Choices with Delayed Consequences: Pleasing or Fighting Future Tastes?

Many choices concern consumption in future periods. If preferences are state-dependent, a fundamental question is whether people consider their preferences at the time of consumption or decision as more important. Assuming the first, previous studies apparently demonstrate that people systematically mispredict their future tastes. Most of this evidence, however, is also consistent with the idea that people understand, but do not approve of their future preferences. To disentangle both approaches, we conducted a framed field experiment with a commitment option. Commitment in our experiment was not a device against weak will. It was a judgment, which one planning self imposed on another planning self. The results suggest that people are not willing to neglect their preferences at the time of the decision. People may sometimes experience a confl ict between two far-sighted selves. This has profound implications in the area of consumer sovereignty and questions the main justification of paternalism.