Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-65tv2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-10T12:11:01.181Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weighting on waiting: Willpower and attribute weighting models of decision making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2021

Alison Harris Open the ORCID record for Alison Harris [Opens in a new window]
Alison Harris*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological Science, Claremont McKenna College, Claremont, CA 91711. aharris@cmc.edu; http://www.cmc.edu/pages/faculty/AHarris
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Willpower is often conceptualized as incorporating effortful and momentary suppression of immediate but ultimately inferior rewards. Yet, growing evidence instead supports a process of attribute weighting, whereby normatively optimal choices arise from separable evaluation of different attributes (e.g., time and money). Strategic allocation of attention settles conflicts between competing choice-relevant attributes, which could be expanded to include self-referential predictions (“resolve”).

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 44 , 2021 , e38
Check for updates
Creative Commons
The target article and response article are works of the U.S. Government and are not subject to copyright protection in the United States.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Amasino, D. R., Sullivan, N. J., Kranton, R. E., & Huettel, S. A. (2019). Amount and time exert independent influences on intertemporal choice. Nature Human Behavior, 3(4), 383–392. doi: 10.1038/s41562-019-0537-2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berkman, E. T., Hutcherson, C. A., Livingston, J. L., Kahn, L. E., & Inzlicht, M. (2017). Self-control as value-based choice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(5), 422–428. doi: 10.1177/0963721417704394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bhanji, J. P., & Beer, J. S. (2012). Taking a different perspective: Mindset influences neural regions that represent value and choice. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(7), 782–793. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsr062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busemeyer, J. R., Gluth, S., Rieskamp, J., & Turner, B. M. (2019). Cognitive and neural bases of multi-attribute, multi-alternative, value-based decisions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(3), 251–263. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2018.12.003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hare, T. A., Camerer, C. F., & Rangel, A. (2009). Self-control in decision-making involves modulation of the vmPFC valuation system. Science (New York, N.Y.), 324(5927), 646–648. doi: 324/5927/646 [pii].10.1126/science.1168450.Google ScholarPubMed
Hare, T. A., Malmaud, J., & Rangel, A. (2011). Focusing attention on the health aspects of foods changes value signals in vmPFC and improves dietary choice. Journal of Neuroscience, 31(30), 11077–11087. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6383-10.2011.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, A., Hare, T., & Rangel, A. (2013). Temporally dissociable mechanisms of self-control: Early attentional filtering versus late value modulation. Journal of Neuroscience, 33(48), 18917–18931. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5816-12.2013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hutcherson, C. A., Rangel, A., & Tusche, A. (2020). Evidence accumulation, not “self-control,” explains why the dlPFC activates during normative choice. bioRxiv, 2020.2010.2006.328476. doi: 10.1101/2020.10.06.328476.Google Scholar
Jenkins, A. C., & Hsu, M. (2017). Dissociable contributions of imagination and willpower to the malleability of human patience. Psychological Science, 28(7), 894–906. doi: 10.1177/0956797617698133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kastner, S., & Ungerleider, L. G. (2001). The neural basis of biased competition in human visual cortex. Neuropsychologia, 39(12), 1263–1276. doi: S0028-3932(01)00116-6 [pii].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kidd, C., Palmeri, H., & Aslin, R. N. (2013). Rational snacking: Young children's decision-making on the marshmallow task is moderated by beliefs about environmental reliability. Cognition, 126(1), 109–114. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.08.004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krajbich, I., Armel, C., & Rangel, A. (2010). Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice. Nature Neuroscience, 13(10), 1292–1298. doi: 10.1038/nn.2635.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lempert, K. M., & Phelps, E. A. (2016). The malleability of intertemporal choice. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(1), 64–74. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2015.09.005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lempert, K. M., Speer, M. E., Delgado, M. R., & Phelps, E. A. (2017). Positive autobiographical memory retrieval reduces temporal discounting. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(10), 1584–1593. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsx086.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lim, S. L., Penrod, M. T., Ha, O. R., Bruce, J. M., & Bruce, A. S. (2018). Calorie labeling promotes dietary self-control by shifting the temporal dynamics of health- and taste-attribute integration in overweight individuals. Psychological Science, 29(3), 447–462. doi: 10.1177/0956797617737871.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magen, E., Dweck, C. S., & Gross, J. J. (2008). The hidden-zero effect: Representing a single choice as an extended sequence reduces impulsive choice. Psychological Science, 19(7), 648–649. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02137.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maier, S. U., Raja Beharelle, A., Polania, R., Ruff, C. C., & Hare, T. A. (2020). Dissociable mechanisms govern when and how strongly reward attributes affect decisions. Nature Human Behavior, 4(9), 949–963. doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-0893-y.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McClure, S. M., Laibson, D. I., Loewenstein, G., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). Separate neural systems value immediate and delayed monetary rewards. Science (New York, N.Y.), 306(5695), 503–507. doi: 306/5695/503 [pii]10.1126/science.1100907.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGuire, J. T., & Kable, J. W. (2013). Rational temporal predictions can underlie apparent failures to delay gratification. Psychological Review, 120(2), 395–410. doi: 10.1037/a0031910.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167–202. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.16724/1/167 [pii].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rangel, A., & Clithero, J. A. (2014). The computation of stimulus values in simple choice. In P. W. Glimcher & E. Fehr (Eds.), Neuroeconomics (pp. 125–148). Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeck, C., Wall, D., & Johnson, E. J. (2017). Search predicts and changes patience in intertemporal choice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 114(45), 11890–11895. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1707040114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sullivan, N., Hutcherson, C., Harris, A., & Rangel, A. (2015). Dietary self-control is related to the speed with which attributes of healthfulness and tastiness are processed. Psychological Science, 26(2), 122–134. doi: 10.1177/0956797614559543.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tusche, A., & Hutcherson, C. A. (2018). Cognitive regulation alters social and dietary choice by changing attribute representations in domain-general and domain-specific brain circuits. eLife, 7, e31185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed