ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2026
Using episodic future thinking (or not?) to optimize decision-making.
Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A growing body of research shows that thinking episodically about the future (i.e., "episodic future thinking"; EFT) enhances decisions that entail present-future trade-offs. Although such "EFT-cueing" effects have wide-ranging implications for both improving behavioral decision-making (e.g., health-related choices) and theory building, this literature has so far neglected two critical aspects. First, EFT-cueing is not similarly effective across the lifespan, with a majority of recent studies showing no benefit in children and mixed effects in older adults. Second, EFT-cueing has predominantly targeted intertemporal choice, which is but one form of (potentially) biased decision-making; whether other forms might also benefit from EFT-cueing is not known. Accordingly, we draw attention to a set of forecasting biases that EFT-cueing may also mitigate, including projection bias, end of history illusion, impact bias, and the planning fallacy. We also consider whether for populations and biases for which EFT-cueing is less effective, other developmentally and contextually appropriate debiasing techniques/interventions, including emotionally engaging with future events and perspective shifting, need be harnessed. These efforts hold both practical and theoretical implications about how to optimize decision-making across the lifespan and the kinds of interventions best suited to decisional context and developmental stage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42527775What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.