Are Future Selves Treated Like Others? Comparing Determinants and Levels of Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Allocations (original) (raw)
Related papers
Doing unto future selves as you would do unto others: Psychological distance and decision making
Four experiments showed that the decisions people make for future selves and other people are similar to each other and different from their decisions for present selves. Experiments involved decisions to drink a disgusting liquid for scientific purposes (Experiment 1), tutor peers during exam week (Experiment 2), receive e-mails for charity (Experiment 3), and defer a lottery prize for a larger one (Experiment 4). These findings seemed to be at least partially rooted in the tendency for decisions regarding the ongoing, present self to be uniquely influenced by internal subjective experience. Specifically, these effects emerged for real, but not hypothetical, decisions. Also, they were mitigated by manipulations that altered participants' attention to present or future subjective experience. In addition, when participants' subjective experience primarily involved empathy for others (Experiment 3), their decisions on behalf of present selves were more generous than their decisions for future selves and others. Applications are discussed.
2002
Is discounting of future instantaneous utilities consistent with altruism towards future selves? More precisely, can temporal preferences, expressed as a sum of discounted instantaneous utilities, be derived from a representation in the form of a sum of discounted total utilities? We find that a representation in the quasi-exponential (ß,d)-form in Phelps and Pollak (1968) and Laibson (1997) correspond to quasi-exponential
People prefer joint outcome prosocial resource distribution towards future others
Scientific Reports, 2021
Today, developing and maintaining sustainable societies is becoming a notable social concern, and studies on altruism and prosociality toward future generations are increasing in importance. Although altruistic behaviors toward future generations have previously been observed in some experimental situations, it remains unknown whether prosocial preferences toward future others are based on equality or joint outcome orientations. In the present research, we exploratorily investigated preferences regarding resource distribution by manipulating the time points (i.e., present/future) of the participants and their imaginary partners. The results indicate that prosocial preference toward future others was as strong as that toward present others and seemed to be based on a joint outcome prosocial preference. Notably, when participants and their partners were at different time points, participants preferred to leave resources for the persons in the future. The findings indicate that the typ...
Predicting our own and others' future preferences: The role of social distance
Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 2018
People underestimate how much their preferences will change in the future, a phenomenon sometimes referred to as a "presentism bias." Recently, we found that this presentism bias is attenuated when thinking about the preferences of other people. The aim of this study was to investigate whether predicting future preferences also differs depending on the level of social distance between self and other. A total of 67 participants completed a perspective-taking task in which they were required to think about their own preferences, those of a generic peer, and those of a close other both now and in the future. They were also asked to consider the preferences of an older adult now. Participants predicted less change between their current and future preferences than between the current and future preferences of a generic peer. Predicted change in preferences for a close other were similar, but not identical, to those made for the self. When considering relevant future preferences...
The Psychology of Thinking about the Future, 2018
Many decisions require making tradeoffs between the present and the future. Although a variety of perspectives have been applied to study these intertemporal trade-offs, in this chapter we will focus on research that examines how thoughts about one's future self affect decisions with delayed consequences. To do so, we will discuss three theoretical perspectives on the future self: the future self as another, continuity between selves, and failures of imagination. Throughout, we examine the myriad considerations that influence decisions made on behalf of the future self in many domains (including finance, health, ethical decision-making, and child development) as well as interventions that have been found to change the way that people think about the future self and potentially promote more prudent behavior. We close by proposing several questions for future research.
Social utility and decision making in interpersonal contexts.
1989
Abstract 1. Three studies examined preferences for outcomes to self and a codisputant. Studies 1 and 2 estimated social utility functions from judgments of satisfaction with alternative outcomes. Comparing functional forms, we found that a utility function, including terms for own payoff and for positive and negative discrepancies between the parties' payoff (advantageous and disadvantageous inequality), provides a close fit to the data.
It’s All About the Money (For Some): Consequences of Financially Contingent Self-Worth
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2017
Financial success is an important goal, yet striving for it is often associated with negative outcomes. One reason for this paradox is that financial pressures may be tied to basing self-worth on financial success. Studies 1a to 1c developed a measure of Financial Contingency of Self-Worth (Financial CSW), and found that it predicted more financial social comparisons, financial hassles, stress, anxiety, and less autonomy. In response to a financial (vs. academic) threat, higher Financial CSW participants experienced less autonomy, perceived financial problems more negatively, and disengaged from their financial problems (Study 2). When given an opportunity to self-affirm, however, Financial CSW participants did not show diminished autonomy in response to a financial (vs. academic) threat (Study 3). Finally, participants with higher Financial CSW were less likely to make extravagant spending decisions following a financial (vs. health) threat (Study 4). Together, these studies demons...