTApPC9EaXNwbGF5VGV4
dD48cmVjb3JkPjxpc2JuPjAwMjUtMTkwOTwvaXNibj48dGl0bGVzPjx0aXRsZT5UZW1wb3JhbCBw
cm9maWxlcyBvZiBpbnN0YW50IHV0aWxpdHkgZHVyaW5nIGFudGljaXBhdGlvbiwgZXZlbnQsIGFu
ZCByZWNhbGw8L3RpdGxlPjxzZWNvbmRhcnktdGl0bGU+TWFuYWdlbWVudCBTY2llbmNlPC9zZWNv
bmRhcnktdGl0bGU+PC90aXRsZXM+PHBhZ2VzPjcyOS03NDg8L3BhZ2VzPjxudW1iZXI+MzwvbnVt
YmVyPjxjb250cmlidXRvcnM+PGF1dGhvcnM+PGF1dGhvcj5CYXVjZWxscywgTWFuZWw8L2F1dGhv
cj48YXV0aG9yPkJlbGxlenphLCBTaWx2aWE8L2F1dGhvcj48L2F1dGhvcnM+PC9jb250cmlidXRv
cnM+PGFkZGVkLWRhdGUgZm9ybWF0PSJ1dGMiPjE1NDQwODEzMTQ8L2FkZGVkLWRhdGU+PHJlZi10
eXBlIG5hbWU9IkpvdXJuYWwgQXJ0aWNsZSI+MTc8L3JlZi10eXBlPjxkYXRlcz48eWVhcj4yMDE2
PC95ZWFyPjwvZGF0ZXM+PHJlYy1udW1iZXI+NTY5PC9yZWMtbnVtYmVyPjxsYXN0LXVwZGF0ZWQt
ZGF0ZSBmb3JtYXQ9InV0YyI+MTU0NDA4MTMxNDwvbGFzdC11cGRhdGVkLWRhdGU+PHZvbHVtZT42
Mzwvdm9sdW1lPjwvcmVjb3JkPjwvQ2l0ZT48Q2l0ZT48QXV0aG9yPkJhdW1laXN0ZXI8L0F1dGhv
cj48WWVhcj4yMDA3PC9ZZWFyPjxJRFRleHQ+SG93IGVtb3Rpb24gc2hhcGVzIGJlaGF2aW9yOiBG
ZWVkYmFjaywgYW50aWNpcGF0aW9uLCBhbmQgcmVmbGVjdGlvbiwgcmF0aGVyIHRoYW4gZGlyZWN0
IGNhdXNhdGlvbjwvSURUZXh0PjxyZWNvcmQ+PGlzYm4+MTA4OC04NjgzPC9pc2JuPjx0aXRsZXM+
PHRpdGxlPkhvdyBlbW90aW9uIHNoYXBlcyBiZWhhdmlvcjogRmVlZGJhY2ssIGFudGljaXBhdGlv
biwgYW5kIHJlZmxlY3Rpb24sIHJhdGhlciB0aGFuIGRpcmVjdCBjYXVzYXRpb248L3RpdGxlPjxz
ZWNvbmRhcnktdGl0bGU+UGVyc29uYWxpdHkgYW5kIFNvY2lhbCBQc3ljaG9sb2d5IFJldmlldzwv
c2Vjb25kYXJ5LXRpdGxlPjwvdGl0bGVzPjxwYWdlcz4xNjctMjAzPC9wYWdlcz48bnVtYmVyPjI8
L251bWJlcj48Y29udHJpYnV0b3JzPjxhdXRob3JzPjxhdXRob3I+QmF1bWVpc3RlciwgUm95IEY8
L2F1dGhvcj48YXV0aG9yPlZvaHMsIEthdGhsZWVuIEQ8L2F1dGhvcj48YXV0aG9yPk5hdGhhbiBE
ZVdhbGwsIEM8L2F1dGhvcj48YXV0aG9yPlpoYW5nLCBMaXFpbmc8L2F1dGhvcj48L2F1dGhvcnM+
PC9jb250cmlidXRvcnM+PGFkZGVkLWRhdGUgZm9ybWF0PSJ1dGMiPjE1NDQwMjkxMjM8L2FkZGVk
LWRhdGU+PHJlZi10eXBlIG5hbWU9IkpvdXJuYWwgQXJ0aWNsZSI+MTc8L3JlZi10eXBlPjxkYXRl
cz48eWVhcj4yMDA3PC95ZWFyPjwvZGF0ZXM+PHJlYy1udW1iZXI+NTYwPC9yZWMtbnVtYmVyPjxs
YXN0LXVwZGF0ZWQtZGF0ZSBmb3JtYXQ9InV0YyI+MTU0NDAyOTEyMzwvbGFzdC11cGRhdGVkLWRh
dGU+PHZvbHVtZT4xMTwvdm9sdW1lPjwvcmVjb3JkPjwvQ2l0ZT48Q2l0ZT48QXV0aG9yPkJpbGdp
bjwvQXV0aG9yPjxZZWFyPjIwMTA8L1llYXI+PElEVGV4dD5Mb29taW5nIGxvc3NlcyBpbiBmdXR1
cmUgdGltZSBwZXJjZXB0aW9uPC9JRFRleHQ+PHJlY29yZD48aXNibj4wMDIyLTI0Mzc8L2lzYm4+
PHRpdGxlcz48dGl0bGU+TG9vbWluZyBsb3NzZXMgaW4gZnV0dXJlIHRpbWUgcGVyY2VwdGlvbjwv
dGl0bGU+PHNlY29uZGFyeS10aXRsZT5Kb3VybmFsIG9mIE1hcmtldGluZyBSZXNlYXJjaDwvc2Vj
b25kYXJ5LXRpdGxlPjwvdGl0bGVzPjxwYWdlcz41MjAtNTMwPC9wYWdlcz48bnVtYmVyPjM8L251
bWJlcj48Y29udHJpYnV0b3JzPjxhdXRob3JzPjxhdXRob3I+QmlsZ2luLCBCYWxlcjwvYXV0aG9y
PjxhdXRob3I+TGVCb2V1ZiwgUm9ieW4gQTwvYXV0aG9yPjwvYXV0aG9ycz48L2NvbnRyaWJ1dG9y
cz48YWRkZWQtZGF0ZSBmb3JtYXQ9InV0YyI+MTU0NDAyOTEyMzwvYWRkZWQtZGF0ZT48cmVmLXR5
cGUgbmFtZT0iSm91cm5hbCBBcnRpY2xlIj4xNzwvcmVmLXR5cGU+PGRhdGVzPjx5ZWFyPjIwMTA8
L3llYXI+PC9kYXRlcz48cmVjLW51bWJlcj41NjE8L3JlYy1udW1iZXI+PGxhc3QtdXBkYXRlZC1k
YXRlIGZvcm1hdD0idXRjIj4xNTQ0MDI5MTIzPC9sYXN0LXVwZGF0ZWQtZGF0ZT48dm9sdW1lPjQ3
PC92b2x1bWU+PC9yZWNvcmQ+PC9DaXRlPjwvRW5kTm90ZT4A
ADDIN EN.CITE PEVuZE5vdGU+PENpdGU+PEF1dGhvcj5CYXVjZWxsczwvQXV0aG9yPjxZZWFyPjIwMTY8L1llYXI+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ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (Baucells & Bellezza, 2016; Baumeister, Vohs, Nathan DeWall, & Zhang, 2007; Bilgin & LeBoeuf, 2010). Positive anticipation of future positive events (e.g., the pleasurable imagination of a future vacation) has sometimes been called savoring ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite><Author>Loewenstein</Author><Year>1987</Year><IDText>Anticipation and the Valuation of Delayed Consumption</IDText><DisplayText>(Chun, Diehl, & MacInnis, 2017; Loewenstein, 1987)</DisplayText><record><titles><title>Anticipation and the Valuation of Delayed Consumption</title><secondary-title>Economic Journal</secondary-title><short-title>Anticipation and the Valuation of Delayed Consumption</short-title></titles><pages>666-684</pages><contributors><authors><author>Loewenstein, George</author></authors></contributors><added-date format="utc">1531537190</added-date><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><dates><year>1987</year></dates><rec-number>312</rec-number><last-updated-date format="utc">1531537190</last-updated-date><electronic-resource-num>10.2307/2232929</electronic-resource-num><volume>97</volume></record></Cite><Cite><Author>Chun</Author><Year>2017</Year><IDText>Savoring an upcoming experience affects ongoing and remembered consumption enjoyment</IDText><record><isbn>0022-2429</isbn><titles><title>Savoring an upcoming experience affects ongoing and remembered consumption enjoyment</title><secondary-title>Journal of Marketing</secondary-title></titles><pages>96-110</pages><number>3</number><contributors><authors><author>Chun, HaeEun Helen</author><author>Diehl, Kristin</author><author>MacInnis, Deborah J</author></authors></contributors><added-date format="utc">1574751366</added-date><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><dates><year>2017</year></dates><rec-number>626</rec-number><last-updated-date format="utc">1574751366</last-updated-date><volume>81</volume></record></Cite></EndNote>(Chun, Diehl, & MacInnis, 2017; Loewenstein, 1987). In contrast, negative anticipation utility for a positive event is properly called impatience, a negative feeling of waiting (e.g., waiting for a package from to arrive in the mail). This highlights an ambiguity in previous literature: “impatience” has been used to describe both 1) the negative anticipatory feeling of waiting for a positive event ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite><Author>DeVoe</Author><Year>2012</Year><IDText>Time, money, and happiness: How does putting a price on time affect our ability to smell the roses?</IDText><DisplayText>(DeVoe & House, 2012)</DisplayText><record><isbn>0022-1031</isbn><titles><title>Time, money, and happiness: How does putting a price on time affect our ability to smell the roses?</title><secondary-title>Journal of Experimental Social Psychology</secondary-title></titles><pages>466-474</pages><number>2</number><contributors><authors><author>DeVoe, Sanford E</author><author>House, Julian</author></authors></contributors><added-date format="utc">1586322133</added-date><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><dates><year>2012</year></dates><rec-number>631</rec-number><last-updated-date format="utc">1586322133</last-updated-date><volume>48</volume></record></Cite></EndNote>(DeVoe & House, 2012), and also 2) the choice of a smaller, sooner gain over a larger, later gain, or the choice of a larger, later loss over a smaller, sooner loss PEVuZE5vdGU+PENpdGU+PEF1dGhvcj5CYXJ0ZWxzPC9BdXRob3I+PFllYXI+MjAxMTwvWWVhcj48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ADDIN EN.CITE PEVuZE5vdGU+PENpdGU+PEF1dGhvcj5CYXJ0ZWxzPC9BdXRob3I+PFllYXI+MjAxMTwvWWVhcj48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ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (Bartels & Urminsky, 2011; Shaddy & Lee, 2020; Yoon, 2020), regardless of the underlying process. In this paper, whenever we use the term “impatience”, we are always referring to the former usage: the psychological state of the consumer. Turning to the anticipation of negative events, the term dread has been used to refer to the negative experience of imaging a future negative event ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite><Author>Harris</Author><Year>2010</Year><IDText>Feelings of Dread and Intertemporal Choice</IDText><Prefix>e.g.`, thinking about a future visit to the dentist`, </Prefix><DisplayText>(e.g., thinking about a future visit to the dentist, Harris, 2010; Story et al., 2013)</DisplayText><record><titles><title>Feelings of Dread and Intertemporal Choice</title><secondary-title>Journal of Behavioral Decision Making</secondary-title><short-title>Feelings of Dread and Intertemporal Choice</short-title></titles><contributors><authors><author>Harris, Christine R.</author></authors></contributors><added-date format="utc">1531537190</added-date><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><dates><year>2010</year></dates><rec-number>237</rec-number><last-updated-date format="utc">1531537190</last-updated-date><electronic-resource-num>10.1002/bdm.709</electronic-resource-num></record></Cite><Cite><Author>Story</Author><Year>2013</Year><IDText>Dread and the disvalue of future pain</IDText><record><isbn>1553-7358</isbn><titles><title>Dread and the disvalue of future pain</title><secondary-title>PLoS computational biology</secondary-title></titles><pages>e1003335</pages><number>11</number><contributors><authors><author>Story, Giles W</author><author>Vlaev, Ivaylo</author><author>Seymour, Ben</author><author>Winston, Joel S</author><author>Darzi, Ara</author><author>Dolan, Raymond J</author></authors></contributors><added-date format="utc">1544029123</added-date><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><dates><year>2013</year></dates><rec-number>567</rec-number><last-updated-date format="utc">1544029123</last-updated-date><volume>9</volume></record></Cite></EndNote>(e.g., thinking about a future visit to the dentist, Harris, 2010; Story et al., 2013). Finally, as for the positive anticipation of negative future events, we suspect that deriving pleasure from anticipating future negative events is extremely rare, and, correspondingly, know of no term for it in the literature. One possibility would be relief that a problem does not have to be dealt with until later ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite><Author>Sweeny</Author><Year>2012</Year><IDText>On near misses and completed tasks: The nature of relief</IDText><DisplayText>(Sweeny & Vohs, 2012)</DisplayText><record><isbn>0956-7976</isbn><titles><title>On near misses and completed tasks: The nature of relief</title><secondary-title>Psychological science</secondary-title></titles><pages>464-468</pages><number>5</number><contributors><authors><author>Sweeny, Kate</author><author>Vohs, Kathleen D</author></authors></contributors><added-date format="utc">1544029123</added-date><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><dates><year>2012</year></dates><rec-number>568</rec-number><last-updated-date format="utc">1544029123</last-updated-date><volume>23</volume></record></Cite></EndNote>(Sweeny & Vohs, 2012). Conversely, the negative feeling of waiting for a negative event ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite><Author>Hardisty</Author><Year>2013</Year><IDText>Good or bad, we want it now: Fixed-cost present bias for gains and losses explains magnitude asymmetries in intertemporal choice</IDText><DisplayText>(Hardisty et al., 2013)</DisplayText><record><titles><title>Good or bad, we want it now: Fixed-cost present bias for gains and losses explains magnitude asymmetries in intertemporal choice</title><secondary-title>Journal of Behavioral Decision Making</secondary-title><short-title>Good or bad, we want it now: Fixed-cost present bias for gains and losses explains magnitude asymmetries in intertemporal choice</short-title></titles><pages>348-361</pages><contributors><authors><author>Hardisty, David J.</author><author>Appelt, Kirstin C.</author><author>Weber, Elke U.</author></authors></contributors><added-date format="utc">1531537189</added-date><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><dates><year>2013</year></dates><rec-number>220</rec-number><last-updated-date format="utc">1531537189</last-updated-date><electronic-resource-num>10.1002/bdm.1771</electronic-resource-num><volume>26</volume></record></Cite></EndNote>(Hardisty et al., 2013) might also be called impatience. Taken together, these language conventions suggest that when people anticipate future positive events, they experience both positive and negative feelings (savoring and impatience), leading to weak overall anticipatory utility, but when people contemplate future negative events, they only experience negative feelings (dread and impatience), leading to strongly negative anticipatory utility. Comparisons of anticipatory feelings and time preferences for positive and negative events are rare ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite><Author>Elster</Author><Year>1992</Year><RecNum>167</RecNum><Prefix>though see </Prefix><DisplayText>(though see Elster & Loewenstein, 1992; Molouki, Hardisty, & Caruso, 2019)</DisplayText><record><rec-number>167</rec-number><foreign-keys><key app="EN" db-id="ps05de90q9zfz1eprrsxd9entrap2v5x99e0" timestamp="0">167</key></foreign-keys><ref-type name="Book">6</ref-type><contributors><authors><author>Elster, J.</author><author>Loewenstein, George</author></authors></contributors><titles><title>Choice over time</title></titles><dates><year>1992</year></dates><pub-location>New York, NY</pub-location><publisher>Russell Sage Foundation</publisher><urls></urls></record></Cite><Cite><Author>Molouki</Author><Year>2019</Year><IDText>The sign effect in past and future discounting</IDText><record><isbn>0956-7976</isbn><titles><title>The sign effect in past and future discounting</title><secondary-title>Psychological science</secondary-title></titles><pages>1674-1695</pages><number>12</number><contributors><authors><author>Molouki, Sarah</author><author>Hardisty, David J</author><author>Caruso, Eugene M</author></authors></contributors><added-date format="utc">1586150176</added-date><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><dates><year>2019</year></dates><rec-number>628</rec-number><last-updated-date format="utc">1586150176</last-updated-date><volume>30</volume></record></Cite></EndNote>(though see Elster & Loewenstein, 1992; Molouki, Hardisty, & Caruso, 2019). Indeed, to our knowledge, the only previously conducted empirical comparisons are work by Loewenstein ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite ExcludeAuth="1"><Author>Loewenstein</Author><Year>1987</Year><RecNum>31</RecNum><DisplayText>(1987)</DisplayText><record><rec-number>31</rec-number><foreign-keys><key app="EN" db-id="ps05de90q9zfz1eprrsxd9entrap2v5x99e0" timestamp="0">31</key></foreign-keys><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author>Loewenstein, George</author></authors></contributors><titles><title>Anticipation and the Valuation of Delayed Consumption</title><secondary-title>Economic Journal</secondary-title></titles><periodical><full-title>Economic Journal</full-title></periodical><pages>666-684</pages><volume>97</volume><dates><year>1987</year></dates><urls></urls><electronic-resource-num>10.2307/2232929</electronic-resource-num></record></Cite></EndNote>(1987) which compared movie star kisses with electric shocks and work by Lovallo and Kahneman ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite ExcludeAuth="1"><Author>Lovallo</Author><Year>2000</Year><RecNum>371</RecNum><DisplayText>(2000)</DisplayText><record><rec-number>371</rec-number><foreign-keys><key app="EN" db-id="ps05de90q9zfz1eprrsxd9entrap2v5x99e0" timestamp="1339287278">371</key></foreign-keys><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author>Lovallo, Dan</author><author>Kahneman, D.</author></authors></contributors><titles><title>Living with Uncertainty: Attractiveness and Resolution Timing</title><secondary-title>Journal of Behavioral Decision Making</secondary-title></titles><periodical><full-title>Journal of Behavioral Decision Making</full-title></periodical><pages>179-190</pages><volume>13</volume><dates><year>2000</year></dates><urls></urls></record></Cite></EndNote>(2000) which compared time preferences for learning the outcome of different uncertain financial prospects. Neither of these papers attempted to measure anticipatory utility directly, but rather inferred it from other responses; for example, Loewenstein ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite ExcludeAuth="1"><Author>Loewenstein</Author><Year>1987</Year><RecNum>31</RecNum><DisplayText>(1987)</DisplayText><record><rec-number>31</rec-number><foreign-keys><key app="EN" db-id="ps05de90q9zfz1eprrsxd9entrap2v5x99e0" timestamp="0">31</key></foreign-keys><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author>Loewenstein, George</author></authors></contributors><titles><title>Anticipation and the Valuation of Delayed Consumption</title><secondary-title>Economic Journal</secondary-title></titles><periodical><full-title>Economic Journal</full-title></periodical><pages>666-684</pages><volume>97</volume><dates><year>1987</year></dates><urls></urls><electronic-resource-num>10.2307/2232929</electronic-resource-num></record></Cite></EndNote>(1987) measured willingness-to-pay and reported that delaying a kiss from a movie star three days increased its value, while delaying an electric shock increased its disvalue. He attributed this to the pleasures (and pains) of anticipation. However, this 3-day kiss result was not a statistically significant increase (in the original paper), and we ran replication studies that similarly found no increase (see the Methodological Details Appendix). A subsequent paper by Lovallo and Kahneman ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite ExcludeAuth="1"><Author>Lovallo</Author><Year>2000</Year><RecNum>371</RecNum><DisplayText>(2000)</DisplayText><record><rec-number>371</rec-number><foreign-keys><key app="EN" db-id="ps05de90q9zfz1eprrsxd9entrap2v5x99e0" timestamp="1339287278">371</key></foreign-keys><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author>Lovallo, Dan</author><author>Kahneman, D.</author></authors></contributors><titles><title>Living with Uncertainty: Attractiveness and Resolution Timing</title><secondary-title>Journal of Behavioral Decision Making</secondary-title></titles><periodical><full-title>Journal of Behavioral Decision Making</full-title></periodical><pages>179-190</pages><volume>13</volume><dates><year>2000</year></dates><urls></urls></record></Cite></EndNote>(2000) measured willingness to delay the resolution of uncertain gambles involving positives and negatives. They found that people were generally more willing to delay gambles that were more attractive, and inferred that this is driven by greater anticipatory utility for the more attractive gambles. However, similar to the Loewenstein ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite ExcludeAuth="1"><Author>Loewenstein</Author><Year>1987</Year><RecNum>31</RecNum><DisplayText>(1987)</DisplayText><record><rec-number>31</rec-number><foreign-keys><key app="EN" db-id="ps05de90q9zfz1eprrsxd9entrap2v5x99e0" timestamp="0">31</key></foreign-keys><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author>Loewenstein, George</author></authors></contributors><titles><title>Anticipation and the Valuation of Delayed Consumption</title><secondary-title>Economic Journal</secondary-title></titles><periodical><full-title>Economic Journal</full-title></periodical><pages>666-684</pages><volume>97</volume><dates><year>1987</year></dates><urls></urls><electronic-resource-num>10.2307/2232929</electronic-resource-num></record></Cite></EndNote>(1987) results, the desire to delay positives was weak (and was never statistically greater than zero). In contrast, the desire to resolve (uncertain) negatives sooner was quite strong. Likewise, several other studies have documented the power of dread PEVuZE5vdGU+PENpdGU+PEF1dGhvcj5IYXJyaXM8L0F1dGhvcj48WWVhcj4yMDEwPC9ZZWFyPjxJ
RFRleHQ+RmVlbGluZ3Mgb2YgRHJlYWQgYW5kIEludGVydGVtcG9yYWwgQ2hvaWNlPC9JRFRleHQ+
PERpc3BsYXlUZXh0PihIYXJyaXMsIDIwMTA7IFN0b3J5IGV0IGFsLiwgMjAxMzsgWWF0ZXMgJmFt
cDsgV2F0dHMsIDE5NzUpPC9EaXNwbGF5VGV4dD48cmVjb3JkPjx0aXRsZXM+PHRpdGxlPkZlZWxp
bmdzIG9mIERyZWFkIGFuZCBJbnRlcnRlbXBvcmFsIENob2ljZTwvdGl0bGU+PHNlY29uZGFyeS10
aXRsZT5Kb3VybmFsIG9mIEJlaGF2aW9yYWwgRGVjaXNpb24gTWFraW5nPC9zZWNvbmRhcnktdGl0
bGU+PHNob3J0LXRpdGxlPkZlZWxpbmdzIG9mIERyZWFkIGFuZCBJbnRlcnRlbXBvcmFsIENob2lj
ZTwvc2hvcnQtdGl0bGU+PC90aXRsZXM+PGNvbnRyaWJ1dG9ycz48YXV0aG9ycz48YXV0aG9yPkhh
cnJpcywgQ2hyaXN0aW5lIFIuPC9hdXRob3I+PC9hdXRob3JzPjwvY29udHJpYnV0b3JzPjxhZGRl
ZC1kYXRlIGZvcm1hdD0idXRjIj4xNTMxNTM3MTkwPC9hZGRlZC1kYXRlPjxyZWYtdHlwZSBuYW1l
PSJKb3VybmFsIEFydGljbGUiPjE3PC9yZWYtdHlwZT48ZGF0ZXM+PHllYXI+MjAxMDwveWVhcj48
L2RhdGVzPjxyZWMtbnVtYmVyPjIzNzwvcmVjLW51bWJlcj48bGFzdC11cGRhdGVkLWRhdGUgZm9y
bWF0PSJ1dGMiPjE1MzE1MzcxOTA8L2xhc3QtdXBkYXRlZC1kYXRlPjxlbGVjdHJvbmljLXJlc291
cmNlLW51bT4xMC4xMDAyL2JkbS43MDk8L2VsZWN0cm9uaWMtcmVzb3VyY2UtbnVtPjwvcmVjb3Jk
PjwvQ2l0ZT48Q2l0ZT48QXV0aG9yPlN0b3J5PC9BdXRob3I+PFllYXI+MjAxMzwvWWVhcj48SURU
ZXh0PkRyZWFkIGFuZCB0aGUgZGlzdmFsdWUgb2YgZnV0dXJlIHBhaW48L0lEVGV4dD48cmVjb3Jk
Pjxpc2JuPjE1NTMtNzM1ODwvaXNibj48dGl0bGVzPjx0aXRsZT5EcmVhZCBhbmQgdGhlIGRpc3Zh
bHVlIG9mIGZ1dHVyZSBwYWluPC90aXRsZT48c2Vjb25kYXJ5LXRpdGxlPlBMb1MgY29tcHV0YXRp
b25hbCBiaW9sb2d5PC9zZWNvbmRhcnktdGl0bGU+PC90aXRsZXM+PHBhZ2VzPmUxMDAzMzM1PC9w
YWdlcz48bnVtYmVyPjExPC9udW1iZXI+PGNvbnRyaWJ1dG9ycz48YXV0aG9ycz48YXV0aG9yPlN0
b3J5LCBHaWxlcyBXPC9hdXRob3I+PGF1dGhvcj5WbGFldiwgSXZheWxvPC9hdXRob3I+PGF1dGhv
cj5TZXltb3VyLCBCZW48L2F1dGhvcj48YXV0aG9yPldpbnN0b24sIEpvZWwgUzwvYXV0aG9yPjxh
dXRob3I+RGFyemksIEFyYTwvYXV0aG9yPjxhdXRob3I+RG9sYW4sIFJheW1vbmQgSjwvYXV0aG9y
PjwvYXV0aG9ycz48L2NvbnRyaWJ1dG9ycz48YWRkZWQtZGF0ZSBmb3JtYXQ9InV0YyI+MTU0NDAy
OTEyMzwvYWRkZWQtZGF0ZT48cmVmLXR5cGUgbmFtZT0iSm91cm5hbCBBcnRpY2xlIj4xNzwvcmVm
LXR5cGU+PGRhdGVzPjx5ZWFyPjIwMTM8L3llYXI+PC9kYXRlcz48cmVjLW51bWJlcj41Njc8L3Jl
Yy1udW1iZXI+PGxhc3QtdXBkYXRlZC1kYXRlIGZvcm1hdD0idXRjIj4xNTQ0MDI5MTIzPC9sYXN0
LXVwZGF0ZWQtZGF0ZT48dm9sdW1lPjk8L3ZvbHVtZT48L3JlY29yZD48L0NpdGU+PENpdGU+PEF1
dGhvcj5ZYXRlczwvQXV0aG9yPjxZZWFyPjE5NzU8L1llYXI+PElEVGV4dD5QcmVmZXJlbmNlcyBm
b3IgZGVmZXJyZWQgbG9zc2VzPC9JRFRleHQ+PHJlY29yZD48dGl0bGVzPjx0aXRsZT5QcmVmZXJl
bmNlcyBmb3IgZGVmZXJyZWQgbG9zc2VzPC90aXRsZT48c2Vjb25kYXJ5LXRpdGxlPk9yZ2FuaXph
dGlvbmFsIEJlaGF2aW9yIGFuZCBIdW1hbiBQZXJmb3JtYW5jZTwvc2Vjb25kYXJ5LXRpdGxlPjxz
aG9ydC10aXRsZT5QcmVmZXJlbmNlcyBmb3IgZGVmZXJyZWQgbG9zc2VzPC9zaG9ydC10aXRsZT48
L3RpdGxlcz48cGFnZXM+Mjk0LTMwNjwvcGFnZXM+PGNvbnRyaWJ1dG9ycz48YXV0aG9ycz48YXV0
aG9yPllhdGVzLCBGLiBKLjwvYXV0aG9yPjxhdXRob3I+V2F0dHMsIFIuIEEuPC9hdXRob3I+PC9h
dXRob3JzPjwvY29udHJpYnV0b3JzPjxhZGRlZC1kYXRlIGZvcm1hdD0idXRjIj4xNTMxNTM3MTkz
PC9hZGRlZC1kYXRlPjxyZWYtdHlwZSBuYW1lPSJKb3VybmFsIEFydGljbGUiPjE3PC9yZWYtdHlw
ZT48ZGF0ZXM+PHllYXI+MTk3NTwveWVhcj48L2RhdGVzPjxyZWMtbnVtYmVyPjUzNzwvcmVjLW51
bWJlcj48bGFzdC11cGRhdGVkLWRhdGUgZm9ybWF0PSJ1dGMiPjE1MzE1MzcxOTM8L2xhc3QtdXBk
YXRlZC1kYXRlPjxlbGVjdHJvbmljLXJlc291cmNlLW51bT4xMC4xMDE2LzAwMzAtNTA3Myg3NSk5
MDA1MS0zPC9lbGVjdHJvbmljLXJlc291cmNlLW51bT48dm9sdW1lPjEzPC92b2x1bWU+PC9yZWNv
cmQ+PC9DaXRlPjwvRW5kTm90ZT4A
ADDIN EN.CITE PEVuZE5vdGU+PENpdGU+PEF1dGhvcj5IYXJyaXM8L0F1dGhvcj48WWVhcj4yMDEwPC9ZZWFyPjxJ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ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (Harris, 2010; Story et al., 2013; Yates & Watts, 1975). Thus, these previous studies on time preferences suggest that overall anticipatory utility of positive events may be weaker or less reliable than negative anticipatory utility of negative events. Formally, we hypothesize:H1: Overall anticipatory utility for negative events is stronger than overall anticipatory utility for positive events.By “stronger”, we mean larger in absolute value. For example, if overall anticipatory utility of a future positive event is weakly positive, and overall anticipatory utility of a negative event is strongly negative, we say that the negative is “stronger” than the positive. Why might overall anticipatory utility be stronger for negatives than for positives? Previous consumer research on the anticipation of positives has found that the overall anticipatory utility of positives is comprised of two key components: the positive utility of anticipating a pleasant consumption experience, which we call savoring, and the negative utility of the wait itself ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite><Author>Nowlis</Author><Year>2004</Year><IDText>The effect of a delay between choice and consumption on consumption enjoyment</IDText><DisplayText>(Nowlis, Mandel, & McCabe, 2004)</DisplayText><record><isbn>1537-5277</isbn><titles><title>The effect of a delay between choice and consumption on consumption enjoyment</title><secondary-title>Journal of Consumer Research</secondary-title></titles><pages>502-510</pages><number>3</number><contributors><authors><author>Nowlis, Stephen M</author><author>Mandel, Naomi</author><author>McCabe, Deborah Brown</author></authors></contributors><added-date format="utc">1574751359</added-date><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><dates><year>2004</year></dates><rec-number>625</rec-number><last-updated-date format="utc">1574751359</last-updated-date><volume>31</volume></record></Cite></EndNote>(Nowlis, Mandel, & McCabe, 2004), which we call impatience. This observation matches introspection: when we think about a package arriving in the mail, we both enjoy and simultaneously dislike anticipating it. We enjoy the feeling of savoring future events and dislike the impatience of waiting, resulting in an overall anticipation utility that is near zero or weakly positive. For negative events, we dislike the feelings of anticipating the future event (dread) and also dislike the feeling of waiting for it (in some ways, we also feel “impatient” for negative events, hating the waiting). Thus, these two components combine to create strongly negative overall anticipatory utility. In this way, anticipation of negatives is both quantitatively stronger overall than anticipation of positives, and qualitatively different (with both positive and negative anticipatory feelings for future positive events, and two negative anticipatory feelings for future negative events). In summary, the overall difference in anticipatory utility of positive versus negative events is explained by the following:H2: While anticipation of positive events involves positive feelings of savoring but also negative feelings about waiting, anticipation of negative events involves negative feelings of dread and negative feelings about waiting. Anticipatory (dis)utility is not the only possible account of the results reported in previous studies of savoring and dread: for example, someone might want to delay a kiss from a movie star because he wants to brush his teeth and get a haircut, and not because he wants to expand the period of pleasurable anticipation. Therefore, it is preferable to measure anticipation utility (and its impact on time preferences) directly, and the efficacy of this method is supported by neuroimaging data. Berns and colleagues ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite ExcludeAuth="1"><Author>Berns</Author><Year>2006</Year><RecNum>122</RecNum><DisplayText>(2006)</DisplayText><record><rec-number>122</rec-number><foreign-keys><key app="EN" db-id="ps05de90q9zfz1eprrsxd9entrap2v5x99e0" timestamp="0">122</key></foreign-keys><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author>Berns, G. S.</author><author>Chappelow, J. </author><author>Cekic, M.</author><author>Zink, C. F.</author><author>Pagnoni, G.</author><author>Martin-Skurski, M. E.</author></authors></contributors><titles><title>Neurobiological Substrates of Dread</title><secondary-title>Science</secondary-title></titles><periodical><full-title>Science</full-title></periodical><pages>754-758</pages><volume>312</volume><dates><year>2006</year></dates><urls></urls><electronic-resource-num>10.1126/science.1123721</electronic-resource-num></record></Cite></EndNote>(2006) assessed the dread for electric shocks using both self-report and fMRI of brain activation during the period preceding them. As expected, those with stronger preferences for immediate shocks exhibited more activity in posterior elements of the cortical pain matrix, and self-reported greater “anticipatory anxiety”. More recently, Harris ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite ExcludeAuth="1"><Author>Harris</Author><Year>2010</Year><RecNum>166</RecNum><DisplayText>(2010)</DisplayText><record><rec-number>166</rec-number><foreign-keys><key app="EN" db-id="ps05de90q9zfz1eprrsxd9entrap2v5x99e0" timestamp="0">166</key></foreign-keys><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author>Harris, Christine R.</author></authors></contributors><titles><title>Feelings of Dread and Intertemporal Choice</title><secondary-title>Journal of Behavioral Decision Making</secondary-title></titles><periodical><full-title>Journal of Behavioral Decision Making</full-title></periodical><dates><year>2010</year></dates><urls></urls><electronic-resource-num>10.1002/bdm.709</electronic-resource-num></record></Cite></EndNote>(2010) found that this operationalization of dread helps explain temporal preferences of various types of aversive experiences. These results demonstrate the validity of self-report measures of anticipatory utility, but are silent on comparisons of positive and negative events. Indeed, demonstrations of positive anticipatory utility of positive events are rare, and we are not aware of any previously conducted studies that directly study the effects of anticipation on time preferences for positive versus negative events. This is a gap we address in the current research. Based on the literature and logic described above, we hypothesize:H3: Overall anticipatory utility mediates the effect of sign on consumer time preferences. Finally, we examine a common alternative explanation of the sign effect: differences the subjective magnitude of positive events versus negative events. Although the logic of the subjective magnitude account for the sign effect (described above) is elegant, empirical support has been lacking. Research on the magnitude effect has found that it is eliminated or reversed for negatives PEVuZE5vdGU+PENpdGU+PEF1dGhvcj5IYXJkaXN0eTwvQXV0aG9yPjxZZWFyPjIwMTM8L1llYXI+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 EN.CITE PEVuZE5vdGU+PENpdGU+PEF1dGhvcj5IYXJkaXN0eTwvQXV0aG9yPjxZZWFyPjIwMTM8L1llYXI+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 EN.CITE.DATA (Hardisty et al., 2013; Mitchell & Wilson, 2010), undercutting a key link in the logic of the subjective magnitude theory; if larger negatives are discounted more than smaller negatives, there is no reason why subjective magnitude should explain the sign effect (if anything, the opposite should be true). Thus, we hypothesize that the subjective magnitude theory does not explain the sign effect. (Likewise, neither does loss aversion, a special case of subjective magnitude theory.) H4: When controlling for the subjective magnitude of positives versus negatives, the anticipation asymmetry (H1) remains strong. All together, these hypotheses and findings shed light on the psychological processes underlying the sign effect, and also hold important implications for managers, as we demonstrate in a pair of field studies.Overview of StudiesStudies 1a and 1b employ real retirement planning advertisements and manipulate the presence (vs absence) of anticipatory messages, demonstrating their impact above and beyond mere positive versus negative framing. Study 2 employs a hypothetical scenario and demonstrates that financial negatives induce stronger anticipatory utility in consumers than matched financial positives. Study 2 also demonstrates that this asymmetry in anticipatory utility mediates the aforementioned sign effect in consumer choice. Study 3 examines real hedonic experiences (positive and negative flavored jellybeans) in the lab, and finds that these asymmetries in anticipation and time preference persist even when the positive and negative events are matched in subjective value (in other words, even when experimentally controlling for negativity bias). Furthermore, Study 3 decomposes the measurement of overall anticipatory utility into separate questions about positive and negative feelings of anticipation and feelings of waiting. Thus, the measures of anticipation used in Study 3 are more nuanced than those used in Study 2. Study 3 finds that for future positive experiences, consumers enjoy feelings of anticipation and simultaneously dislike the feeling of waiting for them, while for negative experiences, consumers dislike both the feelings of anticipation and the feelings of waiting. Put together, these feelings predict time preferences and explain the sign effect. Additional Studies A1-A12 (reported in the Methodological Details Appendix) replicate the above findings with different methods and in different contexts. Study 1: Anticipatory asymmetries influence consumer choiceStudy overviewRetirement planning is an increasingly critical issue for consumers, especially with the advent of defined contribution plans and FinTech aps and websites. Advertisements for financial planning tools can focus on retirement benefits or expenses, and may or may not emphasize anticipation. Intuitively, the prototypical retirement planning advertisement might encourage consumers to enjoy looking forward to retirement benefits by showing an older couple on a tropical beach, for example. We systematically test whether it is indeed an effective advertising strategy to focus on the anticipation of future benefits, or whether it might be more effective to focus on the (negative) anticipation of future expenses. Furthermore, we test the impact of emphasizing anticipation in the message, above and beyond mere positive versus negative framing of the issue. Based on our theory that overall anticipatory utility for positive events is weakly positive but overall anticipatory utility for negative events is strongly negative, we hypothesize that for retirement benefits, emphasizing anticipation will not substantially increase clicks on an advertisement, but for retirement expenses, emphasizing anticipation will increase clicks. Using Facebook Ad Manager’s Split Test capability (described below), we compared the effectiveness of four advertisements for a retirement calculator (provided by Vancity, a major Canadian credit union) in a 2 (sign: positive vs negative) x 2 (anticipation message: present vs absent) between-subjects design, with click-through-rate (CTR) as the dependent variable. We hypothesized that consumers would be more likely to click on the retirement planning advertisement if it focused on retirement expenses rather than retirement benefits, and that this difference (between negative and positive retirement finance frames) would be stronger when anticipation was emphasized.Materials and methodsFacebook Ad Manager (which places advertisements on Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, and other places) has a Split Test feature, which enables marketers to compare the effectiveness of different messages (i.e., different “Creative”) while holding all other factors (such as audience, placement and delivery settings) constant. Thus, this feature enables marketers to conduct experiments, or as calls them, “A/B Tests”. We created advertisements though Facebook Ads Manager with the following settings: split test on creative, 5-day test, age 19-64, location Canada (as the linked credit union was Canadian), language English, all devices, bid cap $1, optimization: link clicks, bid strategy: lowest cost. These settings hold all elements constant except for the contents of the advertisement. For statistical analyses, we used the number of people reached by each advertisement as the N. Therefore, if a person saw the same advertisement once or more than once, we treated these the same: as a single observation. We measured the number of clicks on each ad, and used the click-through-rate (CTR) as the key DV. We also examined the cost per click for each ad, which was determined by Facebook based on the effectiveness of each ad. The complete text of all experimental materials for all studies (including screenshots of all advertisements in Studies 1a and 1b) can be found in the Methodological Details Appendix.In Study 1a, we budgeted $10 per ad per day for five days (i.e., $200 total budget for the study), and 28,146 consumers viewed one of the four ads: positive-control, positive-anticipation, negative-control, or negative anticipation (described below). All four advertisements had the following elements in common: an image of money, the name of our university research lab (as the ad sponsor), the name of the credit union, the words “Free retirement calculator” in bold and “[bank name]’s Retirement Planner Ca…” underneath, and a button that said “LEARN MORE”. At the top of the ad, the positive-control and positive-anticipation advertisements said “Start building your retirement benefits today!”, while the negative-control and negative-anticipation advertisements said “Start taking care of your retirement expenses today!”. The positive-anticipation advertisement added the text “Looking forward to your retirement benefits?” in large font in the middle of the ad, while the negative-anticipation advertisement added the text “Worried about your retirement expenses?” in large font in the middle of the ad. For Study 1b, we created another set of four advertisements on Facebook, using the same design and settings as Study 1a, but with a larger ad budget ($25 per ad per day for 7 days). 90,076 consumers viewed one of the ads. All four advertisements had the following elements in common: an image of money, the name of our university research lab (as the ad sponsor), the name of the credit union, the words “Start planning your retirement today!” at the top of the ad, the words “Free retirement calculator” in bold and “[bank name]’s Retirement Planner Ca…” underneath, and a button that said “LEARN MORE”. The four ads varied in the large text presented on top of the image of money. The positive-control message read “Planning your retirement benefits?”, the negative-control message read “Planning your retirement expenses?”, the positive-anticipation message read “Savoring your retirement benefits?”, and the negative-anticipation message read “Dreading your retirement expenses?”. Results Study 1aAs shown in Figure 1a, the negative-anticipation advertisement performed the best. The click-through rate on the negative-anticipation advertisement was 4.28% (n=6,640), significantly higher than the positive-anticipation advertisement (CTR=2.93%, n=6,790), the negative-control advertisement (CTR=2.37%, n=7,052), and the positive-control advertisement (CTR=2.11%, n=7664). A 2x2 logistic regression with contrast coding found a main effect of sign (positive vs negative), b=-0.13, SE=0.04, Wald χ2(1)=12.13, p<.001, a main effect of anticipation message (present vs absent), b=0.24, SE=0.04, Wald χ2(1)=42.03, p<.001, and a marginally significant sign X anticipation interaction, b=-0.07, SE=0.04, Wald χ2(1)=3.57, p=.06. Follow-up pairwise comparisons revealed that the negative anticipation ad outperformed the positive anticipation ad, b=-0.20, SE=0.05, Wald χ2(1)=17.35, p<.001, as well as the other two ads, both p<.001. In contrast, when anticipation was not emphasized, there was no difference between the positive ad and the negative ad, b=-0.06, SE=0.06, Wald χ2(1)=1.09, p=.30.Turning to cost-per-click, the negative anticipation ad (CPC=$0.18) outperformed the positive anticipation ad (CPC=$0.25), as well as the generic negative ad (CPC=$0.30) and the generic positive ad (CPC=$0.31). Figure 1a. Percentage clicking on each of the four advertisements in Study 1a. Error bars indicate +/- one standard error. Study 1bAs shown in Figure 1b, the negative-anticipation advertisement performed the best. The click-through rate on the negatively framed, anticipation focused advertisement (CTR=3.39%, n=21,840) was the highest, outperforming the positively framed, anticipation focused advertisement (CTR=2.55%, n=22,576), the negatively frame advertisement without the anticipation message (CTR=2.76%, n=22,732), and the positively framed advertisement without anticipation message (CTR=2.94%, n=22,928). A 2x2 logistic regression with contrast coding found a main effect of sign, b=-0.06, SE=0.02, Wald χ2(1)=8.43, p<.01, no main effect of anticipation message (vs control message), b=0.02, SE=0.02, Wald χ2(1)=0.72, p=.40, and a significant sign X anticipation interaction, b=-0.09, SE=0.02, Wald χ2(1)=20.35, p<.001. The interaction indicates that while the anticipation message improved CTR for the negatively-framed ad, it actually made the CTR worse for the positively-framed ad. Follow-up pairwise comparisons revealed that the negative anticipation ad outperformed the positive anticipation ad, b=0.15, SE=0.03, Wald χ2(1)=27.45, p<.001, as well as the other two ads, both p<.01. In contrast, when anticipation was not emphasized, there was no difference between the positively framed ad and the negatively framed ad, b=0.03, SE=0.03, Wald χ2(1)=1.29, p=26.Turning to cost-per-click, the negative anticipation ad (CPC=$0.24) outperformed the positive anticipation ad (CPC=$0.30), as well as the generic negative ad (CPC=$0.30) and the generic positive ad (CPC=$0.26). Figure 1b. Percentage clicking on each of the four advertisements in Study 1b. Error bars indicate +/- one standard error. DiscussionIn a pair of field studies measuring consumer interest in a retirement calculator, we found that an advertisement emphasizing the anticipation of future expenses was the most effective, outperforming all other advertisements. These studies provide causal evidence for the influence of anticipation utility, as well as the differential impact of anticipation utility when considering a negatively frame vs positively framed future event (retirement). While these studies have excellent external validity and are useful to marketing managers, they do not control for subjective magnitude (i.e., a general negativity bias). In other words, it is possible that the negative anticipation advertisements were successful merely because they were more strongly negative (i.e., negative frame plus negative anticipation), rather than anything unique about the anticipation of future negative events. We address this in Study 2, by comparing costs and benefits of different magnitudes, and in Study 3, by individually titrating the subjective value of positive versus negative experiences for each participant (so that the positive experiences are equal or more intense than the negative experiences). Another important caveat to Studies 1a and 1b concerns the way in which Facebook structures the Split Test and optimizes advertisements; Facebook first splits the potential audience into an appropriate number of groups (for example, if comparing two advertisements, Facebook splits the audience into two groups), and then deploys one advertisement to each group. Through proprietary (black box) algorithms, Facebook optimizes each ad within each group, targeting it to those users who are most likely to click. Therefore, a Facebook Split Test of “advertisement A” versus “advertisement B” is really a test of “advertisement A plus optimization” versus “advertisement B plus optimization”. Therefore, if a particular advertisement performs better on the split test, it is unclear whether the advertisement performed better overall, or whether it optimized better (perhaps a particular consumer segment was identified that responded particularly well to the advertisement). Furthermore, the advertisements are “live” posts on and other platforms, which introduces endogeneity issues: users can “like”, comment, and share the advertisements as they are running, effectively changing the stimuli during the experiment. Therefore, while Facebook experiments offer superlative external validity (measuring naturalistic consumer behavior), the endogeneity issues mean that they should be combined with clean experimental methods (i.e., Studies 2 and 3) to establish causal mechanisms. Study 2: Anticipation asymmetries explain the sign effect in consumer choiceStudy OverviewIn this study, participants imagined shopping for a pair of eye glasses, and deciding between two different pairs. One pair included a future rebate or an equivalent delayed payment plan, as a between-subjects manipulation. We hypothesized that the delayed payment would be more impactful than the delayed rebate (replicating previous work on the sign effect). We also hypothesized that people would feel worse about anticipating paying the future bill than they would feel good about anticipating receiving the future rebate check, and that this would mediate the impact of sign on choices. Finally, we hypothesized that these results would hold when controlling for the magnitude of gains and losses (i.e., when controlling for loss aversion and negativity bias) by comparing the small magnitude ($15) payment with the larger magnitude ($30) rebate. Material and methodsThe complete experimental materials of all studies are provided in the Methodological Details Appendix. Participants first completed a basic attention check (similar to Oppenheimer, Meyvis, & Davidenko, 2009), and were only permitted to take the survey if they passed the attention check. Next, all participants read the following scenario:Imagine that you need to buy a new pair of glasses, and you have narrowed your choice down to two pairs, from two different brands. They are virtually identical in appearance and quality, but they offer different pricing plans.Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 (sign: positive vs negative) x 2 (magnitude: small vs large) between-subjects design. Participants in the large, positive condition next made the following choice: Brand A costs $122. Brand B includes a rebate. It costs $142 now, but you would receive a $30 rebate in the mail after one month. Which would you choose? Brand A: pay $122 nowBrand B: pay $142 now, and receive $30 in one monthParticipants in the small magnitude condition saw the same scenario, but with all dollar amounts halved. Participants in the negative condition saw a normatively equivalent scenario, with $30 in one month (or $15 in one month in the small magnitude condition) subtracted from both options. Note, therefore, that the choice between Brand A and Brand B is normatively equivalent in the positive and negative conditions for a rational decision maker, because the same dollar amount is subtracted from both options in the positive condition to create the negative version. Thus, those in the large, negative condition faced the following choice:Brand A includes a payment plan. It costs $122 now, and you would pay an additional bill of $30 after one month. Brand B costs $142. Which would you choose?Brand A: pay $122 now, and pay $30 in one monthBrand B: pay $142 nowNext, all participants rated their feelings about the future rebate or bill included in Brand A or Brand B (as appropriate to their experimental condition) on several dimensions. First, they rated the experience utility of the future event, with the questions “Imagine [receiving a check for $30] [paying a bill of $30] in one month. Would experiencing this event be pleasurable or displeasurable?” (answering “Pleasurable experience” or “Displeasurable experience”) and “Imagine receiving a check for $30 [paying a bill of $30] in one month. How strongly would experiencing this event affect your feelings at that time?” (answering on a sliding scale labeled with 0=“Not at all”, 50=“Strongly” and 100=“Extremely”). The wording and scale design (unipolar scale rather than bipolar) follow the recommended practice for comparing gains and losses ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite><Author>McGraw</Author><Year>2010</Year><IDText>Comparing gains and losses</IDText><DisplayText>(McGraw, Larsen, Kahneman, & Schkade, 2010)</DisplayText><record><titles><title>Comparing gains and losses</title><secondary-title>Psychological Science</secondary-title><short-title>Comparing gains and losses</short-title></titles><pages>1438-1445</pages><contributors><authors><author>McGraw, A. P.</author><author>Larsen, J. T.</author><author>Kahneman, D.</author><author>Schkade, D. A.</author></authors></contributors><added-date format="utc">1531537191</added-date><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><dates><year>2010</year></dates><rec-number>341</rec-number><last-updated-date format="utc">1531537191</last-updated-date><electronic-resource-num>10.1177/0956797610381504</electronic-resource-num><volume>21</volume></record></Cite></EndNote>(McGraw, Larsen, Kahneman, & Schkade, 2010). Next, participants rated the anticipation utility, with the parallel questions “Imagine expecting to receive a check for $30 [pay a bill of $30] in one month. If this event were one month away, would the anticipation be psychologically pleasurable or displeasurable? In other words, how would you feel while waiting for it?” (answering “Like the feeling of waiting” or “Dislike the feeling of waiting”) and “Imagine expecting to receive a check for $30 [pay a bill of $30] in one month. How strongly would anticipating this event affect your feelings while waiting for the event?” (0=“Not at all”, 50=“Strongly” and 100=“Extremely”). Finally, participants completed demographics. ResultsChoicesIn both the “positive” condition and the “negative” condition, Brand A was better in the short run, but pricier in the long run, while Brand B was more expensive up front, but cheaper in the long run. Therefore, Brand A can be considered the “high discount rate” (or “shortsighted”) choice. In other words, without the sign effect, we would expect consumers to choose Brand A equally often in the positive condition and the negative condition. In fact, however, participants chose this “high discount rate” option more often in the large positive (56%) and small positive (42%) conditions than in the large negative (10%) and small negative (8%) conditions, replicating the sign effect. A logistic regression with sign and magnitude predicting choice confirmed a main effect of sign, b=2.11, SE=0.59, Wald χ2(1)=12.69, p<.001, no effect of magnitude, b=0.25, SE=0.70, Wald χ2(1)=0.12, p=.73, and no interaction, b=0.31, SE=0.81, Wald χ2(1)=0.14, p=.71.Anticipatory utilityWe computed an overall anticipatory utility score for each participant by coding their “like” or “dislike” of the anticipation as +1 or -1, and then multiplying by the continuous 0-100 measure, yielding an overall score of -100 to +100. Anticipation of the future $15 bill (M=-22.14, SD=42.77, SE=6.11) and $30 bill (M=-18.59, SD=41.10, SE=5.87) was decidedly negative, yet anticipation of the future $15 check (M=4.10, SD=49.17, SE=6.82) and $30 check (M=-10.92, SD=53.23, SE=7.53) was near zero. To statistically compare the strength of anticipation of the positive events (the checks) versus the negative events (the bills), we reverse scored the negative events, and compared the means with a 2x2 ANOVA. This confirmed a main effect of sign, F(1,196)=12.85, p<.001, ηp2=.06, no significant effect of magnitude, F(1,196)=1.96, p=.16, ηp2=.01, and no interaction, F(1,196)=0.75, p=.39, ηp2=.00. In summary, overall anticipatory utility for the (negative) future payments was stronger than overall anticipatory utility for the (positive) future rebates. MediationIn a logistic regression with sign (future bill vs future rebate) and anticipatory utility (reverse scored for negatives) predicting choice, anticipatory utility was a significant predictor (b=-0.02, SE=0.004, Wald χ2=17.49, p<.001), and the effect of sign was reduced but still significant (b=2.05, SE= 0.42, Wald χ2=23.91, p<.001). An indirect effect analysis with 5000 bootstrap samples ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite><Author>Shrout</Author><Year>2002</Year><IDText>Mediation in Experimental and Nonexperimental Studies: New Procedures and Recommendations</IDText><DisplayText>(Shrout & Bolger, 2002)</DisplayText><record><titles><title>Mediation in Experimental and Nonexperimental Studies: New Procedures and Recommendations</title><secondary-title>Psychological Methods</secondary-title><short-title>Mediation in Experimental and Nonexperimental Studies: New Procedures and Recommendations</short-title></titles><pages>422-445</pages><contributors><authors><author>Shrout, Patrick E</author><author>Bolger, Niall</author></authors></contributors><added-date format="utc">1531537192</added-date><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><dates><year>2002</year></dates><rec-number>457</rec-number><last-updated-date format="utc">1531537192</last-updated-date><electronic-resource-num>10.1037//1082-989x.7.4.422</electronic-resource-num><volume>7</volume></record></Cite></EndNote>(Shrout & Bolger, 2002) found that the effect of sign on choices was (partially) mediated by anticipation utility (b=.38, SE=.14, CI95 [.17, .74]). In other words, the mediation analysis suggests that participants chose the “shortsighted” Brand A more often in the rebate condition than in the payment condition because participants dreaded the payment more than they enjoyed anticipating the rebate. Alternative ExplanationsNext, we tested for whether our observed results for sign, anticipation, and choice were merely due to differences in the subjective magnitude of positive versus negative outcomes (i.e., loss aversion), in two ways. The first way was to include experience utility (reverse scored for negatives) in the analyses above. In every case, the key tests remained significant, p=.001 or lower. This means that even when we included the self-reported magnitude of the future events in our analyses, we observed the same results for anticipation and time preference.The second way we controlled for subject magnitude was to compare choices and anticipation the $15 “negative” condition with the $30 “positive” condition, thus building in a 2:1 magnitude ratio to correct for loss aversion. ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite><Author>Neumann</Author><Year>2014</Year><IDText>A meta-analysis of loss aversion in product choice</IDText><Prefix>A meta-analysis of loss aversion in consumer product choice estimated the ratio or “lambda” at 1.73 to 1`, </Prefix><Suffix>`, so our 2 to 1 ratio is an overcorrection.</Suffix><DisplayText>(A meta-analysis of loss aversion in consumer product choice estimated the ratio or “lambda” at 1.73 to 1, Neumann & B?ckenholt, 2014, so our 2 to 1 ratio is an overcorrection.)</DisplayText><record><isbn>0022-4359</isbn><titles><title>A meta-analysis of loss aversion in product choice</title><secondary-title>Journal of Retailing</secondary-title></titles><pages>182-197</pages><number>2</number><contributors><authors><author>Neumann, Nico</author><author>B?ckenholt, Ulf</author></authors></contributors><added-date format="utc">1584236711</added-date><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><dates><year>2014</year></dates><rec-number>627</rec-number><last-updated-date format="utc">1584236711</last-updated-date><volume>90</volume></record></Cite></EndNote>(A meta-analysis of loss aversion in consumer product choice estimated the ratio or “lambda” at 1.73 to 1, Neumann & B?ckenholt, 2014, so our 2 to 1 ratio is an overcorrection.) Again, when making this comparison between the small loss (-$15) condition and the large gain (+$30) condition, all the key tests remained significant, p=.002 or lower. While these controls for subjective magnitude are somewhat crude, we controlled for the subjective utility of positives versus negatives in a more precise and rigorous way in Study 3, below. DiscussionOur results indicate that consumers do not have strong anticipatory utility when anticipating a future $15 or $30 rebate, but decidedly dislike anticipating a future $15 or $30 bill. Thus, they are more likely to choose the pricier glasses (Brand A) when this involves neglecting a future rebate (i.e., foregoing the rebate included in Brand B) than when it involves incurring a future bill. Taken together, our findings support the hypothesis that the sign effect in intertemporal choice is partly driven by differences in the overall anticipatory utility. Furthermore, we find that these asymmetries in choice and anticipation are not driven by differences in the subjective magnitude of positives and negatives. A potential shortcoming of Study 2 is that it relies on self-reported ratings of subjective magnitude for hypothetical consumption. In Study 3, we experimentally control for subjective magnitude of positives versus negatives by individually matching the subjective magnitude of real positive versus negative events for each participant. A second shortcoming of Study 2 is that it only asks a single question to measure overall anticipatory utility, and so cannot test the “mixed” anticipation account that we proposed in the introduction. Therefore, in Study 3, we collected separate measures for 1) positive and negative feelings of anticipation and 2) positive and negative feelings about waiting ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite><Author>Nowlis</Author><Year>2004</Year><IDText>The effect of a delay between choice and consumption on consumption enjoyment</IDText><Prefix>consistent with </Prefix><DisplayText>(consistent with Nowlis et al., 2004)</DisplayText><record><isbn>1537-5277</isbn><titles><title>The effect of a delay between choice and consumption on consumption enjoyment</title><secondary-title>Journal of Consumer Research</secondary-title></titles><pages>502-510</pages><number>3</number><contributors><authors><author>Nowlis, Stephen M</author><author>Mandel, Naomi</author><author>McCabe, Deborah Brown</author></authors></contributors><added-date format="utc">1574751359</added-date><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><dates><year>2004</year></dates><rec-number>625</rec-number><last-updated-date format="utc">1574751359</last-updated-date><volume>31</volume></record></Cite></EndNote>(consistent with Nowlis et al., 2004), which we combine into an overall anticipatory utility score for each participant. Study 3: Anticipating consumption of matched positive vs negative eventsStudy OverviewThis study compared anticipation and time preferences for matched positive versus negative consumption experiences. Each participant first completed a “titration” procedure to identify a matched positive/negative jellybean pair for that participant, where the positive flavor was equal or stronger in intensity as compared with the negative flavor. Next, participants were randomly assigned to eat either the positive flavor or negative flavor. Participants rated their predicted pleasure and displeasure for eating the jellybean, their pleasurable and displeasurable feelings of anticipation for the jellybean, and their pleasurable and displeasurable feelings about waiting for the jellybean. Next, participants made a (real) decision about whether to eat the jellybean immediately or in 15 minutes. Participants subsequently completed other studies as filler, ate the jellybean at the chosen time, and finally answered demographic questions. We hypothesized that 1) participants would choose to eat positive flavored jellybeans immediately more often than they would choose to postpone (equivalent) negative flavored jellybeans, 2) feelings of anticipation would be stronger for negative flavors than for positive flavors, 3) feelings about waiting would be negative for both positive and negative jellybean flavors, 4) overall anticipatory utility (defined as feelings of anticipation plus feelings about waiting) would be stronger for negative flavors than positive flavors, and 5) overall anticipatory utility would predict time preferences and mediate the effect of sign on time preferences. Material and methods171 undergraduates (56% female, mean age 20.02) at a large university were recruited for “Jellybean Tasting and Other Studies” in exchange for course credit. When participants entered the lab, they could see jellybeans on the table in clear plastic bags. The jellybeans were a selection of Jelly Belly specialty flavors. On the consent form, participants read “This first study involves eating jelly beans, whose flavors may range from delicious to disgusting. As always, participation is voluntary. Are you willing to eat a jelly bean for this next study?” Three participants answered “no” and were exempted from the study, leaving 168 participants. Titration. Next, each participant completed the titration procedure to identify a “matched" positive/negative jellybean flavor pair for that participant. A brief summary of the titration procedure: participants first ranked all 20 jellybean flavors, and then answered a series of questions about whether they would accept a 50/50 gamble to eat one of two flavors. The flavors in these gambles were adjusted until a positive/negative pair was identified where the positive flavor was equal or slightly better than the negative flavor. The details of the titration procedure are as follows; participants first saw 20 jellybean flavors (listed in Table 1) listed in random order. For each flavor, participants indicated whether “tasting the flavor would be a positive experience or negative experience.” On the following page, they were asked to rank their preference for all 20 flavors, ordered from best to worst. Next, read the instruction “Consider the following pair: 50% chance to eat a [Chocolate Donut with Sprinkles] flavored jellybean and 50% chance to eat a [Vomit] flavored jellybean. Would you take this gamble?” The flavors in brackets varied from trial to trial, but always paired a positive flavor with a negative flavor. In the first question, the pair was the best positive flavor with the worst negative flavor. If participants said “yes” to this first pairing, the second question used a worse-ranked positive flavor, and if participants said “no” to this first pairing, the second question used a better-ranked negative flavor. This procedure continued, offering worse and worse positive flavors (or better and better negative flavors), until the participant changed their answer (from yes to no, or no to yes, as appropriate). Participants were assigned to the last gamble that they would accept. Therefore, for each participant, a roughly equivalent jellybean pair was identified, with a positive flavor that was as good or better than the corresponding negative flavor was bad. Thus, this procedure is a conservative control for differences in subjective magnitude. In some cases, however, participants “maxed out” the scale and never crossed over from yes to no (or no to yes). 5% of participants maxed out the scale by responding “yes” to every pair, and 13% of participants maxed out the scale by responding “no” to every pair. When this happened, they were assigned their worst pair if they always said yes, or their best pair if they always said no, as appropriate. We include these participants in the analyses below, and the overall pattern and significance of results do not change if they are excluded. Next, participants were randomly assigned to eat either the positive flavor or the negative flavor. The exact flavor was selected based on the results of the titration procedure (described above), such that each participant consumed the flavor closest to their indifference point, with the positive flavor being equal-to or stronger-than the negative flavor. Table 1. Jellybean flavors used in Study 3, the percentage of participants that classified each flavor as positive (vs negative), and the average preference ranking of each flavor (out of 20). Flavor% PositiveAverage RankWatermelon Jellybean97%4.54Blueberry Jellybean97%4.6Tutti-Fruitti (mixed fruit) Jellybean95%4.67Green Apple Jellybean95%4.77Lemon Jellybean91%5.39Strawberry Iced Donut Jellybean88%5.91Marshmallow Jellybean83%6.43Chocolate Donut with Sprinkles Jellybean83%6.58Candyfloss Jellybean80%7.35Banana Jellybean75%7.4Grass Jellybean22%12.45Sausage Jellybean13%12.81Black Pepper Jellybean8%12.9Soap Jellybean10%13.56Dirt Jellybean1%15.62Earthworm Jellybean2%16.11Booger Jellybean2%16.36Earwax Jellybean2%16.83Rotten Egg Jellybean2%17.21Vomit Jellybean2%18.52Predicted experience. On the next page, participants read “You have been assigned to eat the following flavor: [Dirt]. You will either eat the jellybean now, or wait 15 min before you eat the jellybean.” Next, participants answered two questions to measure their predicted pleasure and displeasure from eating the jellybean, with the questions “How pleasurable or happy do you think the experience of eating the [Dirt] jellybean will be?” and “How displeasurable or unhappy do you think the experience of eating the [Dirt] jellybean will be?” They answered each question by clicking on a line (of length 100) labeled with “not at all” on the left and “extremely pleasurable or happy experience” (or “extremely displeasurable or unhappy experience”) on the right. Feelings about Anticipation and Waiting. Next, participants answered two questions to measure their anticipatory feelings, with the questions “How pleasurable or happy is the anticipation of the [Dirt] jellybean, that you feel right now?” and “How displeasurable or unhappy is the anticipation of the [Dirt] jellybean, that you feel right now?” They answered each question by clicking on a line (of length 100) labeled with “not at all” on the left and “extremely pleasurable or happy anticipation” (or “extremely displeasurable or unhappy anticipation”) on the right. Next, participants answered two questions to measure their feelings related to waiting, with the questions “How pleasurable or happy is the feeling of waiting for the [Dirt] jellybean, that you feel right now?” and “How displeasurable or unhappy is the feeling of waiting for the [Dirt] jellybean, that you feel right now?” They answered each question by clicking on a line (of length 100) labeled with “not at all” on the left and “extremely pleasurable or happy feeling of waiting” (or “extremely displeasurable or unhappy feeling of waiting”) on the right. Time Preference. Next, participants made a choice about when to eat the jellybean, with the question “In fact, you can choose when to eat the jellybean: either now, or in about 15 minutes. (The overall length of the study is fixed, so your choice will not influence the length of the study.) Which do you choose?” Participants chose between “Eat it now” and “Eat it in about 15 min.” Other Measures. Next, participants either completed a filler task (of 15 min length) or ate the jellybean, depending on their choice. When they ate the jellybean, they rated the experience, with the questions “How happy or pleasurable was the experience of eating this jellybean?” and “How unhappy or displeasurable was the experience of eating this jellybean?” They answered each question by clicking on a line (of length 100) labeled with “not at all” on the left and “extremely like the experience of eating” (or “extremely dislike the experience of eating”) on the right. (These questions were not relevant to our hypotheses, so they will not be discussed any further.) Finally, participants indicated their gender, age, and ethnicity.ResultsTitration. Participants’ classifications of each flavor as positive versus negative are listed in Table 1, and largely met expectations, with each flavor classified as expected by at least 75% of participants. Likewise, the flavor rankings came out as expected, with the positive flavors ranked between 4.54 and 7.40 (out of 20), and the negative flavors ranked between 12.45 and 18.52 (out of 20). Predicted experience. After the titration procedure, participants predicted their enjoyment of their assigned positive or negative flavor. As summarized in Table 2, participants believed that the experience of eating the positive flavor would be pleasurable (and not very displeasurable), and that the negative flavor would be displeasurable (and not very pleasurable). We subtracted the displeasurable score from the pleasurable score for each flavor to create a single, overall predicted experience rating, and reverse scored the ratings of the negative flavor to enable direct comparisons of flavor intensity between positive and negative. This showed that the experience of eating the positive flavor (mean=65.10, SD=25.49), was predicted to be more intense than the negative flavor (mean=52.44, SD=33.59), t(166)=2.75, p=.01, d=0.42. Thus, the titration procedure identified positive flavors that were a bit stronger than the negative flavors. As such, the following analyses of anticipation and time preference conservatively control for any negativity bias in the predicted experience of eating the jellybeans. Table 2.Mean ratings (with SDs in parentheses) of predicted enjoyment, feelings about anticipation, feelings about waiting, and combined anticipatory utility (reverse scored for negative flavors) in Study 3. Positive FlavorsNegative FlavorsPositiveNegativePositiveNegativePredicted experience utility73.88 (17.93)8.79 (14.52)16.92 (16.22)69.36 (23.11)Feelings about anticipation54.82 (22.15)13.39 (18.11)16.29 (16.59)68.68 (22.49)Feelings about waiting32.20 (23.28)42.33 (27.74)20.54 (18.83)61.51 (27.88)Feelings about Anticipation and Waiting.As summarized in Table 2, when considering a positive flavor, participants enjoyed the feeling of anticipation (i.e., savoring), but did not enjoy the feeling of waiting (i.e., impatience). When considering a negative flavor, participants enjoyed neither the anticipation (dread) nor the feeling of waiting (impatience). We compared feelings about anticipation by subtracting negative anticipation feelings from positive anticipation feelings for each participant, and reverse scoring the negative flavor scores. This revealed that participants disliked anticipating the negative flavors, mean=52.39, SD=32.36, more strongly than they enjoyed anticipating the positive flavors, mean=41.43, SD=27.99, t(166)=2.34, p=.02, d=0.36. Next, we compared feelings about waiting by subtracting negative feelings about waiting from positive feelings about waiting for each participant, and reverse scoring the negative flavor scores. This revealed that participants disliked the feeling of waiting for the negative flavors, mean=40.93, SD=36.33, more strongly than they disliked the feeling of waiting for the positive flavors, mean=-10.13, SD=41.49, t(166)=8.49, p<.001, d=1.10.Finally, we computed an overall measure of anticipatory utility for each participant by summing the anticipatory feelings with the feelings of waiting, and reverse scoring the negative flavors. This showed that overall anticipatory utility was stronger (i.e., more strongly negative) for negative flavors, mean=93.37, SD=62.22, than for positive flavors, mean=31.30, SD=52.08, t(166)=7.01, p<.001, d=0.95. Time Preference. Participants chose to have positive flavors immediately (55%) more often than they chose to delay negative flavors (24%), a significant difference with a proportion test, z=4.33, p<.001, replicating the sign effect. Mediation. The measure of overall anticipatory utility was correlated with time preferences, r=-.53, p<.001, as expected. Likewise, in a logistic regression with sign (i.e., positive versus negative flavor) and overall anticipatory utility predicting time preferences, overall anticipatory utility remained significant, b=-.022, SE=0.004, p<.001, while sign dropped to non-significance, b=.200, SE=0.202, p=.32. An indirect effect analysis with 5000 bootstrap samples ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite><Author>Shrout</Author><Year>2002</Year><IDText>Mediation in Experimental and Nonexperimental Studies: New Procedures and Recommendations</IDText><DisplayText>(Shrout & Bolger, 2002)</DisplayText><record><titles><title>Mediation in Experimental and Nonexperimental Studies: New Procedures and Recommendations</title><secondary-title>Psychological Methods</secondary-title><short-title>Mediation in Experimental and Nonexperimental Studies: New Procedures and Recommendations</short-title></titles><pages>422-445</pages><contributors><authors><author>Shrout, Patrick E</author><author>Bolger, Niall</author></authors></contributors><added-date format="utc">1531537192</added-date><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><dates><year>2002</year></dates><rec-number>457</rec-number><last-updated-date format="utc">1531537192</last-updated-date><electronic-resource-num>10.1037//1082-989x.7.4.422</electronic-resource-num><volume>7</volume></record></Cite></EndNote>(Shrout & Bolger, 2002) found that the effect of sign on time preferences was mediated by overall anticipatory utility (b=0.11, SE=0.02, CI95 [0.08, 0.16]). DiscussionWhen participants considered a positively flavored jellybean, they somewhat enjoyed the feeling of anticipating it, but also did not like the feeling of waiting for it, and most often chose to consume it immediately. When participants considered a matched negatively flavored jellybean, they did not enjoy anticipating it nor the feeling of waiting for it, and most often chose to consume it immediately rather than delay it. Overall ratings of anticipatory utility (defined as feelings of anticipation plus feelings about waiting) predicted time preferences. Furthermore, the effect of sign on time preferences was mediated by overall anticipatory utility. In other words, whereas positive events evoked a mixed anticipatory experience (both “savoring” and “impatience”), negative events evoked mainly negative anticipatory feelings (“dread”), and this asymmetry in anticipation explained consumer time preferences for positive versus negative events. These findings 1) replicate the Study 2 results, with real consumption experiences, 2) conclusively demonstrate that the effect of anticipatory utility on time preferences is not merely due to differences in subjective magnitude, and 3) provide more depth of understanding of the processes underlying time preferences for positive versus negative consumption experiences. Summary of Additional StudiesWe conducted twelve additional studies, A1-A12, as reported in the Methodological Details Appendix. Studies A1 and A2 conceptually replicated Loewenstein (1987) and found that people are not willing to pay more for a kiss from a movie star in three days than a kiss from a movie star today, consistent with our other findings on the generally weaker power of overall anticipatory utility for positive events. Studies A3 and A4 found that anticipation utility predicts consumer time preferences and mediates the effect of sign on time preferences, in both simple financial situations (Study A3) and product choice situations (Study A4). Studies A5 and A9 found that these asymmetries in anticipation and time preference broadly held (with some variations) across 20 different consumption events. Studies A6 and A8 control for subjective magnitude (i.e., negativity bias) in different ways and find that above findings still hold. Studies A7, A10, A11, and A12 show the same pattern of anticipation and time preference for real hedonic events (jellybeans, photos of puppies, and photos of cockroaches). Study A11 also shows that when making intertemporal choices on behalf of another person (and anticipation is therefore eliminated), the sign effect is eliminated, providing further evidence for the critical role of anticipation utility for driving the sign effect. Study A12 is exploratory and finds some evidence that differences in the anticipation of positive versus negative events are partly driven by difference in mental endowment (we quickly integrate future positives into our reference point and feel their absence as a loss, but we do not as readily integrate future negatives) and differences in implicit uncertainty (both future positives and future negatives are inherently uncertain, which is unpleasant, contributing to a preference for sooner positives and future negatives). ConclusionsThe present research demonstrates that the overall sum of anticipations of negative consumption events is negative and strong, in contrast to the overall sum of anticipations of positive consumption events, which is positive but less strong. In turn, this asymmetry in anticipation leads to an asymmetry in time preference: consumers want to expedite positive events more strongly than they want to delay negative events. This has important implications for marketing managers, as many consumer intertemporal choices (such as retirement planning) can be framed in positive or negative terms. A future “savings” versus a future “reduced cost” is merely a matter of framing. Furthermore, these results (partly) explain the “sign effect” in intertemporal choice: consumers want to accelerate positives more strongly than they want to postpone negatives because the psychological cost of anticipating bad things outstrips the pleasure of anticipating good things. More precisely, anticipation of negatives is a mainly negative experience (combining dread and the negative feelings of waiting), whereas anticipation of positives is a mixed anticipatory experience combining (positive) savoring with (negative) feelings of impatience. This qualitative difference in anticipation is robust to differences in magnitude. Note, therefore, that our studies do not support the subjective magnitude account of the sign effect (and by extension, do not support a loss aversion account of the sign effect): after controlling for subjective magnitude in Study 2 and Study 3, the sign effect was still strong. With that said, we do find that anticipation of negative things is stronger and more impactful than the anticipation of positive things, and as such our findings are compatible with an extended negativity bias ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite><Author>Baumeister</Author><Year>2001</Year><IDText>Bad is stronger than good</IDText><DisplayText>(Baumeister et al., 2001; Rozin & Royzman, 2001)</DisplayText><record><isbn>1939-1552</isbn><titles><title>Bad is stronger than good</title><secondary-title>Review of general psychology</secondary-title></titles><pages>323</pages><number>4</number><contributors><authors><author>Baumeister, Roy F</author><author>Bratslavsky, Ellen</author><author>Finkenauer, Catrin</author><author>Vohs, Kathleen D</author></authors></contributors><added-date format="utc">1544029122</added-date><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><dates><year>2001</year></dates><rec-number>559</rec-number><last-updated-date format="utc">1544029122</last-updated-date><volume>5</volume></record></Cite><Cite><Author>Rozin</Author><Year>2001</Year><IDText>Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion</IDText><record><isbn>1088-8683</isbn><titles><title>Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion</title><secondary-title>Personality and social psychology review</secondary-title><short-title>Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion</short-title></titles><pages>296-320</pages><number>4</number><contributors><authors><author>Rozin, Paul</author><author>Royzman, Edward B</author></authors></contributors><added-date format="utc">1531537192</added-date><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><dates><year>2001</year></dates><rec-number>437</rec-number><last-updated-date format="utc">1531537192</last-updated-date><volume>5</volume></record></Cite></EndNote>(Baumeister et al., 2001; Rozin & Royzman, 2001): essentially, the negativity bias is stronger for anticipation than for predicted subjective experience. One caveat is that the sign effect is strong and robust, and likely therefore driven by multiple psychological processes. In this paper, we tested the anticipation asymmetry and subjective magnitude theories, but another theory, “asymmetric time perception”, offers a complementary explanation for the sign effect in consumer choice. According to this theory, future negative events “loom closer” than future positive events ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite><Author>Bilgin</Author><Year>2010</Year><IDText>Looming losses in future time perception</IDText><DisplayText>(Bilgin & LeBoeuf, 2010)</DisplayText><record><isbn>0022-2437</isbn><titles><title>Looming losses in future time perception</title><secondary-title>Journal of Marketing Research</secondary-title></titles><pages>520-530</pages><number>3</number><contributors><authors><author>Bilgin, Baler</author><author>LeBoeuf, Robyn A</author></authors></contributors><added-date format="utc">1544029123</added-date><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><dates><year>2010</year></dates><rec-number>561</rec-number><last-updated-date format="utc">1544029123</last-updated-date><volume>47</volume></record></Cite></EndNote>(Bilgin & LeBoeuf, 2010). Because subjective time perception is a critical component in discounting ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite><Author>Zauberman</Author><Year>2009</Year><IDText>Discounting Time and Time Discounting: Subjective Time Perception and Intertemporal Preferences</IDText><DisplayText>(Zauberman, Kim, Malkoc, & Bettman, 2009)</DisplayText><record><titles><title>Discounting Time and Time Discounting: Subjective Time Perception and Intertemporal Preferences</title><secondary-title>Journal of Marketing Research</secondary-title><short-title>Discounting Time and Time Discounting: Subjective Time Perception and Intertemporal Preferences</short-title></titles><pages>543-556</pages><number>4</number><contributors><authors><author>Zauberman, G.</author><author>Kim, B. K.</author><author>Malkoc, S. A.</author><author>Bettman, James R.</author></authors></contributors><added-date format="utc">1531537193</added-date><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><dates><year>2009</year></dates><rec-number>539</rec-number><last-updated-date format="utc">1531537193</last-updated-date><volume>46</volume></record></Cite></EndNote>(Zauberman, Kim, Malkoc, & Bettman, 2009), this explains the sign effect. In other words: negative events feel closer to the present, and are therefore valued more, but positive events feel farther away, and are therefore valued less. Thus, differences in the subjective temporal distance of positive versus negative events may also explain differences in time preferences these events. Future research could compare the effect sizes, complementarities, and interactions between the anticipation utility and time perception accounts of the sign effect. The research reported here, which established that the sign effect in consumer choice is driven by anticipatory asymmetries, is supported by work finding that the sign effect is eliminated in past discounting ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite><Author>Molouki</Author><Year>2019</Year><IDText>The sign effect in past and future discounting</IDText><DisplayText>(Molouki et al., 2019)</DisplayText><record><isbn>0956-7976</isbn><titles><title>The sign effect in past and future discounting</title><secondary-title>Psychological science</secondary-title></titles><pages>1674-1695</pages><number>12</number><contributors><authors><author>Molouki, Sarah</author><author>Hardisty, David J</author><author>Caruso, Eugene M</author></authors></contributors><added-date format="utc">1586150176</added-date><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><dates><year>2019</year></dates><rec-number>628</rec-number><last-updated-date format="utc">1586150176</last-updated-date><volume>30</volume></record></Cite></EndNote>(Molouki et al., 2019). This supports our anticipatory utility account: just as anticipation is eliminated for past events, so too is the sign effect. ImplicationsTaken together, our results help explain the paucity of consumer demand for delayed rewards including energy savings, rebates, and retirement benefits, and also show how managers can strategically use the anticipation asymmetry to increase future-oriented consumer decisions: by reframing future events as negatives and emphasizing that immediate action can help avoid worry. For example, when consumers are considering an energy efficient upgrade, appeals to look forward to future energy savings are not as effective as promises of avoiding future costs (as demonstrated in Methodological Details Appendix Study A3). Similar principles can be applied to long-term investments (Study 1), health decisions, sustainability decisions, and other long-term choices. There has been little inquiry into the role of individual variations in anticipation in producing variance in time preferences, and this could be a fruitful topic for future research. We predict, for example, that credit is more attractive to those who feel less dread at the thought of owing money. It is less clear whether the intensity of pleasurable anticipation would foster or corrode fiscal restraint, since people can look forward to near events (a new car) or distant ones (retirement). Another caveat regarding the current research is that it assessed participants' predictions of anticipation utility (in Study 2), or current feelings of anticipation while deciding (in Study 3), but did not measure actual anticipation while waiting. We suspect that such simulations or current feelings while deciding may yield poor predictions of how much pleasurable anticipation will actually be experienced over time. Some types of events might be difficult to avoid attending to (e.g., breaking up with someone), while others that we might report intensely dreading (e.g., a visit to the dentist) may not remain top of mind, as attested to by missed appointments to things we would rather get over. In other words, the anticipation asymmetry we measure in the present research could be an affective forecasting error on the part of consumers. Expectations and violations of expectations yield further complexities, for both positives and negatives PEVuZE5vdGU+PENpdGU+PEF1dGhvcj5TaGVsbGV5PC9BdXRob3I+PFllYXI+MTk5MzwvWWVhcj48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 EN.CITE PEVuZE5vdGU+PENpdGU+PEF1dGhvcj5TaGVsbGV5PC9BdXRob3I+PFllYXI+MTk5MzwvWWVhcj48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 EN.CITE.DATA (Benzion, Rapoport, & Yagil, 1989; Chan & Mukhopadhyay, 2010; Shelley, 1993). Each of us has enjoyed anticipating the arrival of something we expect in a week, yet experienced impatience if it is delayed an additional week (even though we might well have enjoyed pleasurable anticipation for a full two weeks if that was our expectation). The hedonic dynamics of anticipation for positives versus negatives are beyond the scope of this paper, but remain a fruitful area of inquiry for future consumer research. References ADDIN EN.REFLIST al-Nowaihi, A., & Dhami, S. (2009). A value function that explains the magnitude and sign effects. Economic Letters, 105, 224-229. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2009.08.004Bartels, D. M., & Urminsky, O. (2011). On intertemporal selfishness: How the perceived instability of identity underlies impatient consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(1), 182-198. Baucells, M., & Bellezza, S. (2016). Temporal profiles of instant utility during anticipation, event, and recall. Management Science, 63(3), 729-748. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of general psychology, 5(4), 323. Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., Nathan DeWall, C., & Zhang, L. (2007). How emotion shapes behavior: Feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather than direct causation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 167-203. Benzion, U., Rapoport, A., & Yagil, J. (1989). Discount rates inferred from decisions: An experimental study. Management Science, 35(3), 270-284. doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.3.270Berns, G. S., Chappelow, J., Cekic, M., Zink, C. F., Pagnoni, G., & Martin-Skurski, M. E. (2006). Neurobiological Substrates of Dread. Science, 312, 754-758. doi:10.1126/science.1123721Bilgin, B., & LeBoeuf, R. A. (2010). Looming losses in future time perception. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(3), 520-530. Chan, E., & Mukhopadhyay, A. (2010). When choosing makes a good thing better: Temporal variations in the valuation of hedonic consumption. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(3), 497-507. Chun, H. H., Diehl, K., & MacInnis, D. J. (2017). Savoring an upcoming experience affects ongoing and remembered consumption enjoyment. Journal of Marketing, 81(3), 96-110. DeVoe, S. E., & House, J. (2012). Time, money, and happiness: How does putting a price on time affect our ability to smell the roses? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(2), 466-474. Elster, J., & Loewenstein, G. (1992). Choice over time. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Frederick, S., & Loewenstein, G. (2008). Conflicting motives in evaluations of sequences. Journal of Risk & Uncertainty, 37, 221-235. doi:10.1007/s11166-008-9051-zFrederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O'Donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 351–401. doi:10.1257/002205102320161311Hardisty, D. J., Appelt, K. C., & Weber, E. U. (2013). Good or bad, we want it now: Fixed-cost present bias for gains and losses explains magnitude asymmetries in intertemporal choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26, 348-361. doi:10.1002/bdm.1771Hardisty, D. J., & Weber, E. U. (2009). Discounting Future Green: Money Versus the Environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3), 329-340. doi:10.1037/a0016433Harris, C. R. (2010). Feelings of Dread and Intertemporal Choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. doi:10.1002/bdm.709Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291. doi:10.2307/1914185Kirby, K. N. (1997). Bidding on the future: Evidence against normative discounting of delayed rewards. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 54-70. doi:10.1037//0096-3445.126.1.54Loewenstein, G. (1987). Anticipation and the Valuation of Delayed Consumption. Economic Journal, 97, 666-684. doi:10.2307/2232929Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (1992). Anomalies in intertemporal choice: evidence and interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(2), 573-597. doi:10.2307/2118482Lovallo, D., & Kahneman, D. (2000). Living with Uncertainty: Attractiveness and Resolution Timing. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 179-190. Lynch, J. G., & Zauberman, G. (2006). When Do You Want It? Time, Decisions, and Public Policy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 25(1), 67-78. McGraw, A. P., Larsen, J. T., Kahneman, D., & Schkade, D. A. (2010). Comparing gains and losses. Psychological Science, 21, 1438-1445. doi:10.1177/0956797610381504Mischel, W., Grusec, J., & Masters, J. C. (1969). Effects of expected delay time on the subjective value of rewards and punishments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11(4), 363. Mitchell, S. H., & Wilson, V. B. (2010). The subjective value of delayed and probabilistic outcomes: Outcome size matters for gains but not for losses. Behavioural Processes, 83(1), 36-40. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2009.09.003Molouki, S., Hardisty, D. J., & Caruso, E. M. (2019). The sign effect in past and future discounting. Psychological science, 30(12), 1674-1695. Neumann, N., & B?ckenholt, U. (2014). A meta-analysis of loss aversion in product choice. Journal of Retailing, 90(2), 182-197. Nowlis, S. M., Mandel, N., & McCabe, D. B. (2004). The effect of a delay between choice and consumption on consumption enjoyment. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 502-510. Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and social psychology review, 5(4), 296-320. Scholten, M., & Read, D. (2010). The Psychology of Intertemporal Tradeoffs. Psychological Review, 117(3), 925-944. doi:10.1037/a0019619Shaddy, F., & Lee, L. (2020). Price Promotions Cause Impatience. Journal of Marketing Research, 0022243719871946. Shelley, M. K. (1993). Outcome signs, question frames and discount rates. Management Science, 39(7), 806-815. doi:10.1287/mnsc.39.7.806Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in Experimental and Nonexperimental Studies: New Procedures and Recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422-445. doi:10.1037//1082-989x.7.4.422Story, G. W., Vlaev, I., Seymour, B., Winston, J. S., Darzi, A., & Dolan, R. J. (2013). Dread and the disvalue of future pain. PLoS computational biology, 9(11), e1003335. Sweeny, K., & Vohs, K. D. (2012). On near misses and completed tasks: The nature of relief. Psychological science, 23(5), 464-468. Thaler, R. (1981). Some Empirical Evidence on Dynamic Inconsistency. Economics Letters, 8, 201-207. doi:10.1016/0165-1765(81)90067-7Yates, F. J., & Watts, R. A. (1975). Preferences for deferred losses. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 294-306. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(75)90051-3Yoon, H. (2020). Impatience and Time Inconsistency in Discounting Models. Management Science. Zauberman, G., Kim, B. K., Malkoc, S. A., & Bettman, J. R. (2009). Discounting Time and Time Discounting: Subjective Time Perception and Intertemporal Preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(4), 543-556. Zhang, M., & Aggarwal, P. (2015). Looking ahead or looking back: Current evaluations and the effect of psychological connectedness to a temporal self. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(3), 512-518. ................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.