↓ Skip to main content

The role of simulation in intertemporal choices

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The role of simulation in intertemporal choices
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, March 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2015.00094
Pubmed ID
Authors

Garret O'Connell, Anastasia Christakou, Bhismadev Chakrabarti

Abstract

One route to understanding the thoughts and feelings of others is by mentally putting one's self in their shoes and seeing the world from their perspective, i.e., by simulation. Simulation is potentially used not only for inferring how others feel, but also for predicting how we ourselves will feel in the future. For instance, one might judge the worth of a future reward by simulating how much it will eventually be enjoyed. In intertemporal choices between smaller immediate and larger delayed rewards, it is observed that as the length of delay increases, delayed rewards lose subjective value; a phenomenon known as temporal discounting. In this article, we develop a theoretical framework for the proposition that simulation mechanisms involved in empathizing with others also underlie intertemporal choices. This framework yields a testable psychological account of temporal discounting based on simulation. Such an account, if experimentally validated, could have important implications for how simulation mechanisms are investigated, and makes predictions about special populations characterized by putative deficits in simulating others.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 3%
Bolivia, Plurinational State of 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 82 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 24%
Student > Master 14 16%
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 12 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 36 41%
Neuroscience 7 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Philosophy 3 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 3%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 23 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 May 2015.
All research outputs
#3,717,120
of 25,547,904 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#3,210
of 11,609 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,366
of 279,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#28
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,547,904 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,609 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,675 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.