SAVE THE BEST FOR LAST: PREDICTORS OF NEGATIVE TIME PREFERENCE AND SAVING THE BEST FOR LAST
Loading...
Links to Files
Permanent Link
Author/Creator
Author/Creator ORCID
Date
2020-01-20
Type of Work
Department
Psychology
Program
Psychology
Citation of Original Publication
Rights
Distribution Rights granted to UMBC by the author.
This item may be protected under Title 17 of the U.S. Copyright Law. It is made available by UMBC for non-commercial research and education. For permission to publish or reproduce, please see http://aok.lib.umbc.edu/specoll/repro.php or contact Special Collections at speccoll(at)umbc.edu
This item may be protected under Title 17 of the U.S. Copyright Law. It is made available by UMBC for non-commercial research and education. For permission to publish or reproduce, please see http://aok.lib.umbc.edu/specoll/repro.php or contact Special Collections at speccoll(at)umbc.edu
Abstract
Extensive research suggests that people generally exhibit positive time preference, preferring immediate over delayed outcomes. If positive time preference is normative, a person should typically prefer a worsening sequence (i.e., start with the best outcome, and end with the worst). However, people typically exhibit negative time preference (i.e., preferring an improving series of events) when the choice involves a sequence of outcomes. This dissertations consists of 5 studies exploring features of sequences that may promote negative time preference (i.e., saving the best for last; STBFL). In the first study, undergraduates responded via an online survey. Part 1 was a replication and extension of procedures described by Loewenstein and Prelec (1991). Response patterns like those of Loewenstein and Prelec were observed, in that the percentage of participants who STBFL decreased when the interval between activities in the sequence increased. In Part 2 participants were surveyed about their preference for the order in which they would experience hypothetical outcomes with sequences of different sizes. As array size increased, the percentage of participants who STBFL decreased. Next, three studies were conducted, looking at outcome category as a predictor of negative time preference. First, 192 undergraduates responded to questions involving categorically-different outcomes (e.g., noxious stimuli, food, exercise, schoolwork, leisure). A smaller percentage of participants STBFL relative to prior studies, but the percentage was highest when sequences involved noxious stimuli or food. Second, we examined the correspondence between 8 college students' preference for the order in which they would experience sequences of categorically-different outcomes when those were hypothetical versus real. There was strong correspondence in ranks assigned to hypothetical and real outcomes, but more variability in sequences generated. Third, we assessed preschoolers' preference for sequences. With academic items, 2 of 4 participants chose to STBFL. With leisure items, none STBFL. The final study evaluated whether individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) would STBFL in a Multiple Stimulus Without Replacement (MSWO) preference assessment. With food and toys, 1 of 4 participants STBFL. In addition to replicating a seminal study, this dissertations provides proof of phenomenon in previously unstudied populations, including preschoolers and individuals with IDD.