时间模糊性对选择的影响取决于延迟和数量大小

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2023-09-29 DOI:10.1002/bdm.2354
Iris Ikink, Karin Roelofs, Bernd Figner
{"title":"时间模糊性对选择的影响取决于延迟和数量大小","authors":"Iris Ikink,&nbsp;Karin Roelofs,&nbsp;Bernd Figner","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2354","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Time ambiguity—that is, having partially/fully incomplete information about <i>when</i> an outcome will occur—is common in everyday life. A recent study showed that participants preferred options with time-exact delays over options with time-ambiguous delays, a phenomenon they called time-ambiguity aversion. However, the empirical robustness and boundaries of this phenomenon remain unexplored. We conducted three online studies: Study 2 (<i>n</i> = 118) was a replication of Study 1 (<i>n</i> = 76) using preregistered analyses; Study 3 (<i>n</i> = 202; preregistered) was a follow-up study suggested during review. In Studies 1 and 2, participants completed hypothetical choices between €5 today versus later-but-larger (LL) rewards that systematically varied in their amount, delay, and time-ambiguity level (e.g., for a 180 day delay, time ambiguity varied from 179 to 181 to 0–360 days). Effects of time ambiguity on choice were best encoded in an absolute, dose-dependent manner and depended on delays and amounts: Increasing time ambiguity led to more time-<i>exact</i> LL choices at shorter delays but more time-<i>ambiguous</i> LL choices at longer delays. Additionally, time-ambiguity ranges including today were chosen more frequently than ranges excluding today, akin to the present bias in intertemporal choice. Lastly, evidence suggested that more time ambiguity was preferred for smaller LL amounts yet disliked for larger LL amounts. Study 3 demonstrated that time-risk and time-ambiguity preferences are differentiable by giving participants choices involving hypothetical time-exact, time-ambiguous, and time-risky options. Taken together, our results extend the nascent literature on time ambiguity by showing that (i) time-ambiguity preferences are distinguishable from both time-risk and delay preferences and (ii) time ambiguity is not generally aversive, but its impact depends on delay and amount magnitude.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.2354","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effect of time ambiguity on choice depends on delay and amount magnitude\",\"authors\":\"Iris Ikink,&nbsp;Karin Roelofs,&nbsp;Bernd Figner\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/bdm.2354\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Time ambiguity—that is, having partially/fully incomplete information about <i>when</i> an outcome will occur—is common in everyday life. A recent study showed that participants preferred options with time-exact delays over options with time-ambiguous delays, a phenomenon they called time-ambiguity aversion. However, the empirical robustness and boundaries of this phenomenon remain unexplored. We conducted three online studies: Study 2 (<i>n</i> = 118) was a replication of Study 1 (<i>n</i> = 76) using preregistered analyses; Study 3 (<i>n</i> = 202; preregistered) was a follow-up study suggested during review. In Studies 1 and 2, participants completed hypothetical choices between €5 today versus later-but-larger (LL) rewards that systematically varied in their amount, delay, and time-ambiguity level (e.g., for a 180 day delay, time ambiguity varied from 179 to 181 to 0–360 days). Effects of time ambiguity on choice were best encoded in an absolute, dose-dependent manner and depended on delays and amounts: Increasing time ambiguity led to more time-<i>exact</i> LL choices at shorter delays but more time-<i>ambiguous</i> LL choices at longer delays. Additionally, time-ambiguity ranges including today were chosen more frequently than ranges excluding today, akin to the present bias in intertemporal choice. Lastly, evidence suggested that more time ambiguity was preferred for smaller LL amounts yet disliked for larger LL amounts. Study 3 demonstrated that time-risk and time-ambiguity preferences are differentiable by giving participants choices involving hypothetical time-exact, time-ambiguous, and time-risky options. Taken together, our results extend the nascent literature on time ambiguity by showing that (i) time-ambiguity preferences are distinguishable from both time-risk and delay preferences and (ii) time ambiguity is not generally aversive, but its impact depends on delay and amount magnitude.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48112,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.2354\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.2354\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.2354","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在日常生活中,时间不确定性--即关于结果何时发生的信息部分/完全不完整--是很常见的。最近的一项研究表明,与时间模糊的延迟相比,参与者更喜欢时间精确的延迟选项,他们把这种现象称为时间模糊厌恶。然而,这种现象在经验上的稳健性和界限仍有待探索。我们进行了三项在线研究:研究 2(n = 118)是对研究 1(n = 76)的复制,使用了预先登记的分析方法;研究 3(n = 202;预先登记)是在审查过程中建议的后续研究。在研究 1 和研究 2 中,参与者在今天的 5 欧元奖励和稍后但更大金额(LL)奖励之间完成假设选择,这些奖励在金额、延迟时间和时间模糊性水平(例如,延迟 180 天,时间模糊性从 179 天到 181 天到 0-360 天不等)方面存在系统性差异。时间模糊性对选择的影响最好以绝对的、剂量依赖的方式进行编码,并且取决于延迟时间和数量:时间模糊性的增加会导致在较短的延迟时间内做出更多时间精确的 LL 选择,但在较长的延迟时间内做出更多时间模糊的 LL 选择。此外,包含今天的时间模糊范围比不包含今天的时间模糊范围更常被选择,这类似于时际选择中的现在偏差。最后,有证据表明,对于较小的 LL 金额,人们更喜欢时间模糊性,而对于较大的 LL 金额,人们则不喜欢时间模糊性。研究 3 通过让参与者选择假定的时间精确、时间模糊和时间风险选项,证明了时间风险和时间模糊偏好是可以区分的。综上所述,我们的研究结果表明:(i) 时间不确定性偏好与时间风险偏好和延迟偏好是可以区分的;(ii) 时间不确定性一般不具有厌恶性,但其影响取决于延迟和金额大小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The effect of time ambiguity on choice depends on delay and amount magnitude

Time ambiguity—that is, having partially/fully incomplete information about when an outcome will occur—is common in everyday life. A recent study showed that participants preferred options with time-exact delays over options with time-ambiguous delays, a phenomenon they called time-ambiguity aversion. However, the empirical robustness and boundaries of this phenomenon remain unexplored. We conducted three online studies: Study 2 (n = 118) was a replication of Study 1 (n = 76) using preregistered analyses; Study 3 (n = 202; preregistered) was a follow-up study suggested during review. In Studies 1 and 2, participants completed hypothetical choices between €5 today versus later-but-larger (LL) rewards that systematically varied in their amount, delay, and time-ambiguity level (e.g., for a 180 day delay, time ambiguity varied from 179 to 181 to 0–360 days). Effects of time ambiguity on choice were best encoded in an absolute, dose-dependent manner and depended on delays and amounts: Increasing time ambiguity led to more time-exact LL choices at shorter delays but more time-ambiguous LL choices at longer delays. Additionally, time-ambiguity ranges including today were chosen more frequently than ranges excluding today, akin to the present bias in intertemporal choice. Lastly, evidence suggested that more time ambiguity was preferred for smaller LL amounts yet disliked for larger LL amounts. Study 3 demonstrated that time-risk and time-ambiguity preferences are differentiable by giving participants choices involving hypothetical time-exact, time-ambiguous, and time-risky options. Taken together, our results extend the nascent literature on time ambiguity by showing that (i) time-ambiguity preferences are distinguishable from both time-risk and delay preferences and (ii) time ambiguity is not generally aversive, but its impact depends on delay and amount magnitude.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral Decision Making is a multidisciplinary journal with a broad base of content and style. It publishes original empirical reports, critical review papers, theoretical analyses and methodological contributions. The Journal also features book, software and decision aiding technique reviews, abstracts of important articles published elsewhere and teaching suggestions. The objective of the Journal is to present and stimulate behavioral research on decision making and to provide a forum for the evaluation of complementary, contrasting and conflicting perspectives. These perspectives include psychology, management science, sociology, political science and economics. Studies of behavioral decision making in naturalistic and applied settings are encouraged.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Do We Use Relatively Bad (Algorithmic) Advice? The Effects of Performance Feedback and Advice Representation on Advice Usage Evaluation of Extended Decision Outcomes Diffusion of Responsibility for Actions With Advice Dynamics of Reliance on Algorithmic Advice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1