Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PsyCh Journal logoLink to PsyCh Journal
. 2023 Dec 17;13(3):429–439. doi: 10.1002/pchj.714

Scarcity makes people short‐sighted? Evidence from intertemporal decision‐making

Chang Zeng 1, Qi Wu 1, Cuihua Bi 1,✉, Huaiyuan Qi 1
PMCID: PMC11169749  PMID: 38105568

Abstract

With the acceleration of the pace of society, the problem of scarcity of time resources is becoming more prominent, which may lead to short‐sighted behavior. This study aimed to examine the impact of time scarcity on intertemporal choice and its underlying mechanisms through three experiments. Study 1 aimed to investigate the causal relationship between time scarcity and intertemporal choice and the mediating role of anxiety between time scarcity and intertemporal choice. The results showed that participants with a stronger perception of time scarcity were more likely to choose smaller and sooner gains, and that the mediating role of anxiety was significant. In Study 2, the control of time was introduced to explore whether the sense of control could alleviate the negative emotion caused by time scarcity. The results showed that individuals with high levels of control had significantly less anxiety under higher time‐scarcity conditions than those with low levels of control. In Study 3, we manipulated time scarcity and found that the sense of control moderated the mediating effect of anxiety in time scarcity and intertemporal choice. Overall, these findings suggest that the sense of control over time is associated with less anxiety from time scarcity, which in turn fosters preferences for delayed gains.

Keywords: anxiety, intertemporal choice, sense of control, time scarcity

INTRODUCTION

With the increased pace of life and work today, we are often in a race against time, and an increasing number of people report a feeling of increased time pressure. Time is a precious intangible resource, and “time poverty” has become a new societal dilemma. In a survey of 2.5 million Americans from 2008 to 2017, 80 percent said they felt they did not have time to do what they wanted or needed to do. Although time is objective to everyone, people have different perceptions and attitudes towards time. When time resources are scarce, in addition to the cognitive effects of emotional affects such as stress, unhappiness,attentional resource consumption and reduced executive function, individuals' decision‐making behaviors are affected (Kim et al., 2019; Mani et al., 2013). People who are overly busy will try to meet deadlines and therefore have to go to the most urgent tasks first, without thinking about longer‐term consequences; as a result, they cannot make scientifically sound decisions. Under time pressure, individuals become more impulsive and short‐sighted (Li et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2022).

Time scarcity is the feeling that people have less time than they need, resulting in a lack of time (Devoe & Pfeffer, 2011; Giurge et al., 2020). Shah et al. (2012) noted that the attentional resources of individuals with scarce resources are over‐occupied by the scarce resources, resulting in insufficient “bandwidth” to devote to other things; this leads to limited thinking ability, which could affect their cognitive judgment and choice ability (Mani et al., 2013; Wang, 2020). Intertemporal choice specifically refers to weighing the choices between losses and gains at different times (Frederick et al., 2002). Time scarcity changes individuals' subjective perceptions of time and stress, which affects their intertemporal choice. It has been found that both state stress initiated under laboratory conditions and chronic stress perceived in ordinary life contribute to individuals' short‐sighted behavior in the process of choice‐making (Chen & He, 2014). Notably, unlike previous studies in which time pressure was triggered by insufficient decision time for the task itself, this study seeks to explore whether the perception of time scarcity triggered by external life scenarios similarly migrates to intertemporal decision‐making and influences people's choices. This study proposed Hypothesis 1: Time scarcity leads to an increased rate of delayed discounting in intertemporal choice.

The dual‐process theory of intertemporal choice suggests that individuals have two systems. One is the cognitive system, also known as the cold system, and the other is the affective system, known as the hot system (Daniel, 2003; McClure et al., 2004; Evans & Stanovich, 2013). The hot system requires fewer cognitive resources and makes individuals act more impulsively and tend to choose immediate options, while individuals tend to choose delayed options when the cold system is dominant (Liu et al., 2012). One recent study argues that time scarcity affects intertemporal choice primarily through emotions, as time scarcity could create intense psychological insecurity for individuals (Leary et al., 2022) and is often associated with negative emotions such as anxiety and stress (Kim et al., 2019; Maule & Hockey, 1993). It has been found that anxiety directly affects intertemporal choice, and that cognitive performance related to self‐regulation, such as self‐control and emotional regulation, is disturbed when individuals are in acute stress states. Under this condition, people are less likely to consider long‐term gains and more inclined to make immediate choices (Malesza, 2019). Individuals with higher levels of anxiety are more inclined to avoid risk, and long‐term goal gains can be significantly less attractive to them (Bernaola et al., 2021). Therefore, this study proposed Hypothesis 2: Time scarcity leads to an increased rate of delayed discounting in intertemporal choice, in which anxiety plays a mediating role.

In addition to causing negative emotions, time scarcity could also increase an individual's fulfillment and subjective well‐being, in which the satisfaction of psychological needs plays a mediating role (Layous et al., 2018). Researchers who manipulated time scarcity for college students nearing graduation found that the students enjoyed their remaining time more, thus enhanced their subjective well‐being (Kurtz, 2008). Therefore, this study assumed that there are certain boundary conditions under which time scarcity affects intertemporal choice through emotional pathways, mainly in the form of the sense of control over time. The sense of control is an expectation of one's ability to participate in a choice or to perceive individual competence in a given situation (Ashman et al., 2006). Increased levels of the sense of control could positively predict positive emotions (Greenaway et al., 2015; Patrick et al., 1993); conversely, individuals with low levels of the sense of control may have more negative emotions (Bye & Pushkar, 2009; Huang et al., 2019). The enhancement of the sense of control can effectively relieve stressful emotions and increase happiness, life satisfaction, and subjective well‐being (Greenaway et al., 2015). Moreover, studies of neural mechanisms demonstrate that self‐control is closely related to intertemporal decision‐making (Figner et al., 2010; Hare et al., 2009). Previous studies have discussed the sense of control based mainly on the personality dimension of internal‐control and external‐control, or from the perspective of the subjective feeling of the sense of control. In the case of time scarcity, time‐planning is a kind of control ability, and individuals' ability to ameliorate the adverse effects of time scarcity is also critical. Individuals' self‐reported future planning can influence life satisfaction through the mediating role of a sense of control (Prenda & Lachman, 2001). Therefore, looking at the causes of emotion generation, this study examined whether the sense of control that comes from planning time properly reduces the negative emotions generated by time scarcity, and influences the relationship between time scarcity and intertemporal decision‐making. This study proposed Hypothesis 3: Sense of control plays a moderating role in the effects of time scarcity on intertemporal decision‐making through anxiety.

Three studies were designed for this paper. Study 1 examined whether individuals' anxiety mediated the relationship between time scarcity and intertemporal choice. Study 2 explored whether the level of sense of control could moderate the anxiety induced by time scarcity. Study 3 examined whether reducing time‐scarcity‐induced anxiety by increasing an individual's sense of control improved performance on recent choice preferences in an intertemporal choice task. In the following, the process of how to determine the sample size, all data exclusions, all operations, and all measures in this study will be reported.

STUDY 1

Participants

A total of 538 copies of the Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI‐T) were distributed to college students, and a total of 532 valid questionnaires were returned (six invalid questionnaires were excluded). The questionnaire scores were sorted from highest to lowest, and the set was combined with the study of Peng et al. (2013) and the actual situation of this study. In order to control the extra variable of trait anxiety and ensure the internal validity of the experiment, this study used STAI‐T to exclude participants with a high degree of trait anxiety, so as to try to exclude the possible regulatory effect of trait anxiety when time scarcity has an impact on state anxiety. The top 30 percent of participants with high trait anxiety in the total score were excluded. A total of 372 participants with medium or low trait anxiety were taken as participants in the following three experiments (M age = 19.81 years, SD = 1.53). All the respondents participated with written informed consent.

The sample size was calculated with G*Power 3.1 (Faul et al., 2007). The statistics were set as a repeated‐measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), and the effect size was set to 0.3 (Cohen's f), with α =. 05. The calculation showed that a total of 62 participants were required for the study to achieve a statistical test force of 0.8. Sixty one college students (M age = 21.20 years, SD = 2.64) participated in the current experiment. Participants were randomly assigned to the time‐scarce group (n = 30) and the control group (n = 31).

Experimental design

In Study 1, a 2 (time scarcity: scarcity group vs. control group) × 3 (delay time: 30 vs. 60 vs. 90 days) mixed design was adopted. Time scarcity was the between‐subjects variable, and delay time was the within‐subjects variable. The dependent variables were the discount rate and the anxiety level.

Experimental materials

Manipulation of time scarcity and manipulation tests

Before the formal experiment, we selected 10 hypothetical scenarios (e.g., 30 days before an entrance examination; 15 days before the College English Test Band 4 and Band 6; 30 days before the submission of the first draft of a thesis) and provided them to college students. They did not participate in the validity test and the formal experiment to rate the degree of “time scarcity” and “relevance to oneself” on a 7‐point Likert scale. Forty‐one questionnaires were distributed, and six invalid questionnaires were excluded (100% repetition rate of the same option), so a total of 35 valid questionnaires were returned. Finally, the five materials with the highest relevance and time‐scarcity perception were selected as the initial cues (for a full list of all scenarios, see Appendix A).

The time‐scarcity group first read the material of the scenarios; then they were asked to imagine the situation described therein. Finally, they rated the degree of time scarcity they felt and the vividness of the imaginative process in the validity test questionnaire. Participants in the control group then read a neutral, non‐time‐perception‐related piece of material (see Appendix A) and also rated themselves on a 5‐point Likert scale on the extent to which they now felt that time was scarce after reading.

A 5‐point Likert scale was used to rate the degree of perceived time scarcity and the vividness of the imaginative process to complete the validity test of time‐scarcity manipulation. The higher the score, the stronger the perceived time scarcity.

Measurement of anxiety

The State Anxiety Inventory (STAI‐S) (Cao & Liu, 2015) was used. This scale contains 20 questions. It is a 4‐point scale, where 1 means “not at all” and 4 means “very significantly,” with higher scores indicating a higher level of state anxiety at the time.

Measurement of intertemporal choice

In the intertemporal decision task (Xu et al., 2019), each delayed time corresponds to 9 groups of options, for a total of 27 groups. Each set of options includes an instant option (today) and a delayed option (after 30/60/90 days). The delayed‐option amount is ￥200, and the instant‐option amount starts at ￥20 and increases in increments of 10% of the delayed option. The subjective value of the delayed option is the inflection point of the subject's choice; that is, the subject shifts from choosing the immediate (delayed) option to choosing the delayed (instant) option, and the average of the immediate‐option amounts in the two adjacent intertemporal decision questions is the equivalence point. If participants choose all instant/delayed options, then the subjective value of delayed options for subjects will be recorded as ￥10/￥190. The problem situation was as follows: “You will receive a bonus, and you can choose to get it now or in another month. Please make your choice in each set of options.”

Experimental procedure

First, the time‐scarcity manipulation was performed in the experimental group, while time‐independent neutral materials were presented to the control group. Then the validity of the manipulation was tested, after which the subjects completed the state anxiety questionnaire and the intertemporal choice task. Finally, demographic information such as age and sex was collected.

Results

Manipulation tests for time scarcity

The validity of the temporal scarcity manipulation was examined using an independent samples t test, and the results showed that the degree of perceived temporal scarcity was significantly higher in the scarcity group (M ± SD = 4.17 ± 0.79) than in the control group (M ± SD = 1.94 ± 1.03, t (59) = 9.46, p < .001, d = 2.43). The vividness of the imagery process was higher in the scarcity group (M ± SD = 3.93 ± 0.83) than in the control group (M ± SD = 2.06 ± 1.09, t (59)( = 7.54, p < .001, d = 1.93). The results indicate that the time‐scarcity manipulation was effective.

Impact of time scarcity on intertemporal choice

The hyperbolic discount model V = A/(1 + k * D) was used to compute the discount rate (where V is the subjective value of the reward in the mind of the individual; A is the number of rewards; D is the delay time; and k is the time discount rate). The time discount rates obtained in this experiment were not normally distributed, and thus the values of k were normally transformed to ln k in the analysis of the statistical results. Higher discount rates indicate a preference for immediate rewards. Lower discount rates indicate a preference for delayed rewards (Kirby et al., 1999).

A two‐factor repeated measures ANOVA with time scarcity and delay time as independent variables and discount rate as the dependent variable was conducted, and the results revealed that the discount rate in the time‐scarcity group (30 days: M = −3.68, SD = 1.32; 60 days: M = −4.098, SD = 1.26; 90 days: M = −3.86, SD = 1.33) was significantly higher than that in the control group (30 days: M = −4.94, SD = 1.49; 60 days: M = −4.88, SD = 1.61; 90 days: M = −5.19, SD = 1.77). The main effect of time scarcity was significant (F (1,59) = 10.23, p = .002, η 2 = 0.148); the main effect of delay time was not significant (F (2,59) = 1.82, p = .170, η 2 = 0.03); the interaction between time scarcity and delay time was not significant (F (2,59) = 3.08, p = .054, η 2 = 0.05) (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Descriptive statistical results for discount rate.

A test of the mediating effect of anxiety

All predictor variables were standardized, with time scarcity as the independent variable, intertemporal decision‐making as the dependent variable, and anxiety as the mediator variable, and the PROCESS macro program Model 4 was used to test for mediation effects (Hayes, 2013). Because there is no interaction between delay time and time scarcity on the intertemporal decision, the intertemporal decision is taken as the average of ln k. The results showed that the indirect effect of time scarcity on delay discounting rates was 0.34 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of [0.11, 0.63], excluding the value of 0 for the mediating variable of state anxiety, indicating a significant indirect effect, while the direct effect was not significant (95% CI: [−0.34, 0.40], including the value of 0, indicating that state anxiety fully mediated the effect of time scarcity on intertemporal choice (see Table 1 and Figure 2 for details). The mediating effect size was calculated to be 0.931.

TABLE 1.

Results of the test for mediating effects of state anxiety.

Standardised coefficient SE t p LLCI ULCI
Total effect 0.37 0.12 3.09 .003 0.13 0.61
Direct effect 0.03 0.19 0.16 .880 −0.34 0.40
Indirect effect 0.34 0.13 ‐ ‐ 0.11 0.63
Open in a new tab

Note: LLCI = lower limit of 95% confidence interval. ULCI = upper limit of 95% confidence interval.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Mediating effect of anxiety. *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001.

Study 1 partially supported research hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2 that time scarcity affects delayed discounting, with anxiety playing a mediating role. Note that anxiety itself also directly influences intertemporal decision‐making, with individuals high in anxiety more likely to prefer immediate rewards (Xia et al., 2017). However, in this study, time scarcity as a resource may result in anxiety owing to the lack of time, as well as in other cognitions or emotions. Anxiety in this study is caused by the scarcity of time, and is not identical to anxiety alone in terms of the reasons for its generation, and the underlying mechanisms influencing behavior are different. The present study's findings that anxiety mediates time scarcity and intertemporal decision‐making are not necessarily high false positives, but these results should be treated with caution.

Although the results of Study 1 support the mediation effect of anxiety between time scarcity and intertemporal choice, according to dual systems theory, cognition and emotion may together have an impact on an individual's decision‐making, so we manipulate the sense of control to explore the boundary conditions of time scarcity and anxiety in Study 2.

STUDY 2

Participants

The sample size was calculated with the help of G*Power 3.1 (Faul et al., 2007). The statistics were set as a two‐factor between‐subjects ANOVA, and the effect size was set at 0.3 (Cohen's f) with α = 0.05. The calculations showed that in order to achieve a statistical test power of 0.8, the study needed a total of 88 participants. A total of 105 college students (M age = 19.58 years, SD = 1.34) participated in the current experiment. Participants were randomly assigned to the time‐scarce group (N = 53) and the control group (N = 52).

Experimental design

A 2 (time scarcity: scarcity group vs. control group) × 2 (level of sense of control: high vs. low) between‐subject design was conducted on participants, and the dependent variable was the participant's anxiety measure score.

Experimental materials

Manipulation of time scarcity and manipulation tests

The manipulation of time scarcity and manipulation tests were the same as for Study 1.

Manipulation and manipulation tests of sense of control

Referring to the experiment paradigm of Duan (2014), the research purpose was adapted to manipulate the level of control. Participants in the group with a high sense of control saw the following instructions. ‘You will experience a very important exam in 30 days, and how will you prepare for the exam in the next 30 days? Please make a weekly revision plan, make full use of the time and write it in the schedule issued by the main exam.’ Participants with low control levels needed to write down briefly what they would do to prepare for an important exam they would take 30 days later (e.g., memorization, practice questions).

Subsequently, participants were asked to rate three items, “Now, I feel helpless/powerless/lack of control about the exam in 30 days,” on a 7‐point Likert scale (1 for very nonconforming, 7 for very conforming) to test the level of the sense of control (Fritsche et al., 2008).

Measurement of anxiety

Measurement of anxiety was the same as for Study 1.

Experimental procedure

After the participants entered the laboratory, they were first asked to fill in information about their age and gender, and then they were randomly assigned to different conditions for individual measurement. The participants were asked to complete three tasks in turn, including the time‐scarcity task, the sense of control task, and the STAI‐S.

Research results

Manipulation validity test

The validity of manipulating the levels of time scarcity and sense of control was examined by using independent samples t tests. The results showed that the perceived level of time scarcity (M ± SD = 4.21 ± 0.73) and the vividness of imaginative processes (M ± SD = 4.06 ± 0.63) were significantly higher in the scarcity group than in the control group (M ± SD = 2.33 ± 0.80) and (M ± SD = 2.67 ± 1.08); t (103) = 12.56, p < .001, d = 2.45 and t (103)  = 7.99, p < .001, d = 1.57. Scores were significantly lower in the high‐control‐level group (M ± SD = 2.01 ± 0.73) than in the control group (M ± SD = 4.01 ± 1.33); t (103) = −9.51, p < .001, d = −1.86. The above analysis shows that the manipulation of time scarcity and the sense of control was effective.

Effects of time scarcity and sense of control on individual anxiety

The study used SPSS 24.0 to carry out a two‐factor between‐subjects ANOVA. Time scarcity (scarcity group/control group) and level of the sense of control (experiment group/control group) are independent variables, and anxiety scores are dependent variables. The results of the descriptive statistics for each group are shown in Figure 3. The results showed that the main effect of time scarcity was not significant (F (1,103) = 1.08, p = .301, η 2 = 0.011); the main effect of the sense of control was significant (F (1,103) = 21.96, p < .001, η 2 = 0.179); and the interaction between the two was significant (F (1,103) = 5.09, p = .026, η 2 = 0.048). Simple effects analysis showed that, on the one hand, the state anxiety scores of subjects in the high‐control‐level group (M = 39.59, SD = 9.56) were significantly lower than those in the low‐control‐level group (M = 53.77, SD = 10.69) under the time‐scarcity condition (F (1,103) = 24.33, p < .001, η 2 = 0.194). In the non‐scarcity condition, there was no significant difference in the state anxiety scores among subjects with different control levels (F (1,103) = 2.93, p = .090, η 2 = 0.028). On the other hand, in the high‐control‐level condition, there was no significant difference in state anxiety scores between the time‐scarce group and the non‐scarce group (F (1,103) = 0.75, p = .389, η 2 = 0.007). In the low‐control‐level condition, the state anxiety scores of the time‐scarcity group (M = 53.77, SD = 10.69) were significantly higher than those of the non‐scarce group (M = 47.04, SD = 11.75) (F (1,103) = 5.38, p = .022, η 2 = 0.051).

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Descriptive statistical results for anxiety.

Study 2 examined whether manipulating participants' sense of control could influence their emotional states under conditions of time scarcity. Research hypothesis 3 was confirmed, namely that increasing subjects' sense of control could improve the anxiety caused by time scarcity. The result is consistent with previous research on the relationship between the sense of control and individuals' emotional states. Bye and Pushkar (2009) revealed that an increased sense of control leads to a reduction in negative emotions and has a positive impact on individuals. Individuals with a lower sense of control may experience more negative emotions. Based on the results of Study 1 and Study 2, whether the sense of control can improve subjects' performance in intertemporal choice under conditions of time scarcity will be further explored in Study 3. Further explanation is also required regarding whether this effect can affect subjects' performance in intertemporal choice by influencing their emotional state.

STUDY 3

Participants

The sample size was calculated with the help of G*Power 3.1 (Faul et al., 2007), and the statistics were set as a two‐factor between‐groups ANOVA. We assumed a medium effect size of f = 0.3, a significance level of α = .05, and a power of 80%, indicating a requirement for a sample of approximately 88 participants. A total of 116 college students (M age = 19.55 years, SD = 1.23) participated in the current experiment. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the groups.

Experimental design

A between‐subject design of 2 (time scarcity: scarcity group vs. control group) × 2 (level of sense of control: high vs. low) was conducted on participants. The dependent variables were anxiety and intertemporal decision.

Experimental procedure

First, participants were first asked to fill in information about their age and gender, and then they were randomly assigned to different conditions for individual measurement. Then, they completed a time‐scarcity state manipulation and validity test. Next, participants carefully completed a sense‐of‐control manipulation task and self‐rated their sense of control level according to the instructions. Finally, participants were required to complete the STAI‐S and the intertemporal decision‐making task.

Research results

Manipulation test

Independent samples t tests were used for the manipulation of time scarcity and level of the sense of control. The results show that the perceived time scarcity (M ± SD = 3.66 ± 0.14) and vividness of imaginative processes (M ± SD = 3.93 ± 0.09) were significantly higher in the scarcity group than in the control group (M ± SD = 2.31 ± 0.14) and (M ± SD = 2.45 ± 0.13); t (114) = −6.79, p < .001, d = 9.64 and t (114) = −8.98, p < .001, d = 13.24. Scores in the high‐control‐level group (M ± SD = 2.26 ± 0.17) were significantly lower than in the control group (M ± SD = 3.67 ± 1.77); t (114) = 4.912, p < .001, d = −1.12. This suggests that the manipulation of time scarcity and the sense of control was effective.

Effect of time scarcity and sense of control on anxiety

The study used SPSS 24.0 to carry out a two‐factor between‐subjects ANOVA. Time scarcity (scarcity group/control group) and level of the sense of control (experiment group/control group) are independent variables, and anxiety scores are dependent variables. The results show that the main effect of time scarcity was significant (F (1,112) = 12.01, p = .001, η 2 = 0.097); the main effect of sense of control was significant (F (1,112) = 12.82, p = .001, η 2 = 0.103); and the interaction of the two was significant (F (1,112) = 6.43, p = .013, η 2 = 0.054).

Simple effects analysis showed that, on the one hand, the state anxiety scores of subjects in the high‐control‐level group (M = 40.55, SD = 10.10) were significantly lower than those in the low‐control‐level group (M = 51.66, SD = 13.03) in the time‐scarcity condition (F (1,112) = −11.103, p<.001, η 2 = 0.143). In the non‐scarcity condition, there were no significant differences in the state anxiety scores of subjects with different control levels (F (1,112) = −1.897, p = .462, η 2 = 0.005). On the other hand, in the high‐control‐level condition, the state anxiety scores of subjects in the time‐scarce group were not significantly different compared with those in the non‐scarce group (F (1,112) = 1.69, p = .512, η 2 = 0.004). In the low‐control‐level condition, the state anxiety of the time‐scarce group (M = 51.66, SD = 13.03) was significantly higher than that of the non‐scarce group (M = 40.76, SD = 8.25; F (1,112) = 10.897, p < .001, η 2 = 0.139).

Effect of time scarcity and sense of control on intertemporal choice

The study used SPSS 24.0 to carry out two‐factor between‐subjects ANOVA. The results of the descriptive statistics for each group are shown in Figure 4. The results show that the main effect of time scarcity was not significant (F (1,112) = 1.84, p = .177, η 2 = 0.016); the main effect of the sense of control was not significant (F (1,112) = 3.14, p = .079, η 2 = 0.027); and the interaction between time scarcity and control sense was significant (F (1,112) = 4.57, p = .035, η 2 = 0.039).

FIGURE 4.

FIGURE 4

Open in a new tab

Descriptive statistical results for discount rate.

The results of the simple effects of time scarcity and the sense of control are shown below. On the one hand, in the time‐scarcity condition, the delay discount rate was significantly lower for participants in the high‐control‐level group (M = −4.91, SD = 1.45) than for those in the low‐control‐level group (M = −3.92, SD = 1.44; F (1,112) = 7.64, p = .007, η 2 = 0.064); none of delay discount rates differed significantly across control levels for subjects in the non‐scarcity condition (F (1,112) = 0.067, p = .797, η 2 = 0.001). On the other hand, none of delay discount rates were significantly different for subjects in the time‐scarce group compared with those in the non‐scarce group in the high‐control‐level condition (F (1,112) = 0.304, p = .583, η 2 = 0.003); the delay discount rate were all significantly higher in the time‐scarce group (M = −3.92, SD = 0.253) than in the non‐scarce group (M = −4.80, SD = 0.253) under low‐control‐level conditions (F (1,112) = 6.105, p = .015, η 2 = 0.052).

Mediating effects test with moderation

Hypotheses 3 and 4 were tested using PROCESS Model 7 (Hayes, 2013), specifying 5000 bias‐corrected bootstrapped samples. The model is a conditional process model that tests whether the indirect effect of external scenario‐induced temporal scarcity on intertemporal decision‐making is conditional on an individual's sense of control. All predictor variables were standardized and tested in turn, with time scarcity as the independent variable, state anxiety as the mediating variable, sense of control as the moderating variable, and the delay discount rate as the dependent variable. The results of the study are shown in Table 2 and Figure 5.

TABLE 2.

Moderated mediation effect analysis.

Variables Equation 1 (dependent variables: Interemporal decision‐making) Equation 2, 3 (dependent variables: State anxiety)
SE β t 95% CI SE β t 95% CI
Time scarcity 0.094 0.039 −0.414 [−0.147, 0.224] 0.084 0.290*** 3.466 [0.124, 0.455]
Sense of control 0.084 −0.299*** −3.580 [−0.465, −0.134]
State anxiety 0.094 0.291** −3.111 [0.106, 0.477]
Time scarcity×Sense of control 0.084 −0.213* −2.54 [−0.379, −0.047]
R 2 0.093 0.218
F 5.784** 10.418***
Open in a new tab

Note: Time scarcity is coded as: 0 = control group; 1 = scarcity group; sense of control is coded as: 0 = low sense of control; 1 = high sense of control.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

FIGURE 5.

FIGURE 5

Open in a new tab

Moderated mediation model. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

The results show that the main effect of time scarcity on intertemporal choice was insignificant (β = 0.039, p = .679). The main effect of time scarcity on state anxiety was significant (β = 0.290, p < .001). The interaction effect of time scarcity and the sense of control had a significant predictive effect on state anxiety (β = −0.213, p = .013). The effect of state anxiety on intertemporal choice was significant (β = 0.291, p = .002). In the high‐control‐level condition, the indirect effect of time scarcity on intertemporal choice through anxiety was insignificant (β = 0.023, 95% CI = [−0.035, 0.097]). In the low‐control‐level condition, the indirect effect of time scarcity on intertemporal choice through anxiety was significant (β = 0.146, 95% CI = [0.036, 0.296]).

In conclusion, the test results do satisfy the condition of moderated mediation. In the high‐control condition, time scarcity does not affect intertemporal choice through anxiety, whereas in the low‐control condition, time scarcity affects intertemporal choice through anxiety. Study 3 showed that when individuals were in the time‐scarcity condition, the discount rate was higher for participants with a high sense of control level than for those with a low control level, and they were more willing to wait. In contrast, the former had lower state anxiety than the latter. When individuals have enough time, there is no significant difference between intertemporal decisions at different levels of individuals' sense of control. This indicates that increasing participants' sense of control in the time‐scarcity condition could improve their emotional state and delayed preference for intertemporal choice, which is consistent with hypothesis 3.

DISCUSSION

This study explored the relationship between time scarcity and intertemporal choice, as well as the mediating and moderating roles of emotion and the sense of control. Through three experiments, this study delved into how time scarcity affects intertemporal choice and its internal mechanisms.

The effect of time scarcity on intertemporal choice

It was found that time scarcity did affect intertemporal choice, as evidenced by the fact that individuals who experienced time scarcity had a higher discount rate than those who did not experience time scarcity. Therefore, they were more likely to choose instant options. Previous research on intertemporal choice has also found steeper time discount rates under conditions of scarcity (Stein et al., 2021). Prior to this study, researchers explored the impact that scarcity of money has on intertemporal decision‐making, finding that individuals of lower socioeconomic status, as well as of lower intelligence, are more inclined to opt for immediate results (De Wit et al., 2007). When people are in a state of resource scarcity, they will keep borrowing time from later tasks to compensate for the sense of scarcity, showing an excessive focus on the present and less consideration for the future (Shah et al., 2012). According to the attentional resource theory, attention as a mental resource necessary for individuals to complete activities is limited. If attention is over‐occupied by one activity or thing, there will not be enough resources to devote to other activities. When individuals perceive that they do not have enough time to do something, they will be more inclined to focus on time and the task (Astakhova et al., 2015), resulting in an inability to make practical trade‐offs. According to scarcity theory, people in a resource‐scarce environment devote more attentional resources to what is scarce, resulting in restricted thinking ability and reduced cognitive judgment and behavioral control (Cohen et al., 2013; Mani et al., 2013; Wang, 2020). In addition, it is important to note that, unlike in previous manipulations of time scarcity that were often initiated in the manner of insufficient time for decision‐making, time scarcity is considered as a subjective feeling in this study; through a pre‐survey, scenarios that students are likely to face were selected to induce the feeling of time scarcity. A sense of scarcity due to less time in the future to complete a task enhances the assessment of current results, which influences people's decision‐making about their future plans.

The mediating role of state anxiety

Previous researchers' findings on resource scarcity and emotional states are only partially consistent. Layous et al. (2018) concluded in their study that time scarcity could enhance well‐being. This may be because some individuals focus more on things and valuable resources when faced with time‐scarcity conditions, resulting in a positive impact. The present study verified that individuals in the time‐scarce conditions could exhibit more anxious and negative emotions, and thus focus more on short‐term benefits and less on the future in intertemporal choice. Previous research has explored the role of cognitive judgments between time scarcity and intertemporal choice (Wang, 2020). According to the dual‐system theory of intertemporal choice and cognitive‐emotional process theory, individuals' cognitive resources are depleted when time is scarce (Mani et al., 2013). Therefore, individuals are susceptible to external influences to choose immediate options in decision‐making. Many studies have also found that scarcity is strongly associated with negative emotional experiences (Salari et al., 2020). Individuals experience stress and anxiety when time is insufficient to complete a task (Maule & Hockey, 1993). This study supports the cognitive‐emotional process theory that when time resources are scarce, an individual's anxiety level increases, which affects the individual's judgements and decisions about the future.

Moderating effect of sense of control

The present study further found that the sense of control moderated the relationship between time scarcity and anxiety. Specifically, compared with individuals with a low sense of control, individuals with a high sense of control experienced increased delayed discounting after experiencing time scarcity and instead showed more patience and a longer‐term perspective. Barlow's (2002) study found that a lack of control predisposed individuals to negative emotional experiences such as anxiety. The same results emerged in Bye and Pushkar's (2009) study, namely that with an increase in the sense of control, individuals' negative emotions diminish and have a positive impact. Individuals with lower levels of the sense of control had more negative emotions. Greenaway et al. (2015) explored the relationship between the sense of control and positive emotions, and the results showed that an increase in the perception of control can promote life satisfaction and subjective well‐being. The results of this study demonstrate that the sense of control plays a moderating role on emotion changes caused by time scarcity, which further validates previous research on the relationship between the sense of control and emotions from the perspective of time scarcity.

In addition, this study also found that the perception of control moderated the relationship between time scarcity and intertemporal choice, with individuals with a high perception of control being more patient and having longer‐term perspectives, and being less likely to experience time scarcity than those with a low perception of control. According to compensatory control theory, people's cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors change when they have a sense of lose control, and they become anxious because of the uncertainty about prospects (Kay et al., 2009). The instinctive need to regain control may cause individuals in a state of temporal scarcity to reduce or outright avoid uncertain future options and to compensate for the missing sense of control from immediate options. Conversely, with a high level of a personal sense of control, individuals experiencing time scarcity have no need to compensate their sense of control and may not reduce their preference for delayed options. Thus, it will buffer the effect of time scarcity on intertemporal choice.

In our further study, the moderated mediation results revealed that time scarcity affected intertemporal choice through anxiety only at low levels of control. This mediating effect disappeared when the level of the individual sense of control increased. In other words, increasing the level of an individual sense of control alleviated the anxiety associated with time scarcity and also led to the disappearance of the mediating role of anxiety in time scarcity and intertemporal choice. Dual systems theory explains the results of this study well. Under conditions of temporal scarcity, the hot and cold systems play a joint role when individuals make a decision between immediate gains and delayed gains. The cognitive processing component of an individual's control and use of time ameliorates anxiety, which in turn has an impact on intertemporal decision‐making, and executive control in the cold system plays a more important role. The above findings reveal that individuals need to plan their time wisely and use their limited time resources effectively, which can help reduce the anxiety caused by time scarcity and make individuals more farsighted.

CONCLUSIONS

Both time scarcity and anxiety positively predict immediate preference. Time scarcity can indirectly negatively affect intertemporal choice through the mediating effect of anxiety. The sense of control plays a moderating role in the relationship between time scarcity and intertemporal choice, and the sense of control weakens the positive predictive effect of time scarcity on immediate preference.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ETHICS STATEMENT

The study received approval from the Sichuan Normal University Ethical Committee.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported by a grant from the Major Project of Sichuan Applied Psychology Research Center: CSXL‐21101.

APPENDIX A.

A.1. THE TIME‐SCARCITY GROUP

Read the following materials carefully, imagine that you are experiencing these events, and combine your previous similar experiences to feel this process with your heart and experience what you feel when you experience this situation. And write your feelings and thoughts on blank paper.

  1. When the countdown to the postgraduate entrance examination is only 30 days, there are other tasks such as study, internship and job interview that need to be done during this period. You feel that you have not fully prepared, have not finished memorizing English words, have not started to do the political simulation test questions, have not finished memorizing the knowledge points of professional courses, but the day of postgraduate entrance examination is getting closer and closer ⋯

  2. There are only 7 days left before the CET‐4/CET‐6. This is your last chance to take the exam, which is very important for you, because the result of the exam is related to whether you can be awarded the degree certificate. But you feel that you are not ready, have not practiced the questions, have not consolidated the knowledge, and have to attend classes and finish your homework during this period ⋯

  3. There are still 7 days to take the professional skills exams that are very important to you (such as the teacher qualification examination, computer grade exam, IELTS, TOEFL, accounting, judicial exam, etc.). You feel that you have not reviewed enough, practiced several sets of questions completely, and have school academic tasks such as classes and conferences during this time ⋯

  4. With the coming of the recruitment season, everyone is preparing for finding a job. Your favorite company will come to the school to hold a job fair and an interview in 3 days. During this period, you have to prepare your resumé materials and interview exercises in addition to normal classes. You feel that you are not ready yet, and the interview day is coming ⋯

  5. There are only 30 days left before graduation, and the graduation season is often the most busy time. You have to face things that must be done before graduation, such as finding a job, submitting a defense for your graduation thesis, taking a skill certificate exam, and packing your dormitory luggage. After 30 days, you will leave the school where you have studied and lived for 4 years and made many memories for you ⋯

A.1.1. The control group

Please read the following materials carefully.

Mogao Grottoes, commonly known as Thousand Buddha Cave, is located in Dunhuang at the western end of Hexi Corridor. It was founded in the pre‐Qin period of 16 countries, and then it was built in the Northern Dynasty, Sui Dynasty, Tang Dynasty, Five Dynasties, Xixia Dynasty and Yuan Dynasty, taking on a huge scale, with 735 caves, 45,000 square meters of murals and 2415 muddy colored sculptures. It is the largest and richest Buddhist art site in the world. Mogao Grottoes is one of the first batches of national key cultural relics protection units announced by the State Council, People's Republic of China (PRC), and it is also a world cultural heritage. Mogao Grottoes, Longmen Grottoes in Luoyang, Henan Province and Yungang Grottoes in Datong, Shanxi Province are called the three largest grottoes in China, and Maijishan Grottoes are the four largest grottoes.

The construction of Dunhuang Grottoes and its historical process, the long history of Dunhuang, the influential local clans and surnames, and the relationship between Dunhuang and the surrounding ethnic groups and the western regions are not or rarely recorded in history. There are thousands of portraits of patrons in Dunhuang Grottoes, of which more than 1000 still have titles. These can help us understand many historical situations and historical clues.

The figure painting, landscape painting, animal painting and decorative pattern painting in Dunhuang Grottoes have a history of thousands of years, and they are self‐contained and numerous, which can all provide independent history of figure painting, landscape painting, animal painting and decorative pattern painting. In particular, such rich examples of figure paintings, landscape paintings, animal paintings and decorative patterns before the Song Dynasty in China have been preserved, which is unprecedented in the collections of museums all over the world.

Dunhuang Research Institute and other units jointly produced a comprehensive documentary “Dialogue between Mogao Grottoes and Angkor Wat”, which takes the dialogue of Asian civilizations as the theme and aims to show people the wonderful connection between different civilizations in terms of fate, culture and art.

Zeng, C. , Wu, Q. , Bi, C. , & Qi, H. (2024). Scarcity makes people short‐sighted? Evidence from intertemporal decision‐making. PsyCh Journal, 13(3), 429–439. 10.1002/pchj.714

Chang Zeng and Qi Wu contributed equally to this work.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data supporting the findings of this study are available upon request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available because they contain information that could compromise research participants' privacy/consent.

REFERENCES

  1. Ashman, O. , Shiomura, K. , & Levy, B. R. (2006). Influence of culture and age on control beliefs: The missing link of interdependence. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 62(2), 143–157. 10.2190/9lxu-wlyp-nc22-98mj [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Astakhova, M. N. (2015). The curvilinear relationship between work passion and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 130, 361‐374. 10.1007/s10551-014-2233-5 [DOI]
  3. Barlow, D. H. (2002). Anxiety and its disorders: The nature and treatment of anxiety and panic. American Journal of Psychiatry, 159(8), 1453. 10.1176/appi.ajp.159.8.1453 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bernaola, D. , Willows, G. D. , & West, D. (2021). The relevance of anger, anxiety, gender and race in investment decisions. Mind & Society, 20(1), 1–21. 10.1007/s11299-020-00263-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bye, D. , & Pushkar, D. (2009). How need for cognition and perceived control are differentially linked to emotional outcomes in the transition to retirement. Motivation & Emotion, 33(3), 320–332. 10.1007/s11031-009-9135-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cao, Y. , & Liu, Z. (2015). Factor structure and factorial invariance of the state‐trait anxiety inventory for Chinese children and adolescents. PsyCh Journal, 4(2), 74–87. 10.1002/pchj.78 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Chen, X. X. , & He, G. B. (2014). Stress makes people short‐sighted? Evidence from intertemporal decision making. Applied Psychology, 20(1), 3–10. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cohen, J. B., Pham, M. T., & Andrade, E. B. (2013). The nature and role of affect in consumer behavior. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 12(3): 188–240. [Google Scholar]
  9. Daniel, K. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449–1475. 10.1257/000282803322655392 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. De Wit, H. , Flory, J. D. , Acheson, A. , McCloskey, M. , & Manuck, S. B. (2007). IQ and nonplanning impulsivity are independently associated with delay discounting in middle‐aged adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(1), 111–121. 10.1016/j.paid.2006.06.026 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Devoe, S. E. , & Pfeffer, J. (2011). Time is tight: How higher economic value of time increases feelings of time pressure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 665–676. 10.2139/ssrn.1694704 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Duan, Y. (2014). Money improves the sense of control level (master's thesis). Hunan Normal University. [Google Scholar]
  13. Evans, J. S. , & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual‐process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241. 10.1177/1745691612460685 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Faul, F. , Erdfelder, E. , Lang, A. G. , & Buchner, A. (2007). G*power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. 10.3758/bf03193146 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Figner, B. , Knoch, D. , Johnson, E. J. , Krosch, A. R. , Lisanby, S. H. , Fehr, E. , & Weber, E. U. (2010). Lateral prefrontal cortex and self‐control in intertemporal choice. Nature Neuroscience, 13(5), 538–539. 10.1038/nn.2516 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Frederick, S. , Loewenstein, G. , & O'Donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 351–401. 10.1257/jel.40.2.351 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Fritsche, I. , Jonas, E. , & Fankhänel, T. (2008). The role of control motivation in mortality salience effects on ingroup support and defense. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(3), 524–541. 10.1037/a0012666 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Giurge, L. M. , Whillans, A. V. , & West, C. (2020). Why time poverty matters for individuals, organisations and nations. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(10), 993–1003. 10.1038/s41562-020-0920-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Greenaway, K. H. , Haslam, S. A. , Cruwys, T. , Branscombe, N. R. , Ysseldyk, R. , & Heldreth, C. (2015). From "we" to "me": Group identification enhances perceived personal control with consequences for health and well‐being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(1), 53–74. 10.1037/pspi0000019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Hare, T. A. , Camerer, C. F. , & Rangel, A. (2009). Self‐control in decision‐making involves modulation of the vmPFC valuation system. Science, 324(5927), 646–648. 10.1016/s1053-8119(09)70776-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression‐Based Approach (p. 20). Guilford Publications. [Google Scholar]
  22. Huang, Y. Z. , Jiang, J. Q. , Yao, N. S. , Zhao, L. , & Qian, M. Y. (2019). Self‐focused attention and social anxiety: The mediating role of sense of control. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27(6), 1232–1236. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kay, A. C. , Whitson, J. A. , Gaucher, D. , & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Compensatory control: Achieving order through the mind, our institutions, and the heavens. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(5), 264–268. 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01649.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Kim, J. C. , Wadhwa, M. , & Chattopadhyay, A. (2019). When busy is less indulging: Impact of busy mindset on self‐control behaviors. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(5), 933–952. 10.1093/jcr/ucy069 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kirby, K. N. , Petry, N. M. , & Bickel, W. K. (1999). Heroin addicts have higher discount rates for delayed rewards than non‐drug‐using controls. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128(1), 78–87. 10.1037/0096-3445.128.1.78 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kurtz, J. L. (2008). Looking to the future to appreciate the present: The benefits of perceived temporal scarcity. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1238–1241. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02231.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Layous, K. , Kurtz, J. , Chancellor, J. , & Lyubomirsky, S. (2018). Reframing the ordinary: Imagining time as scarce increases well‐being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13(3), 301–308. 10.1080/17439760.2017.1279210 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Leary, R. B. , Mesler, R. M. , Simpson, B. , Meng, M. D. , & Montford, W. (2022). Effects of perceived scarcity on COVID‐19 consumer stimulus spending: The roles of ontological insecurity and mutability in predicting prosocial outcomes. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 56(3), 1046–1061. 10.1111/joca.12452 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Li, C. , Wang, Y. , Lv, X. , & Li, H. (2021). To buy or not to buy? The effect of time scarcity and travel experience on tourists' impulse buying. Annals of Tourism Research, 86, 103083. 10.1016/j.annals.2020.103083 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Liu, L. , Zhao, W. H. , & Feng, T. Y. (2012). Cognitive mechanisms and neural basis of intertemporal selection. Psychological Science, 35(1), 56–61. 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2012.01.012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Liu, X. S. , Shi, Y. , Xue, N. I. , & Shen, H. (2022). The impact of time pressure on impulsive buying: The moderating role of consumption type. Tourism Management, 91, 104505. 10.1016/j.tourman.2022.104505 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Malesza, M. (2019). Stress and delay discounting: The mediating role of difficulties in emotion regulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 144, 56–60. 10.1016/j.paid.2019.02.035 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Mani, A. , Mullainathan, S. , Shafir, E. , & Zhao, J. (2013). Poverty impedes cognitive function. Science, 341(6149), 976–980. 10.1126/science.1238041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Maule, A. J. , & Hockey, G. R. J. (1993). State, stress, and time pressure. In Svenson O. & Maule A. J. (Eds.), Time Pressure and Stress in Human Judgment and Decision Making (pp. 83–101). Plenum Press. [Google Scholar]
  35. McClure, S. M. , Laibson, D. I. , Loewenstein, G. , & Cohen, J. D. (2004). Separate neural systems value immediate and delayed monetary rewards. Science, 306(5695), 503–507. 10.1126/science.1100907 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Patrick, B. C. , Skinner, E. A. , & Connell, J. P. (1993). What motivates children's behavior and emotion? Joint effects of perceived control and autonomy in the academic domain. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 65(4), 781–791. 10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.781 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Peng, J. X. , Yang, Q. W. , & Luo, Y. J. (2013). Selective attentional bias for different trait anxiety levels. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 45(10), 1085–1093. 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2013.01085 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Prenda, K. M. , & Lachman, M. E. (2001). Planning for the future: A life management strategy for increasing control and life satisfaction in adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 16(2), 206–216. 10.1037/0882-7974.16.2.206 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Salari, N. , Hosseinian‐Far, A. , Jalali, R. , Vaisi‐Raygani, A. , Rasoulpoor, S. , Mohammadi, M. , … Khaledi‐Paveh, B. (2020). Prevalence of stress, anxiety, depression among the general population during the COVID‐19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Globalization and Health, 16(1), 1–11. 10.1186/s12992-020-00589-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Shah, A. K. , Mullainathan, S. , & Shafir, E. (2012). Some consequences of having too little. Science, 338(6107), 682–685. 10.1126/science.1222426 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Stein, J. S. , Craft, W. H. , Paluch, R. A. , Gatchalian, K. M. , Greenawald, M. H. , Quattrin, T. , … Bickel, W. K. (2021). Bleak present, bright future: II. Combined effects of episodic future thinking and scarcity on delay discounting in adults at risk for type 2 diabetes. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 44, 222–230. 10.1007/s10865-020-00178-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Wang, C. (2020). The effect of time poverty on the cognitive decision‐making of boarding elementary school students. Mental Health Education in Primary and Secondary Schools, 14, 8–14. [Google Scholar]
  43. Xia, L. , Gu, R. , Zhang, D. , & Luo, Y. (2017). Anxious individuals are impulsive decision‐makers in the delay discounting task: An ERP study. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 11, 5. 10.3389/fnbeh.2017.00005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Xu, L. , Chen, Q. , Cui, N. , & Lu, K.l. (2019). Enjoy the present or leave it for the future? The impact of temporal perspective on intertemporal decision‐making. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(1), 96–105. 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00096 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are available upon request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available because they contain information that could compromise research participants' privacy/consent.

Articles from PsyCh Journal are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES