Temptation, self-control, and inter-temporal choice

Journal of Bioeconomics volume 21, pages47–70(2019)Cite this article

Abstract

This paper presents the \({ TSC}\) framework, a novel formalization of self-control problems. It suggests that self-control failures can be explained either by non-constant temporal discounting, or by temptation that is not neutralized by self-control. Focusing on the latter explanation, the paper organizes much of what we know about self-control problems with the aim to improve communication and collaboration between economists and psychologists. The paper also draws implications for business and behavioral public policy-making from the framework. We hope that this paper will facilitate the development of an integrated behavioral science of self-control.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    Psychological self-control research includes topics such trait self-control (Tangney et al. 2004), the conflict between temptation and willpower (Hofmann et al. 2009), counteractive control (Trope and Fishbach 2000), the motivation to use self-control (Inzlicht et al. 2014), construal level theory (Fujita 2011), neurobiological correlates of self-control (Heatherton and Wagner 2011), the link between trait self-control and good habits (de Ridder et al. 2012), and proactive self-control strategies (Fujita 2011; Hofmann et al. 2012c; Duckworth et al. 2016).

  2. 2.

    Several researchers argue that the quasi-hyperbolic discounting model has become the dominant model of self-control in behavioral economics. For example, DellaVigna (2018) suggests that the quasi-hyperbolic discounting model is perhaps the most commonly used behavioral economic model. However, the quasi-hyperbolic discounting model is not the only economic attempt to formalize self-control problems. Other models including those by Thaler and Shefrin (1981), Gul and Pesendorfer (2001) and Fudenberg and Levine (2006).

  3. 3.

    Berridge distinguishes the neurological core processes of ‘wanting’ and ‘liking’ (in quotation marks) from cognitive forms of desire (wanting without quotation marks) and emotion (liking without quotation marks). Especially at the unconscious core level, ‘wanting’ and ‘liking’ can become dissociated (Berridge 2018).

  4. 4.

    It is possible to think of other functional forms that translate anticipated utility into motivation. However, we stick to this simple version to limit the parameters and be able to compare the framework with its closest analogue in behavioral economics, the quasi-hyperbolic discounting model (Laibson 1997).

  5. 5.

    We thus focus on self-control as an inhibitory process that can be, but is not always, successful. See Sects. 2.3 and 5.3 for discussions of alternative definitions of self-control that include, for example, the idea that people can use preventive self-control strategies in order to avoid temptation in the first place so that resistance attempts are not needed.

  6. 6.

    O’Donoghue and Rabin (2006) investigate the effect of sin taxes on the behavior of consumers with present-biased preferences, and Binder and Lades (2015) additionally assume that consumers can have distorted perceptions of the costs and benefits of temptation goods to illustrate the effects of behavioral policy-interventions.

  7. 7.

    We allow for convex (\(c_{xx}>0\)), linear (\(c_{xx}=0\)), and concave (\(c_{xx}<0\)) cost functions. For the latter, we additionally assume that \(u_{xx}-c_{xx}<0\), which makes sure that the behavior is well-behaved.

  8. 8.

    Short term desires are often related to the Benthamite notions of approaching pleasure and avoidance of pain, and homeostatic regulatory processes of the human body. They can be innate, but also acquired through conditional learning processes (Witt 2001). They are often intrinsically valued and experiential (Woolley and Fishbach 2015). Desires as they occur in everyday life can be measured as demonstrated by Hofmann et al. (2012c) and Delaney and Lades (2017).

  9. 9.

    Higher order goals can represent a person’s value system, self-regulatory goal standards, as well as goals defined externally for example by an individual’s employer (Hofmann et al. 2012a). Higher order goals are often related to self-conscious emotions such as pride (and guilt if goals are not achieved) (Hofmann et al. 2012c), are often pursued intentionally, are associated with declarative expectations of long-term benefits, are usually more abstract than desires (Fujita 2011), and tend to be extrinsic and instrumental (Woolley and Fishbach 2015). The strength of higher order goals is determined by the extent to which a goal represents a high-priority objective (Fishbach et al. 2003), and the determination to achieve that goal (Klein et al. 1999).

  10. 10.

    Note again that this is a narrow conceptualization of self-control success. In broader conceptualizations, also the automatic down-regulation of desires, the avoidance of temptation, and the use of pro-active self-control strategies can be viewed as self-control successes.

  11. 11.

    These two explanations for self-control problems relate closely to the distinction between sequential and parallel definitions of intra-individual conflicts as discussed by Read (2001). When individuals are tempted to consume and, at the same point in time, attempt to resist that temptation, a parallel intra-individual conflict is present. To the contrary, when individuals change their minds over time, sequential conflicts are present. Parallel conflicts between temptation and self-control that take place at the same point in time are described in the first row in Eq. (9). Most hyperbolic discounting models assume that intra-individual conflicts are sequential as the individual consists of different selves at different points in time, which is formalized better by the second row in Eq. (9).

  12. 12.

    It is up for debate whether these alternative mechanisms should be captured by the notion of self-control, self-regulation, or something else (Fujita 2011). These preventive self-control strategies have gained increasing attention in psychology in the last few years. For example, research by Hofmann et al. (2012c) and Ent et al. (2015) suggests that the trait self-control scale, introduced by Tangney et al. (2004) and used in hundreds of surveys, does not reflect individual differences in the ability to resist temptation, but rather individual differences in the ability to pro-actively avoid temptation in the first place.

  13. 13.

    DellaVigna and Malmendier (2006), for example, show that many individuals pay for gym membership, but don’t go to the gym very often. These individuals would be better off if they had paid “per visit” rather than signing a monthly contract. Self-control problems alone are not sufficient to explain this behavior. One has to additionally assume that individuals are naïve in that they are not aware of their failures to go to the gym in the future. If they were aware, i.e., if they were sophisticated, they would not have joined the gym in the first place, or had used preventive strategies that make it more likely that they go to the gym.

  14. 14.

    As described by Toussaert (2018), both hyperbolic discounting models and menu-dependent preference models suggest that individuals may have a demand for committing their future behavior. However, hyperbolically discounting individuals will choose to restrict their future behavior only if they expect to give in to temptation. To the contrary, menu-dependent preference models suggest that individuals may favor commitment even if they expect that they will be successfully resisting temptation in the future. These individuals prefer commitments as these help them to avoid the costs of having to exert self-control. Toussaert (2018) shows in an experiment that 23–36\(\%\) of her subjects favored commitment in order to avoid the costs of using self-control although they (correctly) predicted that they would successfully resist temptation.

  15. 15.

    Ulysses, for example, ordered his men to bind him to the mast, so that, no matter how tempting the sirens’ song, it would be impossible for him to cast himself into the sea. Other examples of hard commitments include self-imposed bans on casino visits, Christmas saving clubs, illiquid forms of saving for retirement, Leonid Brezhnev’s time-lock cigarette case, or website blocking apps.

  16. 16.

    More traditional approaches to modify behavior are to use bans, mandates, and price changes (taxes). It is also possible to use behavioral interventions to change the (perceived) utility that the satisfaction of short term desires will provide by, for example, stressing the immediate good feelings individuals may have when working out rather than focusing on the delayed health benefits (Woolley and Fishbach 2015). Also highlighting the achievement of long term goals can increase the chances that long term goals are achieved.

  17. 17.

    Individual well-being in the sense of experienced utility is not the only welfare standard we can think of. Other dimensions that can be used to evaluate nudges include autonomy, freedom of choice, visibility, and lack of manipulation (Sunstein 2016).

References

  1. Ainslie, G. (1975). Specious reward: A behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control. Psychological Bulletin, 82(4), 463–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Akerlof, G . A., & Shiller, R . J. (2015). Phishing for phools: The economics of manipulation and deception. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ariely, D., & Wertenbroch, K. (2002). Procrastination, deadlines, and performance: Self-control by precommitment. Psychological Science, 13(3), 219–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ashraf, N., Karlan, D., & Yin, W. (2006). Tying odysseus to the mast: Evidence from a commitment savings product in the philippines. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(2), 635–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bar-Gill, O. (2012). Seduction by contract: Law, economics, and psychology in consumer markets. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Baumeister, R . F., & Tierney, J. (2011). Willpower: Rediscovering the greatest human strength. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Benjamin, D., & Choi, J. (2010). Social identity and preferences. American Economic Review, 100(4), 1913–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bernheim, D. B. (2016). The good, the bad, and the ugly: A unified approach to behavioral welfare economics. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 7(1), 12–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Berns, G. S., Laibson, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2007). Intertemporal choice-toward an integrative framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(11), 482–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Berridge, K. C. (2012). From prediction error to incentive salience: Mesolimbic computation of reward motivation. European Journal of Neuroscience, 35(7), 1124–1143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Berridge, K. C. (2018). Evolving concepts of emotion and motivation. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Berridge, K. C., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2014). From experienced utility to decision utility. In P. W. Glimcher, F. Ernst (Eds.), Neuroeconomics (Second Edition) (pp. 335–351). San Diego: Academic Press.

  13. Beshears, J., Choi, J. J., Harris, C., Laibson, D., Madrian, B. C., & Sakong, J. (2015). Self control and commitment: Can decreasing the liquidity of a savings account increase deposits? Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research.

  14. Binder, M., & Lades, L. K. (2015). Autonomy-enhancing paternalism. Kyklos, 68(1), 3–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bryan, G., Karlan, D., & Nelson, S. (2010). Commitment devices. Annual Review of Economics, 2(1), 671–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bubb, R., & Pildes, R. H. (2014). How behavioral economics trims its sails and why. Harvard Law Review, 127, 13–29.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Chen, H., Ng, S., & Rao, A. R. (2005). Cultural differences in consumer impatience. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(3), 291–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cherniawsky, A. S., & Holroyd, C. B. (2013). High temporal discounters overvalue immediate rewards rather than undervalue future rewards: An event-related brain potential study. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 13(1), 36–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Clarkson, J. J., Hirt, E. R., Jia, L., & Alexander, M. B. (2010). When perception is more than reality: The effects of perceived versus actual resource depletion on self-regulatory behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(1), 29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Daly, M., Delaney, L., Egan, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2015). Childhood self-control and unemployment throughout the life span evidence from two British cohort studies. Psychological Science, 26, 709–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Davidson, D. (1980). How is the weakness of the will possible? Essays on actions and events.

  22. de Ridder, D. T. D., Lensvelt-Mulders, G., Finkenauer, C., Stok, F. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2012). Taking stock of self-control a meta-analysis of how trait self-control relates to a wide range of behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(1), 76–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Delaney, L., & Lades, L. K. (2017). Present bias and everyday self-control failures: A day reconstruction study. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30(5), 1157–1167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. DellaVigna, S. (2018). Structural behavioral economics. In D. Bernheim, S. DellaVigna, & D. Laibson (Eds.), Handbook of behavioral economics (Vol. 1). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  25. DellaVigna, S., & Malmendier, U. (2006). Paying not to go to the gym. The American Economic Review, 96(3), 694–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Dhami, S. (2016). The foundations of behavioral economic analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Duckworth, A. L., Gendler, T. S., & Gross, J. J. (2016). Situational strategies for self-control. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(1), 35–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ent, M. R., Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (2015). Trait self-control and the avoidance of temptation. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 12–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fishbach, A., Friedman, R. S., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2003). Leading us not into temptation: Momentary allurements elicit overriding goal activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 296–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O’Donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 351–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Friese, M., Frankenbach, J., Job, V., & Loschelder, D. D. (2017). Does self-control training improve self-control? A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1077–1099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Friese, M., Messner, C., & Schaffner, Y. (2012). Mindfulness meditation counteracts self-control depletion. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(2), 1016–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Fudenberg, D., & Levine, D. K. (2006). A dual-self model of impulse control. The American Economic Review, 96(5), 1449–1476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Fujita, K. (2011). On conceptualizing self-control as more than the effortful inhibition of impulses. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(4), 352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Grubb, M. D. (2015). Behavioral consumers in industrial organization: An overview. Review of Industrial Organization, 47(3), 247–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Gul, F., & Pesendorfer, W. (2001). Temptation and self-control. Econometrica, 69(6), 1403–1435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Heatherton, T. F., & Wagner, D. D. (2011). Cognitive neuroscience of self-regulation failure. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(3), 132–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hershfield, H. E. (2011). Future self-continuity: How conceptions of the future self transform intertemporal choice. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1235(1), 30–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Hoch, S. J., & Loewenstein, G. (1991). Time-inconsistent preferences and consumer self-control. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 492–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hofmann, W., Baumeister, R. F., Förster, G., & Vohs, K. D. (2012a). Everyday temptations: An experience sampling study of desire, conflict, and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1318–1335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hofmann, W., & Fisher, R. R. (2012). How guilt and pride shape subsequent self-control. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(6), 682–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hofmann, W., Friese, M., & Strack, F. (2009). Impulse and self-control from a dual-systems perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(2), 162–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hofmann, W., & Kotabe, H. (2012). A general model of preventive and interventive self-control. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(10), 707–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Hofmann, W., Schmeichel, B. J., & Baddeley, A. D. (2012b). Executive functions and self-regulation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(3), 174–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Hofmann, W., & Van Dillen, L. (2012). Desire: The New hot spot in self-control research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(5), 317–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Hofmann, W., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2012c). What people desire, feel conflicted about, and try to resist in everyday life. Psychological Science, 23(6), 582–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Inzlicht, M., Schmeichel, B. J., & Macrae, C. N. (2014). Why self-control seems (but may not be) limited. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(3), 127–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Job, V., Dweck, C. S., & Walton, G. M. (2010). Ego depletion: Is it all in your head? Implicit theories about willpower affect self-regulation. Psychological Science, 21, 1686–1693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Kahneman, D., Wakker, P. P., & Sarin, R. (1997). Back to Bentham? Explorations of experienced utility. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 375–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Alge, B. J. (1999). Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: Conceptual clarification and empirical synthesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6), 885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Kotabe, H. P., & Hofmann, W. (2015). On integrating the components of self-control. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(5), 618–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kruglanski, A. W., Bélanger, J. J., Chen, X., Köpetz, C., Pierro, A., & Mannetti, L. (2012). The energetics of motivated cognition: A force-field analysis. Psychological Review, 119(1), 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Lades, L. K. (2012). Towards an incentive salience model of intertemporal choice. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(4), 833–841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Lades, L. K. (2014). Impulsive consumption and reflexive thought: Nudging ethical consumer behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 41, 114–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Laibson, D. (1997). Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 443–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Laibson, D. (2001). A cue-theory of consumption. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 81–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Laibson, D. (2015). Why don’t present-biased agents make commitments? American Economic Review, 105(5), 267–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Lempert, K. M., & Phelps, E. A. (2016). The malleability of intertemporal choice. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(1), 64–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Lipman, B., & Pesendorfer, W. (2013). Temptation. In A. Acemoglu & E. Dekel (Eds.), Advances in economics and econometrics: Tenth world congress (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Loewenstein, G. (1996). Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(3), 272–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Loewenstein, G., O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (2003). Projection bias in predicting future utility. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1209–1248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (1992). Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evidence and an interpretation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(2), 573–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. McClure, S. M., Laibson, D. I., Loewenstein, G., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). Separate neural systems value immediate and delayed monetary rewards. Science, 306(5695), 503–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Mele, A . R. (2001). Autonomous agents: From self-control to autonomy. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Milkman, K. L., Minson, J. A., & Volpp, K. G. M. (2013). Holding the hunger games hostage at the gym: An evaluation of temptation bundling. Management Science, 60(2), 283–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244(4907), 933–938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., Houts, R., Poulton, R., Roberts, B.W., Ross, S., & Sears, M.R., (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(7), 2693–2698.

  68. Muraven, M. (2010). Building self-control strength: Practicing self-control leads to improved self-control performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 465–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Muraven, M., Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (1999). Longitudinal improvement of self-regulation through practice: Building self-control strength through repeated exercise. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139(4), 446–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (1999). Doing it now or later. American Economic Review, 89(1), 103–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (2003). Studying optimal paternalism, illustrated by a model of sin taxes. American Economic Review, 93(2), 186–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (2006). Optimal sin taxes. Journal of Public Economics, 90(10), 1825–1849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (2015). Present bias: Lessons learned and to be learned. American Economic Review, 105(5), 273–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Prelec, D. (2004). Decreasing impatience: A criterion for non-stationary time preference and hyperbolic discounting. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 106(3), 511–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Rabin, M. (2013). An approach to incorporating psychology into economics. The American Economic Review, 103(3), 617–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Read, D. (2001). Intrapersonal dilemmas. Human Relations, 54(8), 1093–1117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Read, D. (2006). Which side are you on? The ethics of self-command. Journal of Economic Psychology, 27(5), 681–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Read, D. (2007). Time and the marketplace. Marketing Theory, 7(1), 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Read, D., Frederick, S., & Airoldi, M. (2012). Four days later in cincinnati: Longitudinal tests of hyperbolic discounting. Acta Psychologica, 140(2), 177–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Samuelson, P. A. (1937). A note on measurement of utility. Review of Economic Studies, 4(2), 155–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Schelling, T. C. (1984). Self-command in practice, in policy, and in a theory of rational choice. American Economic Review, 74(2), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and mind in conflict: The interplay of affect and cognition in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), 278–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Sprenger, C. (2015). Judging experimental evidence on dynamic inconsistency. American Economic Review, 105(5), 280–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Sugden, R. (2017). Do people really want to be nudged towards healthy lifestyles? International Review of Economics, 64(2), 113–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Sunstein, C. R. (2014). Simpler: The future of government. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Sunstein, C . R. (2016). The ethics of influence: Government in the age of behavioral science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Thaler, R. H., & Shefrin, H. M. (1981). An economic theory of self-control. Journal of Political Economy, 89(2), 392–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Toussaert, S. (2018). Eliciting temptation and self-control through menu choices: A lab experiment. Econometrica, 86(3), 859–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Trope, Y., & Fishbach, A. (2000). Counteractive self-control in overcoming temptation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(4), 493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Urminsky, O., & Zauberman, G. (2016). The psychology of intertemporal preferences. In G. Wu & G. Keren (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 141–181). Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Witt, U. (2001). Learning to consume: A theory of wants and the growth of demand. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 11(1), 23–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Woolley, K., & Fishbach, A. (2015). The experience matters more than you think: People value intrinsic incentives more inside than outside an activity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Wyvell, C. L., & Berridge, K. C. (2001). Incentive sensitization by previous amphetamine exposure: Increased cue-triggered wanting for sucrose reward. The Journal of Neuroscience, 21(19), 7831–7840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Zhang, J., Berridge, K. C., Tindell, A. J., Smith, K. S., & Aldridge, J. W. (2009). A neural computational model of incentive salience. PLoS Computational Biology, 5(7), e1000437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. EnvEcon, 11 Priory Office Park, Blackrock, Dublin, Ireland

    Leonhard K. Lades

  2. University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland

    Leonhard K. Lades

  3. Department of Psychology, University of Cologne, 50931, Cologne, Germany

    Wilhelm Hofmann

Authors
  1. Leonhard K. Lades
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wilhelm Hofmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leonhard K. Lades.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lades, L.K., Hofmann, W. Temptation, self-control, and inter-temporal choice. J Bioecon 21, 47–70 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-019-09284-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Self-control
  • Inter-temporal choice
  • Motivation
  • Soft paternalism

Mathematics Subject Classification

  • D03
  • D90