Time-Preference Tests Fail to Predict Behavior Related to Self-control

Abstract

According to theory, choices relating to patience and self-control in domains as varied as drug use and retirement saving are driven by generalized preferences about delayed rewards. Past research has shown that measurements of these time preferences are associated with these choices. Research has also attempted to examine how well such measurements can predict choices, but only with inappropriate analytical methods. Moreover, it is not clear which of the many kinds of time-preference tests that have been proposed are most useful for prediction, and a theoretically important aspect of time preferences, nonstationarity, has been neglected in measurement. In Study 1, we examined three approaches to measuring time preferences with 181 users of Mechanical Turk. Retest reliability, for both immediate and 1-month intervals, was decent, as was convergent validity between tests, and association was similar to previous results, but predictive accuracy for 10 criterion variables (e.g., tobacco use) was approximately nil. In Study 2, we examined one other approach to measuring time preferences, and 40 criterion variables, using 7,127 participants in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979. Time preferences were significantly related to criterion variables, but predictive accuracy was again poor. Our findings imply serious problems for using time-preference tests to predict real-world decisions. The results of Study 1 further suggest there is little value in measuring nonstationarity separately from patience.

Trial‐wise exposure to visual emotional cues increases physiological arousal but not temporal discounting

“…Alterations in TD are associated with a range of psychiatric conditions and problematic behaviors, including addiction, substance abuse and attention‐deficit hyperactivity disorder (Amlung et al, 2019; Bickel et al, 2019; Jackson & MacKillop, 2016; Wiehler & Peters, 2015). TD exhibits stability over weeks ( r = .91; Simpson & Vuchinich, 2000), months ( r = .77–.80; Arfer & Luhmann, 2017), and even 1 year ( r = .71; Kirby, 2009), and across different testing environments (Bruder et al, 2021; Odum, 2011). TD is therefore regarded as a trait‐like characteristic (Smith & Hantula, 2008).…”

Erotic cue exposure increases physiological arousal, biases choices towards immediate rewards and attenuates model-based reinforcement learning

“…The tendency to favor smaller-but-sooner over larger-but-later rewards, known as temporal discounting, is common across animals (Kalenscher & Pennartz, 2008) and humans (Peters & Büchel, 2011). The individual degree of temporal discounting varies profoundly and appears stable across time (Simpson & Vuchinich, 2000; Arfer & Luhmann, 2017; Kirby, 2009) and across different testing environments (Bruder et al, 2021; Odum, 2011). Thus, discounting is regarded as a trait-like characteristic (Smith & Hantula, 2008).…”

Too soon to worry? Longitudinal examination of financial planning for retirement among Spanish aged workers

“…Several variables come to mind, such as personality features and dispositional traits, which should be included in future studies. In this sense, patience could be a mediator variable affecting FPR1 and FPR2, such as previous studies suggested [73]. Considering that patience implies willingness to sacrifice current satisfaction for future rewards, it might result in higher preparedness for retirement.…”