Search predicts and changes patience in intertemporal choice

Significance People often make decisions with consequences that unfold over time. When facing such intertemporal choices, people use different search strategies. We examine how these search strategies differ and how they relate to patience in intertemporal choice. We demonstrate that search varies substantially across individuals and identify two main search strategies—comparative or integrative search. Importantly, comparative search correlates with greater patience and higher susceptibility to contextual influences on choice. We manipulated search using an unobtrusive technique, revealing a causal relationship between strategy and choice. Comparative searchers make more patient choices and exhibit larger framing effects than integrative searchers. An understanding of how differences in psychological processes change discounting can inform the design of behavioral interventions to improve consumer welfare. Intertemporal choice impacts many important outcomes, such as decisions about health, education, wealth, and the environment. However, the psychological processes underlying decisions involving outcomes at different points in time remain unclear, limiting opportunities to intervene and improve people’s patience. This research examines information-search strategies used during intertemporal choice and their impact on decisions. In experiment 1, we demonstrate that search strategies vary substantially across individuals. We subsequently identify two distinct search strategies across individuals. Comparative searchers, who compare features across options, discount future options less and are more susceptible to acceleration versus delay framing than integrative searchers, who integrate the features of an option. Experiment 2 manipulates search using an unobtrusive method to establish a causal relationship between strategy and choice, randomly assigning participants to conditions promoting either comparative or integrative search. Again, comparative search promotes greater patience than integrative search. Additionally, when participants adopt a comparative search strategy, they also exhibit greater effects of acceleration versus delay framing. Although most participants reported that the manipulation did not change their behavior, promoting comparative search decreased discounting of future rewards substantially and speeded patient choices. These findings highlight the central role that heterogeneity in psychological processes plays in shaping intertemporal choice. Importantly, these results indicate that theories that ignore variability in search strategies may be inadvertently aggregating over different subpopulations that use very different processes. The findings also inform interventions in choice architecture to increase patience and improve consumer welfare.

[1]  Dirk U. Wulff,et al.  Modeling Choices in Delay Discounting , 2018, Psychological science.

[2]  Claudia González-Vallejo,et al.  Attribute-wise vs. alternative-wise mechanism in intertemporal choice: Testing the proportional difference, trade-off, and hyperbolic models. , 2016 .

[3]  F. Hermens,et al.  Eye Movements in Risky Choice , 2015, Journal of behavioral decision making.

[4]  J. Stevens Intertemporal Similarity: Discounting as a Last Resort , 2016 .

[5]  Luca Polonio,et al.  Strategic sophistication and attention in games: An eye-tracking study , 2015, Games Econ. Behav..

[6]  David Laibson,et al.  Money Earlier or Later? Simple Heuristics Explain Intertemporal Choices Better Than Delay Discounting Does , 2015, Psychological science.

[7]  Bart H. H. Golsteyn,et al.  Adolescent Time Preferences Predict Lifetime Outcomes , 2014 .

[8]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Imperfect Choice or Imperfect Attention? Understanding Strategic Thinking in Private Information Games , 2014 .

[9]  Daniel Read,et al.  Weighing Outcomes by Time or Against Time? Evaluation Rules in Intertemporal Choice , 2014, Cogn. Sci..

[10]  J. Busemeyer,et al.  A probabilistic, dynamic, and attribute-wise model of intertemporal choice. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[11]  Daniel Read,et al.  DRIFT: an analysis of outcome framing in intertemporal choice. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[12]  S. Huettel,et al.  A Distinct Role of the Temporal-Parietal Junction in Predicting Socially Guided Decisions , 2012, Science.

[13]  Daniel G. Goldstein,et al.  Beyond nudges: Tools of a choice architecture , 2012 .

[14]  Ariel Rubinstein,et al.  Tracking Decision Makers under Uncertainty , 2011 .

[15]  A. Rangel,et al.  Multialternative drift-diffusion model predicts the relationship between visual fixations and choice in value-based decisions , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[16]  Ulf Bockenholt,et al.  Choice by Value Encoding and Value Construction: Processes of Loss Aversion , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[17]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Heuristic decision making. , 2011, Annual review of psychology.

[18]  Martijn C. Willemsen,et al.  Visiting the decision factory : observing cognition with MouselabWEB and other information acquisition methods , 2011 .

[19]  Ian Krajbich,et al.  Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice , 2010, Nature Neuroscience.

[20]  D. Read,et al.  The Psychology of Intertemporal Tradeoffs , 2009, Psychological review.

[21]  N. Chater,et al.  Associations between a one-shot delay discounting measure and age, income, education and real-world impulsive behavior , 2009 .

[22]  M. F. Luce,et al.  Separate Neural Mechanisms Underlie Choices and Strategic Preferences in Risky Decision Making , 2009, Neuron.

[23]  James J Gross,et al.  The Hidden-Zero Effect , 2008, Psychological science.

[24]  R. Thaler,et al.  Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness , 2008 .

[25]  P. Glimcher,et al.  The neural correlates of subjective value during intertemporal choice , 2007, Nature Neuroscience.

[26]  Jane E. J. Ebert,et al.  The Fragility of Time: Time-Insensitivity and Valuation of the Near and Far Future , 2007, Manag. Sci..

[27]  D. Goldstein,et al.  Word count: 3998 Corresponding author: , 2022 .

[28]  Selin A. Malkoc,et al.  Deferring versus Expediting Consumption: The Effect of Outcome Concreteness on Sensitivity to Time Horizon , 2006 .

[29]  Samuel M. McClure,et al.  Separate Neural Systems Value Immediate and Delayed Monetary Rewards , 2004, Science.

[30]  Miguel A. Costa-Gomes,et al.  Cognition and Behavior in Two-Person Guessing Games: An Experimental Study , 2003 .

[31]  L. Green,et al.  Rate of temporal discounting decreases with amount of reward , 1997, Memory & cognition.

[32]  David I. Laibson,et al.  Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting , 1997 .

[33]  Gerald L. Lohse,et al.  Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes a Comparison of Two Process Tracing Methods for Choice Tasks , 2022 .

[34]  Mary Frances Luce,et al.  Correlation, conflict, and choice , 1993 .

[35]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Adaptive Strategy Selection in Decision Making. , 1988 .

[36]  G. Loewenstein Frames of mind in intertemporal choice , 1988 .

[37]  A. Rapoport,et al.  Discount rates inferred from decisions: an experimental study , 1987 .

[38]  John W. Payne,et al.  Effort and Accuracy in Choice , 1985 .

[39]  John W. Payne,et al.  Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis☆ , 1976 .

[40]  G. Ainslie Specious reward: a behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control. , 1975, Psychological bulletin.

[41]  Robert B. Miller,et al.  Response time in man-computer conversational transactions , 1899, AFIPS Fall Joint Computing Conference.

[42]  P. Samuelson A Note on Measurement of Utility , 1937 .