Preference for quicker offers: The critical roles of temporal reference points and evaluation mode
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract People may use the amount of time it takes someone else to reach a particular decision as input that informs their thoughts and feelings about that decision. Building on prior work suggesting that people are more inclined to accept offers that are extended more rapidly, the current research shows that this preference for quicker offers depends critically on whether offers are considered simultaneously along with other offers or individually (i.e., joint vs. separate evaluation mode), as well as on the presence and nature of explicit temporal reference points in joint evaluation mode. We theorize that the preference for quicker offers is limited to settings where (1) multiple offers are considered simultaneously and (2) the amount of time it took for these offers to be made exceeds a salient temporal reference point. This implies that the effect should not be observed when multiple offers are considered that were not all generated more slowly than an explicit temporal reference point, or when offers are considered one at a time. Evidence from seven studies provides support for this theorizing. The findings advance our understanding of the nuanced ways in which the amount of time taken to extend offers affects how people interpret, draw inferences from, and respond to these offers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".