Cited by 95Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies

Intangibility in intertemporal choice

Open access
Rick, Scott, Loewenstein, George·2008·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

Since the advent of the discounted utility (DU) model, economists have thought about intertemporal choice in very specific terms. DU assumes that people make explicit trade-offs between costs and benefits occurring at different points in time. While this explicit trade-off perspective is simple and tractable, and has stimulated productive research, it does not provide a very realistic representation of a wide range of the most important intertemporal trade-offs that people face in daily life. If one considers the most important and commonly discussed examples of intertemporal choices, a striking pattern emerges: in almost all cases, early outcomes tend to be concrete (e.g. purchasing this latte), but later outcomes tend to be much less tangible (e.g. the unknown item that could have been purchased later with the money spent on this latte). We propose that people rely on anticipatory emotions as a proxy for intangible outcomes when trade-offs are implicit. This paper reviews neuroeconomic evidence that has begun to elucidate the role of anticipatory emotions in decisions involving intangible outcomes. Although most progress has been made in the domain of spending and saving, we discuss how the existing neuroeconomic research could be extended to other domains where trade-offs are ill defined.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rstb.2008.0150

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Some theoretical models of discounting hypothesize that delayed outcomes are less concrete or less vivid than immediate outcomes, and therefore individuals tend to prefer immediate outcomes over delayed ones.

    “Some theoretical models of discounting hypothesize that delayed outcomes are less concrete or less vivid than immediate outcomes, and therefore individuals tend to prefer immediate outcomes over delayed ones (Rick & Loewenstein, 2008; Trope & Liberman, 2003).”

    From Behavioral trainings and manipulations to reduce delay discounting: A systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as Rick & Loewenstein, 2008

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rick, S., & Loewenstein, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Corresponding author
Rick, Scott
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Published
2008-10
Volume
363
Issue
1511
Pages
3813-3824
ISSN
  • 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2970
OpenAlex
W3123347571
Cited by
95
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 8
FWCI
0.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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, intangible outcomes, anticipatory emotions, discounted utility, neuroeconomics, time preference, decision-making
MeSH terms
Brain, Decision Making, Emotions, Humans, Models, Biological, Time Factors, Models, Economic

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