Literature DB >> 30971787

Amount and time exert independent influences on intertemporal choice.

Dianna R Amasino1,2, Nicolette J Sullivan2, Rachel E Kranton3, Scott A Huettel4,5.   

Abstract

Intertemporal choices involve trade-offs between the value of rewards and the delay before those rewards are experienced. Canonical intertemporal choice models such as hyperbolic discounting assume that reward amount and time until delivery are integrated within each option prior to comparison1,2. An alternative view posits that intertemporal choice reflects attribute-wise processes in which amount and time attributes are compared separately3-6. Here, we use multi-attribute drift diffusion modelling (DDM) to show that attribute-wise comparison represents the choice process better than option-wise comparison for intertemporal choice in a young adult population. We find that, while accumulation rates for amount and time information are uncorrelated, the difference between those rates predicts individual differences in patience. Moreover, patient individuals incorporate amount earlier than time into the decision process. Using eye tracking, we link these modelling results to attention, showing that patience results from a rapid, attribute-wise process that prioritizes amount over time information. Thus, we find converging evidence that distinct evaluation processes for amount and time determine intertemporal financial choices. Because intertemporal decisions in the lab have been linked to failures of patience ranging from insufficient saving to addiction7-13, understanding individual differences in the choice process is important for developing more effective interventions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30971787      PMCID: PMC8020819          DOI: 10.1038/s41562-019-0537-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nat Hum Behav        ISSN: 2397-3374


  61 in total

Review 1.  Specious reward: a behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control.

Authors:  G Ainslie
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1975-07       Impact factor: 17.737

2.  Time discounting predicts creditworthiness.

Authors:  Stephan Meier; Charles D Sprenger
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2011-12-07

Review 3.  The Malleability of Intertemporal Choice.

Authors:  Karolina M Lempert; Elizabeth A Phelps
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2015-10-05       Impact factor: 20.229

4.  Robust relation between temporal discounting rates and body mass.

Authors:  David P Jarmolowicz; J Bradley C Cherry; Derek D Reed; Jared M Bruce; John M Crespi; Jayson L Lusk; Amanda S Bruce
Journal:  Appetite       Date:  2014-03-17       Impact factor: 3.868

5.  DRIFT: an analysis of outcome framing in intertemporal choice.

Authors:  Daniel Read; Shane Frederick; Marc Scholten
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2012-08-06       Impact factor: 3.051

Review 6.  The behavioral- and neuro-economic process of temporal discounting: A candidate behavioral marker of addiction.

Authors:  Warren K Bickel; Mikhail N Koffarnus; Lara Moody; A George Wilson
Journal:  Neuropharmacology       Date:  2013-06-24       Impact factor: 5.250

7.  A probabilistic, dynamic, and attribute-wise model of intertemporal choice.

Authors:  Junyi Dai; Jerome R Busemeyer
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2014-03-17

8.  Money earlier or later? Simple heuristics explain intertemporal choices better than delay discounting does.

Authors:  Keith M Marzilli Ericson; John Myles White; David Laibson; Jonathan D Cohen
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2015-04-24

9.  When the economy falters, do people spend or save? Responses to resource scarcity depend on childhood environments.

Authors:  Vladas Griskevicius; Joshua M Ackerman; Stephanie M Cantú; Andrew W Delton; Theresa E Robertson; Jeffry A Simpson; Melissa Emery Thompson; Joshua M Tybur
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2013-01-09

Review 10.  Does temporal discounting explain unhealthy behavior? A systematic review and reinforcement learning perspective.

Authors:  Giles W Story; Ivo Vlaev; Ben Seymour; Ara Darzi; Raymond J Dolan
Journal:  Front Behav Neurosci       Date:  2014-03-12       Impact factor: 3.558

View more
  16 in total

1.  Mental representations distinguish value-based decisions from perceptual decisions.

Authors:  Stephanie M Smith; Ian Krajbich
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2021-04-05

2.  Using dynamic monitoring of choices to predict and understand risk preferences.

Authors:  Paul E Stillman; Ian Krajbich; Melissa J Ferguson
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-11-24       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Gaze-dependent evidence accumulation predicts multi-alternative risky choice behaviour.

Authors:  Felix Molter; Armin W Thomas; Scott A Huettel; Hauke R Heekeren; Peter N C Mohr
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2022-07-06       Impact factor: 4.779

Review 4.  Deliberating trade-offs with the future.

Authors:  Adam Bulley; Daniel L Schacter
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2020-03-17

5.  Peer presence increases the prosocial behavior of adolescents by speeding the evaluation of outcomes for others.

Authors:  Nicolette J Sullivan; Rosa Li; Scott A Huettel
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-04-20       Impact factor: 4.996

6.  Evaluation Scale or Output Format: The Attentional Mechanism Underpinning Time Preference Reversal.

Authors:  Yan-Bang Zhou; Qiang Li; Qiu-Yue Li; Hong-Zhi Liu
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-04-14

7.  From high- to one-dimensional dynamics of decision making: testing simplifications in attractor models.

Authors:  Martin Schoemann; Stefan Scherbaum
Journal:  Cogn Process       Date:  2020-02-03

8.  Rationally inattentive intertemporal choice.

Authors:  Samuel J Gershman; Rahul Bhui
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2020-07-03       Impact factor: 14.919

9.  Neural representations of the amount and the delay time of reward in intertemporal decision making.

Authors:  Qiang Wang; Yajie Wang; Pinchun Wang; Maomiao Peng; Manman Zhang; Yuxuan Zhu; Shiyu Wei; Chuansheng Chen; Xiongying Chen; Shan Luo; Xuejun Bai
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2021-05-02       Impact factor: 5.038

10.  Healthy decisions in the cued-attribute food choice paradigm have high test-retest reliability.

Authors:  Zahra Barakchian; Anjali Raja Beharelle; Todd A Hare
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-06-18       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.