Cited by 33Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies

Intertemporal choice reflects value comparison rather than self-control: insights from confidence judgements

Open access
Bulley, Adam, Lempert, Karolina M., Conwell, Colin, Irish, Muireann, Schacter, Daniel L.·2022·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B

Abstract

Intertemporal decision-making has long been assumed to measure self-control, with prominent theories treating choices of smaller, sooner rewards as failed attempts to override immediate temptation. If this view is correct, people should be more confident in their intertemporal decisions when they ‘successfully’ delay gratification than when they do not. In two pre-registered experiments with built-in replication, adult participants (n = 117) made monetary intertemporal choices and rated their confidence in having made the right decisions. Contrary to assumptions of the self-control account, confidence was not higher when participants chose delayed rewards. Rather, participants were more confident in their decisions when possible rewards were further apart in time-discounted subjective value, closer to the present, and larger in magnitude. Demonstrating metacognitive insight, participants were more confident in decisions that better aligned with their separate valuation of possible rewards. Decisions made with less confidence were more prone to changes-of-mind and more susceptible to a patience-enhancing manipulation. Together, our results establish that confidence in intertemporal choice tracks uncertainty in estimating and comparing the value of possible rewards—just as it does in decisions unrelated to self-control. Our findings challenge self-control views and instead cast intertemporal choice as a form of value-based decision-making about future possibilities. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Thinking about possibilities: mechanisms, ontogeny, functions and phylogeny’.

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 · 10.1098/rstb.2021.0338

Cites

71 of 71 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?

  • The choice set used to measure discount rates was widely adopted and designed to capture a broad range of discount rates.

    “We used a widely adopted choice set designed to capture a broad range of discount rates31–37.”

    From Temporal discounting predicts procrastination in the real world (2024) · cites this paper as [36]

    The Methods (page unavailable) identify the choice set as a standard Monetary Choice Questionnaire and describe choices spanning several reward amounts and delays from 1 to 180 days. This supports its use as an established discounting measure, but the paper does not say the set was designed to capture a broad range of discount rates. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 2

  1. [43]Mazur JE. 1987. An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. In Quantitative analyses of behavior, vol 5: The effect of delay and of intervening events on reinforcement value (eds Commons ML, Mazur JE, Nevin JA, Rachlin H), pp. 55-73. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bulley A, Lempert KM, Conwell C, Irish M, Schacter DL. 2022. Intertemporal choice reflects value comparison rather than self-control: insights from confidence judgments. Figshare. ( 10.6084/m9.figshare.c.6189586) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bulley, A., Lempert, K. M., Conwell, C., Irish, M., & Schacter, D. L.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Bulley, Adam
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
Published
2022-10-31
Volume
377
Issue
1866
Pages
20210338-20210338
ISSN
  • 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2970
OpenAlex
W4307848213
Cited by
33
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1
FWCI
4.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1162811)
  • Australian Research Council (DP180101548, DP210101572, FT160100096)
  • National Institute on Aging (F32-AG-054032-02, R01 AG008441)
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, self-control, confidence judgments, metacognition, value comparison, delay discounting, subjective value, patience, change of mind, decision uncertainty, value-based decision making
MeSH terms
Adult, Choice Behavior, Forecasting, Humans, Judgment, Motivation, Reward, 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