Physical activity and time preference

Abstract

This paper investigates the link between time preference (whether a person is more present or future oriented) and time spent participating in physical activity. Using data on time spent engaged in physical activity from the National Longitudinal Surveys of Youth 1979 cohort, 2006 wave, where time preference is proxied by the expected share of money saved from a hypothetical $1000 cash prize. I find that time preference is a significant predictor of the amount of time spent participating in both vigorous and light-to-moderate physical activity for women and vigorous physical activity for men. The results are robust to various sample restrictions and alternative measures of time preference. The findings in this paper fill in a gap in the relationship between time preference and body composition by examining one of the pathways through which the former might affect the latter using a large, nationally representative dataset.

The effect of regulatory focus and time preference on the dual process of physical activity: A cross‐sectional study among nurses

“…Research suggests that higher delay discounting may be associated with unhealthy behaviours such as smoking, alcohol abuse and obesity, but evidence with regard to physical activity is scant (Acland & Levy, 2015;Conell-Price & Jamison, 2015;Hsu & Vlaev, 2014;Humphreys et al, 2015;Hunter et al, 2018;Kosteas, 2015;Mørkbak et al, 2017;Shuval et al, 2015Shuval et al, , 2017Van Der Pol et al, 2017) and did not address the dual process mechanisms that lead people to adopt and maintain physical activity. Our results highlight the fact that higher delay discounting decreases the conscious mechanism of the dual process, namely, nurses with higher delay discounting are less likely to intend to be physically active or to plan this behaviour.…”

“…Time preference has been examined as a factor influencing individual decision‐making in various areas of life, including health (Kang & Ikeda, 2016; Story, Vlaev, Seymour, Darzi, & Dolan, 2014). Recent studies have examined the relationship between this orientation and the adoption of physical activity (Acland & Levy, 2015; Conell‐Price & Jamison, 2015; Hsu & Vlaev, 2014; Humphreys, Ruseski, & Zhou, 2015; Hunter et al, 2018; Kosteas, 2015; Mørkbak, Gyrd‐Hansen, & Kjær, 2017; Shuval et al, 2017; Shuval, Si, Nguyen, & Leonard, 2015; Van Der Pol, Hennessy, & Manns, 2017), however, the findings of its effect on health promotion behaviours are inconclusive (Story et al, 2014). In addition, the role of this personal orientation in the dual process has not yet been explored.…”

Association between time preference, present-bias and physical activity: implications for designing behavior change interventions

“…However, parsimonious proxy measures (e.g. accumulation of credit card debt) were used to measure time preference and the two related yet distinct elements of time preference (discount rate and present-biasedness) were not distinguished [20, 23, 24]. Mørkbak et al (2017) [21] elicited time preference using non-incentive compatible questions.…”

Broadening horizons: Sample diversity and socioecological theory are essential to the future of psychological science

“…Cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, drug use, criminal behavior, overeating, risk taking, and other activities that provide short-term gains but long-term costs have all been associated with (perceptions of) living in an unpredictable, high-mortality environment (34,35). Medical treatment compliance, safer sexual practices, regular physical exercise, and other activities that may provide long-term benefits but have immediate costs are instead associated with a predictable, low-mortality environment (36,37). Faster life histories where future prospects look dim are also expected to shift priorities toward earlier and greater reproductive effort, including earlier sexual maturity, sexual activity and reproduction, greater short-term mating, and higher total fertility (38,39).…”