Pain Now or Later: An Outgrowth Account of Pain-Minimization

Abstract

The preference for immediate negative events contradicts the minimizing loss principle given that the value of a delayed negative event is discounted by the amount of time it is delayed. However, this preference is understandable if we assume that the value of a future outcome is not restricted to the discounted utility of the outcome per se but is complemented by an anticipated negative utility assigned to an unoffered dimension, which we termed the “outgrowth.” We conducted three studies to establish the existence of the outgrowth and empirically investigated the mechanism underlying the preference for immediate negative outcomes. Study 1 used a content analysis method to examine whether the outgrowth was generated in accompaniment with the delayed negative events. The results revealed that the investigated outgrowth was composed of two elements. The first component is the anticipated negative emotions elicited by the delayed negative event, and the other is the anticipated rumination during the waiting process, in which one cannot stop thinking about the negative event. Study 2 used a follow-up investigation to examine whether people actually experienced the negative emotions they anticipated in a real situation of waiting for a delayed negative event. The results showed that the participants actually experienced a number of negative emotions when waiting for a negative event. Study 3 examined whether the existence of the outgrowth could make the minimizing loss principle work. The results showed that the difference in pain anticipation between the immediate event and the delayed event could significantly predict the timing preference of the negative event. Our findings suggest that people’s preference for experiencing negative events sooner serves to minimize the overall negative utility, which is divided into two parts: the discounted utility of the outcome itself and an anticipated negative utility assigned to the outgrowth.

The effect of incentives on intertemporal choice: Choice, confidence, and eye movements

“…The eye-tracking results showed that the outcome attribute received more attention and the information search was more attribute-wise in the loss task than the gain task. Following prior research on intertemporal choice (Thaler, 1981 ; Sun et al, 2015 ), our findings likewise suggest that the asymmetry between gain and loss can also be reflected in decision confidence and information processing. Although not the scope of the current study, future studies should further investigate the difference in the underlying mechanism between the gain and loss frame.…”

Visual attention and time preference reversals

“…Future studies should consider examining the time preference reversals in a loss frame. An asymmetry between gain and loss frames was previously observed in intertemporal choices (Sun et al, 2015;Thaler, 1981), and the relationships between visual attention and loss sensitivity varied in choice and valuation tasks (Ashby et al, 2018). Therefore, there might be an asymmetry between gain and loss frames in time preference reversals.…”

Exploiting the dynamics of eye gaze to bias intertemporal choice

“…Other studies have reported a discrepancy between financial and nonfinancial intertemporal choices (Hardisty & Weber, 2009) and an asymmetry between gain and loss frames in intertemporal choices (Sun et al, 2015;Thaler, 1981). Given that most decisions we face in real life involve nonfinancial options and potential losses, future studies should examine the causal influence of gaze manipulation on intertemporal choices in a nonfinancial or loss frame.…”