Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25524395›Full record

Trial reportJournal of the experimental analysis of behavior2015

The effects of the framing of time on delay discounting.

William Brady DeHart, Amy L Odum

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Framing as a mechanism to overcome the temptation of bad habits.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

William Brady DeHartDepartment of Psychology, Utah State University.
Amy L Odum

Funding

Understanding delay discounting in cigarette smokersR01DA029100 · NIDA · UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY · PI ODUM, AMY · 2011 to 2015
$1.4M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA029100NIDA NIH HHS R01DA029100
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We examined the effects of the framing of time on delay discounting. Delay discounting is the process by which delayed outcomes are devalued as a function of time. Time in a titrating delay discounting task is often framed in calendar units (e.g., as 1 week, 1 month, etc.). When time is framed as a specific date, delayed outcomes are discounted less compared to the calendar format. Other forms of framing time; however, have not been explored. All participants completed a titrating calendar unit delay-discounting task for money. Participants were also assigned to one of two delay discounting tasks: time as dates (e.g., June 1st, 2015) or time in units of days (e.g., 5000 days), using the same delay distribution as the calendar delay-discounting task. Time framed as dates resulted in less discounting compared to the calendar method, whereas time framed as days resulted in greater discounting compared to the calendar method. The hyperboloid model fit best compared to the hyperbola and exponential models. How time is framed may alter how participants attend to the delays as well as how the delayed outcome is valued. Altering how time is framed may serve to improve adherence to goals with delayed outcomes.

Indexed as

Delay DiscountingFemaleHumansMaleModels, PsychologicalRewardTime FactorsTime PerceptionYoung Adultcontextdelay discountingframinghumantemporal discounting

Identifiers

PMID25524395
PMCPMC5661958

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.