The effect of “should” and “would” instructions on delay discounting of rewards for self and others
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12166351 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Mary Beth Neff (0000-0002-9549-5936, School of Psychology Victoria University of Wellington Wellington New Zealand, corresponding author), Anne C Macaskill (0000-0003-3096-5340, School of Psychology Victoria University of Wellington Wellington New Zealand) |
| Year | 2021 |
| Volume | 34 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 568-580 |
| Publication date | 2021-01-06 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Behavioral Decision Making (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0894-3257 • E-ISSN: 1099-0771 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1002/bdm.2230 |
| OpenAlex | W3120625108 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 33 |
Would you prefer $50 now or $100 in 6 months? What if you made this decision for someone else—would you be more impulsive or more self‐controlled? Some studies suggest we are more impulsive when deciding for ourselves, whereas others suggest the reverse. This might be because some researchers ask participants what they would do whereas others ask what they should do. We investigated the impact of should/would decision type on delay discounting rate in choices for the self and for another person. We also examined the effect of condition order. In Experiment 1 (using a student sample), discounting rates were affected by the combination of decision frame and condition order. Decision frame had a bigger effect on choices in the second condition, perhaps because instructions became clearer when they could be contrasted with the previous set. Experiment 2 (using a Mechanical Turk sample) investigated this possibility by including all possible frames at the beginning of the session; this produced a more consistent would/should difference for choices for the self, but an order effect remained. Experiment 3 isolated task order by having participants complete the same choice task twice. Decisions were significantly more self‐controlled for the second iteration. Together, these results suggest that people are more self‐controlled when making should decisions and (less consistently) decisions for others and that having recently made delay‐amount trade‐off decisions also promotes self‐control. Rates of unsystematic data were unexpectedly high in Experiment 2, particularly among nonmaster Turk workers and those located in India
Ask price · Cognitive psychology · Control (management · Delay discounting · Developmental psychology · Discounting · Econometrics · Economics · Frame (networking · Impulsivity · Intertemporal choice · Order (exchange · Sample (material · Session (web analytics · Set (abstract data type · Task (project management · Temporal discounting · Behavioral Health and Interventions · Computer Science · Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics · Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies · Psychology · Social Psychology · Artificial Intelligence
Cross-Cultural Comparisons of Discounting Delayed and Probabilistic Rewards
Robust statistical methods in R using the WRS2 package
Is Ego Depletion Real? An Analysis of Arguments
Doing Unto Future Selves As You Would Do Unto Others
An algorithm for identifying nonsystematic delay-discounting data.
Social Discounting
Area Under the Curve as a Measure of Discounting
Experimental reductions of delay discounting and impulsive choice
Robust statistical methods
Temporal construal.
What we want to do versus what we think we should do
A Measure of Delay Discounting Within the Academic Domain
Impact of episodic thinking on altruism
| Unique citing works | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1 |
| Citation span | 2024 - 2025 (2) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 2 |