Issues In Supporting Intertemporal Choice

Intertemporal decision making refers to contexts in which the consequences accumulate in stages over time. Attention is confined to cases in which the stages are discrete. The purpose of this paper is to highlight some of the anomalies between how people‘ should’ make and how they ‘do’ make intertemporal decisions: i.e. between findings in the normative and descriptive literatures. The paper indicates some of the framing issues which must be considered when trying to obtain a decision maker’s preferences, especially with respect to the way the questions are posed. The intention is to identify some of the bridges which need to be built between descriptive and normative ideas if decision makers are to be supported effectively in making intertemporal decisions.

[1]  G. Ainslie.  Specious reward: a behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control. , 1975, Psychological bulletin.

[2]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Accident probabilities and seat belt usage: A psychological perspective☆ , 1978 .

[3]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[4]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[5]  R. Thaler.  Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency , 1981 .

[6]  Lawrence D. Phillips,et al.  Requisite Decision Modelling: A Case Study , 1982 .

[7]  L. Phillips.  A theory of requisite decision models , 1984 .

[8]  S. French.  Decision Theory: An Introduction to the Mathematics of Rationality , 1986 .

[9]  D. E. Bell,et al.  Decision making: Descriptive, normative, and prescriptive interactions. , 1990 .

[10]  G. Loewenstein.  Frames of mind in intertemporal choice , 1988 .

[11]  R. Thaler,et al.  Anomalies: Intertemporal Choice , 1989 .

[12]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  Decision making over time and under uncertainty: a common approach , 1991 .

[13]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias , 1991 .

[14]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  Anomalies in Intertemporal Choice: Evidence and an Interpretation , 1992 .

[15]  J. S. H. Kornbluth.  Dynamic multi‐criteria decision making , 1992 .

[16]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  PREFERENCES OVER TIME , 1993 .

[17]  Drazen Prelec,et al.  Preferences for sequences of outcomes. , 1993 .

[18]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  A Bias in the Prediction of Tastes , 1995 .

[19]  Simon French,et al.  Multi‐attribute decision support in the event of a nuclear accident , 1996 .

[20]  David C. Ranyard,et al.  Equity and MCDA in the Event of a Nuclear Accident , 1997 .

[21]  E. Voice.  The radiological consequences of the Chernobyl accident , 1997 .