4.7 Article

Amount and time exert independent influences on intertemporal choice

Journal

NATURE HUMAN BEHAVIOUR
Volume 3, Issue 4, Pages 383-392

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41562-019-0537-2

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Endowment for Financial Education
  2. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship [DGE-1644868]
  3. NIH [S10-OD-021480]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Intertemporal choices involve trade-offs between the value of rewards and the delay before those rewards are experienced. Canonical intertemporal choice models such as hyperbolic discounting assume that reward amount and time until delivery are integrated within each option prior to comparison(1,2). An alternative view posits that intertemporal choice reflects attribute-wise processes in which amount and time attributes are compared separately(3-6). Here, we use multi-attribute drift diffusion modelling (DDM) to show that attribute-wise comparison represents the choice process better than option-wise comparison for intertemporal choice in a young adult population. We find that, while accumulation rates for amount and time information are uncorrelated, the difference between those rates predicts individual differences in patience. Moreover, patient individuals incorporate amount earlier than time into the decision process. Using eye tracking, we link these modelling results to attention, showing that patience results from a rapid, attribute-wise process that prioritizes amount over time information. Thus, we find converging evidence that distinct evaluation processes for amount and time determine intertemporal financial choices. Because intertemporal decisions in the lab have been linked to failures of patience ranging from insufficient saving to addiction(7-13), understanding individual differences in the choice process is important for developing more effective interventions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available