Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42527775›Full record

ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2026

Using episodic future thinking (or not?) to optimize decision-making.

Cristina M Atance, Teresa McCormack

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

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

2 authors.

Cristina M AtanceSchool of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. atance@uottawa.ca.
Teresa McCormackSchool of Psychology, Queen's University, Belfast, UK.

Funding

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada RGPIN-2022-03194
6 · The paper itself

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

CuesDecision MakingThinkingHumansDecision-makingEpisodic future thinkingForecasting biasesLifespan

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.