The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Preferences for sequences of outcomes.
Abstract
Existing models of intertemporal choice normally assume that people are impatient, preferring valuable outcomes sooner rather than later, and that preferences satisfy the formal condition of independence, or separability, which states that the value of a sequence of outcomes equals the sum of the values of its component parts.The authors present empirical results that show both of these assumptions to be false when choices are framed as being between explicitly denned sequences of outcomes.Without a proper sequential context, people may discount isolated outcomes in the conventional manner, but when the sequence context is highlighted, they claim to prefer utility levels that improve over time.The observed violations of additive separability follow, at least in part, from a desire to spread good outcomes evenly over time.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Specious reward: A behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control.
Ainslie, G. (1975) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0076860 · Cited by 2,708
An economic theory of self-control.
Thaler, R. H., & Shefrin, H. M. (1981) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/260971 · Cited by 2,203
Cited by
Feedback and Self-Regulated Learning: A Theoretical Synthesis
Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543065003245 · Cited by 3,334
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.110.3.403 · Cited by 3,006
A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: dynamics of willpower
Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.106.1.3 · Cited by 2,931
RETRACTED: Procrastination, Deadlines, and Performance: Self-Control by Precommitment
Ariely, D., & Wertenbroch, K. (2002) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00441 · Cited by 1,266
RetractedDuration neglect in retrospective evaluations of affective episodes.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Kahneman, D. (1993) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.1.45 · Cited by 1,228
Metadata
- Authors
- Loewenstein, G. F., & Prelec, D.
- Venue
- Psychological Review
- Published
- 1993-01
- Volume
- 100
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 91-108
- ISSN
- 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1471
- OpenAlex
- W2091449145
- Cited by
- 767
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 5.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Preferences for sequences of outcomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0033-295x.100.1.91
- The paper
- Loewenstein, G. F., & Prelec, D. (1993). Preferences for sequences of outcomes. Psychological Review. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.100.1.91
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
