Language and economic behaviour: Future tense use causes less not more temporal discounting.

Previous studies have found cross-cultural correlations between linguistic obligations for talking about future events and economic decisions like saving money. The hypothesis is that a grammatical obligation to use the future tense (e.g. will) causes speakers to perceive future rewards as temporally distal and therefore less valuable ("temporal discounting"). However, no studies have tested whether speakers actually temporally discount as a function of the extent to which they use the future tense. We present two studies which use a novel language-elicitation paradigm to do this, involving speakers of English (which obliges the future tense) and Dutch (which does not). We used mediation analysis to test how language-level differences in the grammatical obligation to use the future tense impact economic decisions via individual language use habits. However, we found that English speakers who habitually make greater use of the future tense actually discount less, not more. These results suggest obligatory future tense use is not responsible for previously-reported cross-cultural correlations. Instead, we suggest that a better explanation involves modal notions of certainty (the probability of an event occurring) rather than temporal distance (when an event will occur). Future tenses express high certainty, which makes the correct prediction that obligatory tense marking should cause less discounting. In contrast, the cross-cultural differences may be driven by variation in other aspects of future time reference, such as low-certainty modal terminology (e.g. may, might).