Limits...
The hidden opportunity cost of time effect on intertemporal choice.

Zhao CX, Jiang CM, Zhou L, Li S, Rao LL, Zheng R - Front Psychol (2015)

Bottom Line: An interesting phenomenon called "hidden opportunity cost of time effect" was detected in intertemporal choices.This shift violates the invariance principle and opens a new way to encourage future-oriented behavior.By simply mentioning the "obvious" opportunity cost of alternatives, decision makers can be more informed in prioritizing their long-term goals rather than short-term goals.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Psychology, Shandong Normal University Jinan, China.

ABSTRACT
An interesting phenomenon called "hidden opportunity cost of time effect" was detected in intertemporal choices. The majority of our participants preferred the smaller but sooner (SS) option to the larger but later (LL) option if opportunity cost was explicit. However, a higher proportion of participants preferred the LL to SS option if opportunity cost was hidden. This shift violates the invariance principle and opens a new way to encourage future-oriented behavior. By simply mentioning the "obvious" opportunity cost of alternatives, decision makers can be more informed in prioritizing their long-term goals rather than short-term goals.

No MeSH data available.


Mean rating of gain/loss as a function of frame (explicit frame vs. hidden frame) and studying/training time (1 day vs. 2 days). Negative scores indicate that “studying/training time” was seen as loss; positive scores indicate that “studying/training time” was seen as gain.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4376061&req=5

Figure 2: Mean rating of gain/loss as a function of frame (explicit frame vs. hidden frame) and studying/training time (1 day vs. 2 days). Negative scores indicate that “studying/training time” was seen as loss; positive scores indicate that “studying/training time” was seen as gain.

Mentions: Mean rating of gain/loss as a function of frame (hidden frame vs. explicit frame) and studying/training time (1 day vs. 2 days) are shown in Figure 2. An ANOVA showed a main effect of frame on mean rating of gain/loss, with scores of rating (Mhiddenframe = 1.53) being higher in hidden frame condition than those of rating (Mexplicitframe = 0.36) in explicit frame condition [F(1, 92) = 51.17, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.22]. The main effect of studying/training time (1 day vs. 2 days) was not significant [F(1, 92) = 0.43, p = 0.51, η2 = 0.002]. Moreover, there was significant two-way interaction [F(1, 92) = 30.16, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.14]. Further simple effect analysis revealed that in the hidden frame, the mean rating of 2 days of studying/training time (Mtwo days = 1.78) was significantly higher than 1 day of studying/training time (Mone day = 1.31) (F = 11.68, p = 0.001), whereas in the explicit frame, the mean rating of 1 day of studying/training time (Mone day = 0.48) was significantly higher than 2 days of studying/training time (Mtwo days = −0.12) (F = 18.92, p < 0.001). Considering that the negative scores indicate that “studying/training time” was seen as loss, the observed interaction suggests that the same time outcome in the LL option is more likely to be seen as a gain in the hidden frame, but it is more likely to be seen as a loss in the explicit frame. The results of the manipulation check, together with the results of choice preference, provide supportive evidence for our hypothesis that the same time outcome which is seen as a gain/reward in one frame (hidden frame) can be seen as a loss/cost in another frame (explicit frame), indicating a mirror-image preference for “gain-seeking” vs. “loss-averse.”


The hidden opportunity cost of time effect on intertemporal choice.

Zhao CX, Jiang CM, Zhou L, Li S, Rao LL, Zheng R - Front Psychol (2015)

Mean rating of gain/loss as a function of frame (explicit frame vs. hidden frame) and studying/training time (1 day vs. 2 days). Negative scores indicate that “studying/training time” was seen as loss; positive scores indicate that “studying/training time” was seen as gain.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4376061&req=5

Figure 2: Mean rating of gain/loss as a function of frame (explicit frame vs. hidden frame) and studying/training time (1 day vs. 2 days). Negative scores indicate that “studying/training time” was seen as loss; positive scores indicate that “studying/training time” was seen as gain.
Mentions: Mean rating of gain/loss as a function of frame (hidden frame vs. explicit frame) and studying/training time (1 day vs. 2 days) are shown in Figure 2. An ANOVA showed a main effect of frame on mean rating of gain/loss, with scores of rating (Mhiddenframe = 1.53) being higher in hidden frame condition than those of rating (Mexplicitframe = 0.36) in explicit frame condition [F(1, 92) = 51.17, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.22]. The main effect of studying/training time (1 day vs. 2 days) was not significant [F(1, 92) = 0.43, p = 0.51, η2 = 0.002]. Moreover, there was significant two-way interaction [F(1, 92) = 30.16, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.14]. Further simple effect analysis revealed that in the hidden frame, the mean rating of 2 days of studying/training time (Mtwo days = 1.78) was significantly higher than 1 day of studying/training time (Mone day = 1.31) (F = 11.68, p = 0.001), whereas in the explicit frame, the mean rating of 1 day of studying/training time (Mone day = 0.48) was significantly higher than 2 days of studying/training time (Mtwo days = −0.12) (F = 18.92, p < 0.001). Considering that the negative scores indicate that “studying/training time” was seen as loss, the observed interaction suggests that the same time outcome in the LL option is more likely to be seen as a gain in the hidden frame, but it is more likely to be seen as a loss in the explicit frame. The results of the manipulation check, together with the results of choice preference, provide supportive evidence for our hypothesis that the same time outcome which is seen as a gain/reward in one frame (hidden frame) can be seen as a loss/cost in another frame (explicit frame), indicating a mirror-image preference for “gain-seeking” vs. “loss-averse.”

Bottom Line: An interesting phenomenon called "hidden opportunity cost of time effect" was detected in intertemporal choices.This shift violates the invariance principle and opens a new way to encourage future-oriented behavior.By simply mentioning the "obvious" opportunity cost of alternatives, decision makers can be more informed in prioritizing their long-term goals rather than short-term goals.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Psychology, Shandong Normal University Jinan, China.

ABSTRACT
An interesting phenomenon called "hidden opportunity cost of time effect" was detected in intertemporal choices. The majority of our participants preferred the smaller but sooner (SS) option to the larger but later (LL) option if opportunity cost was explicit. However, a higher proportion of participants preferred the LL to SS option if opportunity cost was hidden. This shift violates the invariance principle and opens a new way to encourage future-oriented behavior. By simply mentioning the "obvious" opportunity cost of alternatives, decision makers can be more informed in prioritizing their long-term goals rather than short-term goals.

No MeSH data available.