The Value of Nothing: Asymmetric Attention to Opportunity Costs Drives Intertemporal Decision Making
Open accessAbstract
This paper proposes a novel account of impatience: People pay more attention to the opportunity costs of choosing larger, later rewards than to the opportunity costs of choosing smaller, sooner ones. Eight studies show that when the opportunity costs of choosing smaller, sooner rewards are subtly highlighted, people become more patient, whereas when the opportunity costs of choosing larger, later rewards are highlighted this has no effect. This pattern is robust to variations in the choice task, to the participant population, and to whether the choices are incentivized or hypothetical. We argue that people are naturally aware of the opportunity costs of delayed rewards but pay less attention to those associated with smaller, sooner ones. We conclude by discussing implications for theory and policy. Data, as supplemental material, are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2547 . This paper was accepted by Yuval Rottenstreich, judgment and decision making.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The explicit-zero framing effect is driven by drawing attention to the opportunity costs of choosing the smaller-sooner reward.
“The effect is driven by drawing participant attention to the opportunity costs of choosing the SSR (Read, Olivola, & Hardisty, 2017; Wu & He, 2012); i.e., the receipt of $0 in the future.”
From Changing Delay Discounting and Impulsive Choice: Implications for Addictions, Prevention, and Human Health (2019) · cites this paper as Read et al., 2017
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 73 · Cited by 83
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Read, Olivola, and Hardisty: The Value of Nothing Management Science, Articles in Advance, pp. 1-22, © 2016 The Author(s)
- Akerlof GA (1991) Procrastination and obedience. Amer. Econom. Rev. 81(2):1-19.
- William A. Smart, trans. Library of Economics and Liberty.]
- Frederick S, Novemsky N, Wang J, Dhar R, Nowlis S (2009) Oppor- tunity cost neglect. J. Consumer Res. 36(4):553-561.
- Loewenstein G, Prelec D (1993) Preferences for sequences of out- comes. Psych. Rev. 100(1):91-108.
- Authors
- Read, D., Olivola, C. Y., & Hardisty, D. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Warwick (GB)
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Read, Daniel
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 2017-12
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 4277-4297
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W2463671667
- Cited by
- 83
- References
- 73
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 5.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Management Science (publishedVersion)
- Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Leverhulme Trust (RP2012-V022, ES/K002201/1)
- Stanford Graduate School of Business
- Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
- Economic and Social Research Council (ES/K002201/1, RP2012-V-022, K002201, ES/K002201/)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Financial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
- Keywords
- impatience, intertemporal choice, opportunity cost, attention, delayed rewards, present bias, time preference, framing effects
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review