Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2511.23126

Does cross-modal discounting generalize to non-WEIRD cultures? A comparison of the USA and Japan

Abstract

This paper examines how outcome modality in intertemporal choice influences time preferences and whether the process differs across cultures, specifically Japan and the United States. Uni-modal choices are those when the outcomes being compared over time are very similar, and cross-modal choices are those when the outcomes are very different. The cross-modal effect, previously shown in the U.S., is that there is greater patience in cross-modal decisions. In Experiment 1, we employed a between-participants design, in which participants either made uni-modal or cross-modal decisions. In Experiment 2, we employed a within-participants design in which everyone made both types of decision. In both Experiments we replicated the cross-modal effect. Moreover, the magnitude of the effect did not vary with factors known to relate to time preference, such as cognitive ability and social status, and it did not differ across cultures, even though Japanese participants were much more patient than American ones. The effect was stronger in the between- than within-participants experiment. These results strengthen the conclusion that the cross-modal effect is universal and strengthens the argument that it is due to the fundamental process of attentional dilution.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Shohei Yamamoto, Rebecca McDonald, Daniel Read. 2025-11-28. Does cross-modal discounting generalize to non-WEIRD cultures? A comparison of the USA and Japan. https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.23126

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN

Bricks or Cash? Externalities of Housing Upgrading in High-density Cities

We estimate housing externalities in a high-density city, exploiting the staggered rollout of Singapore's nationwide Main Upgrading Programme for public housing. Controlling for nonrandom neighborhood exposure, we find that upgrading raises treated buildings' prices by 11.5% upon completion and neighboring buildings' resale prices by about 2% within 500 meters, decaying to zero beyond. A model with distance-decaying externalities shows that in dense settings spillovers justify the distortions of in-kind provision; this advantage diminishes and reverses at lower densities. Administrative data on over 2 million residents show that upgrading disproportionately retains older incumbents, suggesting age-specific amenities as an underexplored externality channel.

econ.GN

The Joneses Visit an Economics Lab

Existing literature offers persuasive evidence that individuals care about how their consumption compares to that of peers, and proposes a large variety of explanatory models. The present paper proposes a common framework for many of those models, and compares their ability to predict behavior in a laboratory experiment. We find evidence of Keeping up with the Joneses motivations but also find that conspicuous consumption is enhanced by Veblen motivations arising from peers' ability to observe one's own choice. Among the seven quasi-linear preference models we compare, our data are best explained by a model that contrasts envy and pride (upward vs downward comparisons) using a value function borrowed from Prospect Theory.

econ.GN