Cited by 165Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsPsychological and Temporal Perspectives ResearchBehavioral Health and Interventions

Bleak present, bright future: online episodic future thinking, scarcity, delay discounting, and food demand

Open access
Sze, Yan Yan, Stein, Jeffrey S., Bickel, Warren K., Paluch, Rocco A., Epstein, Leonard H.·2017·Clinical Psychological Science

Abstract

Obesity is associated with steep discounting of the future and increased food reinforcement. Episodic future thinking (EFT), a type of prospective thinking, has been observed to reduce delay discounting (DD) and improve dietary decision making. In contrast, negative income shock (i.e., abrupt transitions to poverty) has been shown to increase discounting and may worsen dietary decision making. Scalability of EFT training and protective effects of EFT against simulated negative income shock on DD and demand for food were assessed. In two experiments, we showed online-administered EFT reliably reduced DD. Furthermore, EFT reduced DD and demand for fast foods even when challenged by negative income shock. Our findings suggest EFT is a scalable intervention that has implications for improving public health by reducing discounting of the future and demand for high energy dense food.

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 · 10.1177/2167702617696511

Cites

84 of 84 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?

  • Engaging in episodic future thinking reduces calorie intake in female undergraduates and in overweight or obese women.

    “engaging in episodic future thinking reduces calorie intake in both female undergraduates (71) and in overweight or obese women (72–73)”

    From Episodic Future Thinking: Mechanisms and Functions (2017) · cites this paper as [73]

    The introductory passage reports that episodic future thinking reduces energy intake in laboratory and field settings, supporting the general intake claim. But the Experiment 2 General Discussion says this paper measured discounting and food reinforcement, not energy intake, and its discussion of prior intake studies does not establish the claimed findings specifically for female undergraduates or overweight or obese women. No page numbers are provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • When smokers or obese individuals were exposed to a scarcity scenario (drastic income reduction), they discounted more and drug craving and valuation of preferred foods increased.

    “Conversely, when smokers or obese individuals were exposed to a scarcity scenario (drastic income reduction), they discounted more (valued the future less) and drug craving and valuation of preferred foods increased [36].”
  • 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].”

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
Sze, Y. Y., Stein, J. S., Bickel, W. K., Paluch, R. A., & Epstein, L. H.
Affiliations
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
  • Carilion Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Epstein, Leonard H.
Venue
Clinical Psychological Science
Published
2017-05-02
Volume
5
Issue
4
Pages
683-697
ISSN
  • 2167-7026 (ISSN-L)
  • 2167-7034
OpenAlex
W2611036254
Cited by
165
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 6
FWCI
12.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (1UH2DK109543)
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (RO1 HD080292)
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, scarcity, food demand, fast food consumption, obesity, prospective thinking, dietary decision-making, energy-dense foods, online intervention

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