Can Biases About the Future Push Consumers to Act?
Effects of Affective Forecasting on Consumer Procrastination
Short Abstract
This paper introduces affective forecasting as a means of manipulating forward-looking
behavior in an attempt to mitigate procrastination. Three studies show that consumers who make
affective forecasts overestimate negative emotions associated with procrastination and attempt to
avoid forecasted negative states by initiating and completing tasks earlier than non-forecasters.
Can Biases About the Future Push Consumers to Act?
Effects of Affective Forecasting on Consumer Procrastination
Extended Abstract
Behavioral economics classifies procrastination as present-biased preference. This
perspective implies that people are insufficiently forward-looking and that procrastination occurs
as a consequence of failing to appreciate that repeated decisions to postpone today’s tasks will
result in a lack of progress in the long term (Akerlof 1991). A logical extension of this
perspective suggests that manipulations that encourage forward-looking behavior may de-bias
present-bias preference. The proposed research introduces affective forecasting as a means of
manipulating forward-looking behavior in an attempt to mitigate procrastination.
Procrastination applies to a wide range of consumer contexts with important
consequences, such as completing tasks on time to obtain financial rewards or avoid penalties
(e.g., tax returns, financial investments, etc.), and meeting purchasing deadlines for gift-giving
occasions (e.g., birthdays, Christmas, Valentine’s day, etc.). Research on procrastination
suggests that people are likely to procrastinate due to factors such as task aversiveness and
perceived effort required for a given task (Anderson 2003). Numerous individual difference
variables can also contribute to procrastiantion (Steel 2007). Research in this domain, however,
is largely silent on mediating variables that may motivate action. For example, research has yet
to examine whether limitations in people’s self-knowledge (e.g., inability to accurately predict
one’s future emotional states) can influence procrastination.
Affective forecasting refers to predictions people make about their future emotional
states. Research in this domain has consistently demonstrated an effect termed the “impact bias”
whereby “forecasters” tend to overestimate the intensity and duration of their reactions to future
events compared to “experiencers” who experience the same events but do not engage in
affective forecasts. (Gilbert et al. 1998). Importantly, the impact bias has been shown to be
stronger for negative emotions (e.g. regret) than for positive emotions (e.g. happiness) (Wilson
and Gilbert 2003). While the majority of research in affective forecasting has focused on the
identification of these biases, little empirical work has looked at how these biases might
influence people’s actions. That is, most work has focused on the forecasts themselves and
research has yet to examine whether the motivation to avoid such negative states in the future
might encourage individuals to take action to change their environment. Therefore, the main
motivation behind this research is to examine the behavioral consequences of affective
forecasting by looking at its influences on procrastination.
The current research examines the effects of affective forecasts on people’s progress in
three consumer contexts. Three studies track changes in consumers’ progress, stress, and other
emotional responses over time to identify underlying mechanisms that influence procrastination.
We observe that consumers who make affective forecasts overestimate the negative emotions
associated with procrastination. This impact bias motivates consumers to avoid forecasted
negative states by initiating and completing tasks earlier than non-forecasters. Further, we find
that issuing implicit and explicit warnings about the negative consequences of procrastination are
largely ineffective at motivating action. Findings suggest that the underlying process that takes
place during affective forecasts is unique and does more than serve a mere warning function.
Experiment 1 examined the relationship between affective forecasting and consumers’
progress on holiday shopping. Longitudinal data was collected over a one-month period to
assess changes in participants’ affective forecasts and progress on their holiday shopping lists.
One month prior to the holiday gift exchange season, 44 undergraduates were randomly assigned
to either the “forecaster” or “experiencer” condition. Following the lab session, participants
were contacted periodically and asked to complete six additional online diaries. As predicted,
forecasters were found to significantly overestimate the intensity of negative emotions (stress,
unhappiness, and perceived difficulty) they would feel in the future. Results also showed that
forecasters initiated and completed tasks earlier than experiencers and made greater progress
over time.
Experiment 2 examined the relationship between affective forecasting and consumers’
progress toward Valentine’s Day shopping. The complexity of the task was decreased in this
study because participants only needed to shop for one individual. Additionally, a shorter twoweek time frame was examined in order to test if similar effects would be observed over a
shorter period of time. In essence, we were curious to know whether the effects observed in
Experiment 1 would manifest themselves in a less complex task with potentially higher
consequences over a shorter period of time. The overall design and basic methodology were
similar to Experiment 1. Fifty-six undergraduates in romantic relationships were randomly
assigned to either the “forecasters” or “experiencers” condition. Following the lab session,
participants were contacted asked to complete 3 additional online diaries. As in Experiment 1,
the forecasters overestimated intensity of their future negative emotions, initiated and completed
tasks earlier than experiencers, and made greater progress over time.
The purpose of Experiment 3 was to examine whether affective forecasting essentially
operates as a mere warning function. Specifically, we aimed to investigate whether the process
that occurs when making affective forecasts differs from being warned about how one will feel
in the future if they procrastinate. To test this,169 undergraduates participated in a consumerthemed scavenger hunt modeled after the TV reality show The Amazing Race. Participants were
given two weeks to complete a series of five tasks which required them to take a photograph of
various retail stores in the local area and upload the photographs to a website that tracked each
participant’s progress over time. Participants were randomly assigned to the “forecasters”,
“experiencers”, “implicit warning”, or “explicit warning” condition. The manipulations for the
forecasters and experiencers conditions were similar to the first two studies. Those in the
implicit warning condition were warned that they would feel negative emotions if they were to
procrastinate, and were told to act accordingly. Those in the explicit warning condition received
the same warning and were explicitly told that such negative emotions could be avoided by not
procrastinating and starting the task right away. Forecasters again exhibited an impact bias and a
higher proportion of forecasters completed the race by the deadline. Issuing implicit and explicit
warnings about the negative consequences of procrastination were largely ineffective at
motivating action, suggesting that the underlying process that takes place during affective
forecasting does more than serve a mere warning function.
References
Akerlof, George (1991), “Procrastination and Obedience,” American Economic Review, 81 (2),
1-19.
Anderson, Christopher J. (2003), “The Psychology of Doing Nothing: Forms of Decision
Avoidance Result From Reason and Emotion,” Psychological Bulletin, 129, 139-67.
Ariely, Dan and Klaus Wertenbroch (2002), “Procrastination, Deadlines, and Performance: SelfControl by Precommitment,” Psychological Science, 13 (3), 219-24.
Baron, Rueben M. and David A. Kenny (1986), “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction
in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical Considerations,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173-1182.
Blunt, Allan K. and Timothy Pychyl (2000), “Task Aversiveness and Procrastination: A MultiDimensional Approach to Task Aversiveness Across Stages of Personal Projects,”
Personality and Individual Differences, 28 (1), 153-67.
Dunn, Elizabeth W., Timothy D. Wilson, and Daniel T. Gilbert (2003), “Location, Location,
Location: The Misprediction of Satisfaction in Housing Lotteries,” Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 29 (11), 1421-32.
Finkenauer, Catrin, Marcello Gallucci, Wilco W. van Dijk, and Monique Pollmann (2007),
“Investigating the Role of Time in Affective Forecasting: Temporal Influences on
Forecasting Accuracy,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33 (8) 1152-66.
Gilbert, Daniel T., Elizabeth C. Pinel, Timothy D. Wilson, Stephen J. Blumberg, and Thalia P.
Wheatley (1998), “Immune Neglect: A Source of Durability Bias in Affective
Forecasting,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (3), 617-38.
Greenleaf, Eric A. and Donald R. Lehmann (1995), “Reasons for Substantial Delay in Consumer
Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (2), 186-99.
Liberman, Nira, Yaacov Trope, Sean M. McCrea, and Steven J. Sherman (2007), “The Effect of
Level of Construal on the Temporal Distance of Activity Enactment,” Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 43 (1), 143-49.
MacInnis, Deborah J. and Vaness M. Patrick (2006), “Spotlight on Affect: Affect and Affective
Forecasting in Impulse Control,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16 (3) 224-31.
Morewedge, Carey K., Daniel T. Gilbert, and Timothy D. Wilson (2005), “The Least Likely of
Times: How Remembering the Past Biases Forecasts of the Future,” Psychological
Science, 16 (8), 626-30.
Steel, Piers (2007), “The Nature of Procrastination: A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical Review of
Quintessential Self-Regulatory Failure,” Psychological Bulletin, 133 (1), 65-94.
Tice, Dianne M. and Roy F. Baumeister (1997), “Longitudinal Study of Procrastination,
Performance, Stress, and Health: The Costs and Benefits of Dawdling,” Psychological
Science, 8 (6), 454-58.
Tice, Dianne M., Ellen Bratslavsky, and Roy F. Baumeister (2001), “Emotional Distress
Regulation Takes Precedence Over Impulse Control: If You Feel Bad, Do It!,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (1), 53-67
Vohs, Kathleen D., Roy F. Baumeister, Brandon J. Schmeichel, Jean M. Twenge, Noelle M.
Nelson, and Dianne M. Tice (2008), “Making Choices Impairs Subsequent Self-Control:
A Limited-Resource Account of Decision Making, Self-Regulation, and Active
Initiative,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94 (5), 883-98.
Wilson, Timothy D. and Daniel T. Gilbert (2003), “Affective Forecasting,” in Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 35, ed. Mark Zanna, Elsevier, New York, 345-411.