Comparing Incommensurable Quantities: Intertemporal vs. Risky Choices with Single Outcomes.

Si-Chu Shen, Yuan-Na Huang, Yi-Juan Zhang, Yi Kuang, Shu-Wen Yang, Shu Li

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Si-Chu ShenDepartment of Psychology, Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou 350117, China.ORCID 0000-0003-4944-6065

Yuan-Na HuangSchool of Management, Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China.

Yi-Juan ZhangDepartment of Psychology, Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou 350117, China.

Yi KuangDepartment of Psychology, Hubei University, Wuhan 430062, China.

Shu-Wen YangInstitute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100045, China.

Shu LiInstitute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100045, China.ORCID 0000-0003-4402-1674

Funding

Fujian Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China 2025J01643National Natural Science Foundation of China 71761167001National Natural Science Foundation of China 72201064Social Science Planning Project of Fujian Province, China FJ2025B061

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The equate-to-differentiate (ETD) model posits that individuals tend to equate a less significant difference between options on one dimension and thus leave the greater one-dimensional difference to be differentiated as the determinant for the preferred option. However, when confronted with an ostensibly "simple" choice between two risky options with single-nonzero outcomes or between two intertemporal options with single-dated outcomes, we face an insurmountable barrier against the ETD model's explanation and prediction of these choices. The reason is that determining which intra-dimensional difference (∆Payoff

Indexed as

comparison between different units of quantityequate-to-differentiate modelintertemporal choices with single-dated outcomesrisky choices with single-nonzero outcomesvisual analogue scale

Identifiers

PMID41898034

DOI10.3390/bs16030372

PMCPMC13024268

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

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.