Cited by 207Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies

The Malleability of Intertemporal Choice

Open access
Lempert, Karolina M., Phelps, Elizabeth A.·2016·Trends in Cognitive Sciences

Abstract

Intertemporal choices are ubiquitous: people often have to choose between outcomes realized at different times. Although it is generally believed that people have stable tendencies toward being impulsive or patient, an emerging body of evidence indicates that intertemporal choice is malleable and can be profoundly influenced by context. How the choice is framed, or the state of the decision-maker at the time of choice, can induce a shift in preference. Framing effects are underpinned by allocation of attention to choice attributes, reference dependence, and time construal. Incidental affective states and prospection also influence intertemporal choice. We advocate that intertemporal choice models account for these context effects, and encourage the use of this knowledge to nudge people toward making more advantageous choices.

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.tics.2015.09.005

Cites

113 of 113 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [62]Frijda NH The Emotions 1986 Cambridge University Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lempert, K. M., & Phelps, E. A.
Affiliations
  • New York University (US)
  • Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research (US)
Corresponding author
Phelps, Elizabeth A.
Venue
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-01
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
64-74
ISSN
1364-6613 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2181691336
Cited by
207
References
113
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 10 · 2014: 1
FWCI
2.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Trends in Cognitive Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (R01AG039283)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Keywords
intertemporal choice, impulsivity, patience, framing effects, context effects, reference dependence, attention allocation, affective states, prospection, nudging, preference change
MeSH terms
Humans, Time Factors, Delay Discounting

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