Most research on intertemporal choice has examined choices between smaller, sooner gains and larger, later gains. A much smaller number of papers have examined intertemporal choices for losses. In this article, we explore whether mixed-sign choices with both gains and losses may better correlate with real-world behaviors. In two high-powered studies (pilot: N = 3,200; main study: N = 7,000), participants completed one of four normatively equivalent measures consisting of pure gain, pure loss, or mixed sign (Gain-Now-Loss-Later or Loss-Now-Gain-Later) intertemporal choices. Participants also self-reported a large number of demographic measures and real-world choice behaviors thought to be linked to intertemporal choice. The results indicate that (1) mixed-sign intertemporal choices yield more patient time preferences than pure-gain choices but less patient than pure-loss choices and (2) pure-gain intertemporal choices yield equivalent or superior predictive power across a range of real-world intertemporal choice behaviors.

Financial policymakers increasingly rely on behavioural insights to protect the interests of consumers. However, little is known about how citizens feel about interventions designed to nudge their financial behaviour. Most literature on the acceptability of behavioural interventions focuses on the health domain. To address this gap, we present the results of an experiment on the acceptability of seven financial behavioural interventions (N = 684, members of a panel of the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets). We investigate the role of the agent implementing the intervention (policymaker versus financial company) and perceived effectiveness in relation to the acceptability of these interventions. The acceptability of behavioural interventions in financial decision-making appears to be lower than the acceptability levels found in previous studies. We find no effect of the agent on acceptability. Perceived effectiveness is strongly correlated with acceptability, but only perceived effectiveness in influencing one's own decisions has a consistently positive relationship with acceptability. Perceived effectiveness in influencing others' decisions has either no, a positive, or a negative relationship with acceptability. These results highlight that acceptability appears to be at least partly domain-specific and show that we have only just begun understanding the acceptability of behavioural interventions and its drivers.