Skip to main content Accessibility help

A Dynamic Dual Process Model of Intertemporal Choice

  • Adele Diederich (a1) and Wenjia Joyce Zhao (a2)


Dual process theories of decision making describe choice as the result of an automatic System 1, which is quick to activate but behaves impulsively, and a deliberative System 2, which is slower to activate but makes decisions in a rational and controlled manner. However, most existent dual process theories are verbal descriptions and do not generate testable qualitative and quantitative predictions. In this paper, we describe a formalized dynamic dual process model framework of intertemporal choice that allows for precise, experimentally testable predictions regarding choice probability and response time distributions. The framework is based on two-stage stochastic process models to account for the two postulated systems and to capture the dynamics and uncertainty involved in decision making. Using quasi closed form solutions, we illustrate how different factors (timing of System 1, time constraint, and preferences in both systems), which are reflected in the model parameters, influence qualitative and quantitative model predictions. Furthermore, we show how an existing static-deterministic model on intertemporal choice can be implemented in the framework allowing for testable predictions. The proposed framework can bring novel insights into the processes underlying intertemporal choices.


Corresponding author

*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Adele Diederich, Jacobs University. Department of Life Sciences & Chemistry. 28759 Bremen (Germany). E-mail:


Hide All

This paper grew out of an invited talk given at the VII Advanced International Seminar – Mathematical Models of Decision Making Processes: State of the Art and Challenges held at the School of Psychology, Universidad Complutense de Madrid (Spain) in October 2018 ( This paper was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Grant /Award Number: DI 506/15-1).

How to cite this article:

Diederich, A., & Zhao, W. J. (2019). A dynamic dual process Model of Intertemporal Choice. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 22. e54. Doi:10.1017/sjp.2019.53



Hide All
Alós-Ferrer, C. (2018). A dual-process diffusion model. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 31, 2032018.
Baron, J., & Gürcay, B. (2017). A meta-analysis of response-time tests of the sequential two-systems model of moral judgment. Memory & Cognition, 45, 566575.
Brown, S., & Heathcote, A. (2005). A ballistic model of choice response time. Psychological Review, 112, 117128.
Burks, S. V., Carpenter, J. P., Goette, L., & Rustichini, A (2009). Cognitive skills affect economic preferences, strategic behavior, and job attachment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(19), 77457750.
Busemeyer, J. R., & Diederich, A. (2002). Survey of decision field theory. Mathematical Social Sciences, 43, 345370.
Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (1993). Decision field theory: A dynamic cognition approach to decisión making. Psychological Review, 100, 432459.
Dai, J., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2014). A probabilistic, dynamic, and attribute-wise model of intertemporal choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(4), 14891514.
Diederich, A. (1997). Dynamic stochastic models for decision making with time constraints. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 41(3), 260274.
Diederich, A. (2008). A further test on sequential sampling models accounting for payoff effects on response bias in perceptual decision tasks. Perception and Psychophysics, 70(2), 229256.
Diederich, A. (2016). A multistage attention-switching model account for payoff effects on perceptual decision tasks with manipulated processing order. Decision, 3(2), 81114.
Diederich, A., & Oswald, P. (2014). Sequential sampling model for multiattribute choice alternatives with random attention time and processing order. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, Article 697.
Diederich, A., & Oswald, P. (2016). Multi-stage sequential sampling models with finite or infinite time horizon and variable boundaries. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 74, 128145.
Diederich, A., & Trueblood, J. S. (2018). A dynamic dual process model of risky decision making. Psychological Review, 125(2), 270292.
Dolan, R. J., & Dayan, P. (2013). Goals and habits in the brain. Neuron, 80(2), 312325.
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2006). The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3), 378395.
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255278.
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), 538539.
Fudenberg, D., & Levine, D. K. (2006). A dual-self model of impulse control. American Economic Review, 96, 14491476.
Gawronski, B., & Creighton, L. A. (2013). Dual process theories. In Carlston, D. (Series Ed.), Oxford Library of Psychology. The Oxford handbook of social cognition (pp. 282312). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hammond, K. R. (1996). Human judgment and social policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hare, T. A., Camerer, C. F., & Rangel, A. (2009). Selfes modulation of the vmPFC valuation system. Science, 324(5927), 646648.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 4981). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Keren, G., & Schul, Y. (2009). Two is not always better than one: A critical evaluation of two-system theories. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(6), 533550.
Krajbich, I., Bartling, B., Hare, T., & Fehr, E. (2015). Rethinking fast and slow based on a critique of reaction-time reverse inference. Nature Communications, 6, Article 7455.
Lindner, F., & Rose, J. (2017). No need for more time: Intertemporal allocation decisions under time pressure. Journal of Economic Psychology, 60, 5370.
Loewenstein, G., O’Donoghue, T., & Bhatia, S. (2015). Modeling the interplay between affect and deliberation. Decision, 2, 5581.
McClure, S. M., Laibson, D. I., Loewenstein, G., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). Separate neural systems value immediate and delayed monetary rewards. Science, 306(5695), 503507.
McClure, S. M., Ericson, K. M., Laibson, D. I., Loewenstein, G., & Cohen, J. D. (2007). Time discounting for primary rewards. The Journal of Neuroscience, 27(21), 57965804.
Mukherjee, K. (2010). A dual system model of preferences under risk. Psychological Review, 117, 243255.
Osman, M. (2004). An evaluation of dual-process theories of reasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 9881010.
Peters, J., & Büchel, C. (2011). The neural mechanisms of inter-temporal decision-making: Understanding variability. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(5), 227239.
Rangel, A., Camerer, C., & Montague, P. R. (2008). A framework for studying the neurobiology of value-based decision making. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(7), 545556.
Rodriguez, C. A., Turner, B. M., & McClure, S. M. (2014). Intertemporal choice as discounted value accumulation. PLOS ONE, 9(2), e90138.
Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 166.
Shamosh, N. A., DeYoung, C. G., Green, A. E., Reis, D. L., Johnson, M. R., Conway, A. R. A., … Gray, J. R. (2008). Individual differences in delay discounting: Relation to intelligence, working memory and anterior prefrontal cortex. Psychological Science, 19(9), 904911.
Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 322.
Stanovich, K., & West, R. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645665.
Zhao, W. J., Diederich, A., Trueblood, J. S., & Bhatia, S. (2019). Automatic biases in intertemporal choice. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26, 661668.


A Dynamic Dual Process Model of Intertemporal Choice

  • Adele Diederich (a1) and Wenjia Joyce Zhao (a2)


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed