Cited by 200Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsPsychological and Temporal Perspectives ResearchBehavioral Health and Interventions

The future is now: comparing the effect of episodic future thinking on impulsivity in lean and obese individuals

Open access
Daniel, Tinuke Oluyomi, Stanton, Christina M., Epstein, Leonard H.·2013·Appetite

Abstract

The choice of small immediate rewards as opposed to larger delayed rewards, or delay discounting, is an important dimension of impulsive decision making. The inability to delay gratification is related to obesity, as well as other maladaptive behaviors such as substance abuse, problem drinking, smoking, pathological gambling, and risky HIV behaviors. One way to reduce delay discounting (DD) may be to use prospective imagery in the form of episodic future thinking (EFT) during inter-temporal decision making. We have recently shown that EFT reduces DD and ad libitum energy intake in obese individuals. However, no studies have examined whether the magnitude of the EFT effect differs between lean and overweight/obese individuals. We conducted a within-subject design experiment to compare the efficacy of EFT versus a control task in reducing DD between lean (N=24) and overweight/obese (N=24) women. Participants attended two sessions in which they engaged in either EFT or control episodic thinking during a DD task. We also examined whether individual differences such as trait time perspective, behavioral inhibition or behavioral activation moderated the EFT effect on DD. Results showed EFT reduced DD similarly for lean and overweight/obese individuals. The EFT effect was moderated by behavioral activation. This suggests EFT is just as effective in reducing impulsive decision making in obese individuals as it is in lean individuals and may be useful in reducing other impulsive obesity related behaviors.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.appet.2013.07.010

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • EFT has previously been shown to decrease DD in individuals with alcohol use disorder, smokers, as well as normal weight, overweight, and obese populations.

    “EFT has previously been shown to decrease DD in individuals with alcholol use disorder [32], smokers [33], as well as normal weight, overweight, and obese populations [34,35].”
  • EFT may reduce the demand for hypothetical drinks, self-administration of cigarettes, and self-administration and valuation of highly palatable snacks in overweight and/or obese adults and children.

    “Consistent with the reinforcer pathology concept, EFT may reduce the demand for hypothetical drinks [32], self-administration of cigarettes [33], and self-administration and valuation of highly palatable snacks in overweight and/or obese adults and children [35,36].”
  • Individual differences in future orientation are associated with more patient choices.

    “individual differences in future orientation are associated with more patient choices (1, 21, 26).”
  • Episodic future thinking produces reductions in real calorie consumption in laboratory and field settings.

    “and real calorie consumption in lab and field settings (Daniel et al., 2013; Tinuke Oluyomi Daniel, Said, Stanton, & Epstein, 2015; O’Neill, Daniel, & Epstein, 2016; Sze, Daniel, Kilanowski, Collins, & Epstein, 2015).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Daniel, T. O., Stanton, C. M., & Epstein, L. H.
Affiliations
University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
Corresponding author
Epstein, Leonard H.
Venue
Appetite
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-12
Volume
71
Pages
120-125
ISSN
0195-6663 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1969665329
Cited by
200
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 1
FWCI
12.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Appetite (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (U01DK088380)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychological and Temporal Perspectives Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
episodic future thinking, delay discounting, impulsivity, obesity, lean individuals, intertemporal choice, behavioral activation, behavioral inhibition, time perspective, ad libitum energy intake
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Energy Intake, Choice Behavior, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Impulsive Behavior, Individuality, Obesity, Prospective Studies, Reward, Thinking, Thinness, Health Behavior, Overweight, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review