pith. sign in

arxiv: 1906.11072 · v1 · pith:TK2WLNQ6new · submitted 2019-06-26 · 💻 cs.SE

Temporal Discounting in Software Engineering: A Replication Study

Fabian Fagerholm , Christoph Becker , Alexander Chatzigeorgiou , Stefanie Betz , Leticia Duboc , Birgit Penzenstadler , Rahul Mohanani , Colin Venters This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 15:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE
keywords temporal discountingsoftware engineeringreplication studyintertemporal choicesprofessional experiencetechnical debt
0
0 comments X

The pith

Software professionals with broader experience exhibit less temporal discounting in project decisions.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This replication study shows that software engineers and students tend to prefer immediate benefits over future ones when making project choices, a pattern called temporal discounting. The effect appears consistently across different countries and participant types, but varies greatly between individuals. Participants with wider professional experience discount the future less than those with narrower experience. Understanding this helps explain why long-term issues like technical debt are often under-addressed in practice.

Core claim

The results confirm the occurrence of temporal discounting in samples of both professional and student participants from different countries and demonstrate strong variance in discounting between study participants. Professional experience influenced discounting, with broader experience linked to less discounting.

What carries the argument

A questionnaire-based observational study measuring preferences in intertemporal choices, with professional experience breadth as the key background factor.

Load-bearing premise

The questionnaire and selected background factors like professional experience breadth accurately capture temporal discounting without being heavily influenced by unmeasured variables or the replication design changes.

What would settle it

A new study using the same questionnaire finding no significant difference in discounting rates between groups with broad and narrow professional experience.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1906.11072 by Alexander Chatzigeorgiou, Birgit Penzenstadler, Christoph Becker, Colin Venters, Fabian Fagerholm, Leticia Duboc, Rahul Mohanani, Stefanie Betz.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Example of the area under curve (AUC) approach for a single participant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Discounting is pronounced, and most pronounced for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Median discount rate as a function of time horizon (original study). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Intertemporal choice task questionnaire (excerpt). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Participant demographics. company responsibility to broadly categorize respondents into comparable roles. We calculated the discount rate as a function of time horizons using the exponential model with annualized continuous compounding according to (2). We calculated the overall discount rate using the area under curve for the empirical function, as shown in (3). Descriptive statistics, e.g., frequency and… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of professional experience (areas of responsibility). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of time savings (days) required to prefer a long-term [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: For analysis, we binned the variable into three equal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Median discount rate for all participants across project time horizons. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Discounting by professional experience (Medians: low 2.46; medium [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Background: Many decisions made in Software Engineering practices are intertemporal choices: trade-offs in time between closer options with potential short-term benefit and future options with potential long-term benefit. However, how software professionals make intertemporal decisions is not well understood. Aim: This paper investigates how shifting time frames influence preferences in software projects in relation to purposefully selected background factors. Method: We investigate temporal discounting by replicating a questionnaire-based observational study. The replication uses a changed-population and -experimenter design to increase the internal and external validity of the original results. Results: The results of this study confirm the occurrence of temporal discounting in samples of both professional and student participants from different countries and demonstrate strong variance in discounting between study participants. We found that professional experience influenced discounting. Participants with broader professional experience exhibited less discounting than those with narrower experience. Conclusions: The results provide strong empirical support for the relevance and importance of temporal discounting in SE and the urgency of targeted interdisciplinary research to explore the underlying mechanisms and their theoretical and practical implications. The results suggest that technical debt management could be improved by increasing the breadth of experience available for critical decisions with long-term impact. In addition, the present study provides a methodological basis for replicating temporal discounting studies in software engineering.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a replication of a prior questionnaire-based observational study on temporal discounting in software engineering decisions. Using a changed-population (professionals and students from multiple countries) and changed-experimenter design, it claims to confirm the presence of temporal discounting, document substantial inter-participant variance, and demonstrate that participants reporting broader professional experience exhibit less discounting than those with narrower experience. Practical implications are drawn for technical debt management and the value of interdisciplinary research.

Significance. The changed-population and changed-experimenter replication design is a clear methodological strength that addresses threats to external validity present in single-study designs. If the reported experience effect survives proper covariate adjustment and full statistical reporting, the work would supply usable empirical grounding for the relevance of temporal discounting to SE practice and would support targeted recommendations about experience breadth in decision-making teams.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results] Results section: the manuscript supplies no sample sizes, exclusion rules, statistical tests, p-values, confidence intervals, or effect sizes for either the confirmation of temporal discounting or the professional-experience effect. Without these quantities the central claims cannot be evaluated for reliability or practical importance.
  2. [Results / §5] Analysis of background factors (Results / §5): the reported association between self-reported breadth of professional experience and reduced discounting does not state whether the model controlled for age, total years in industry, education level, or other correlated covariates. If these variables absorb the variance, the experience-breadth claim is not supported.
  3. [Method] Method section: no validation or pilot data are presented establishing that the questionnaire instrument isolates temporal discounting preferences from response biases, social-desirability effects, or other confounds introduced by the changed experimenter and population.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would be strengthened by inclusion of at least the key sample sizes and the direction and approximate magnitude of the experience effect.
  2. Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly indicate the discounting measure (e.g., discount rate or indifference point) and the exact operationalization of 'breadth of professional experience'.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which highlight important gaps in statistical reporting and methodological transparency. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation of results and methods.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results] Results section: the manuscript supplies no sample sizes, exclusion rules, statistical tests, p-values, confidence intervals, or effect sizes for either the confirmation of temporal discounting or the professional-experience effect. Without these quantities the central claims cannot be evaluated for reliability or practical importance.

    Authors: We agree that the submitted manuscript does not include these details in the Results section. The data collection yielded specific sample sizes and applied exclusion criteria, and statistical analyses were performed, but these were not reported in the text. In the revised version we will add a Participants subsection and a dedicated statistical reporting subsection that includes sample sizes, exclusion rules, the tests used, p-values, confidence intervals, and effect sizes for both the temporal discounting confirmation and the experience effect. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results / §5] Analysis of background factors (Results / §5): the reported association between self-reported breadth of professional experience and reduced discounting does not state whether the model controlled for age, total years in industry, education level, or other correlated covariates. If these variables absorb the variance, the experience-breadth claim is not supported.

    Authors: The analysis in §5 is based on a direct association without multivariate controls for correlated variables such as age or total years in industry. We acknowledge that this leaves open the possibility that the observed effect is not unique to experience breadth. In the revision we will add a multiple regression analysis that includes these covariates and report whether the experience-breadth association remains after adjustment. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Method] Method section: no validation or pilot data are presented establishing that the questionnaire instrument isolates temporal discounting preferences from response biases, social-desirability effects, or other confounds introduced by the changed experimenter and population.

    Authors: The instrument was taken directly from the original study. We did not conduct new pilot validation for the changed population and experimenter. We will expand the Method section to discuss potential response biases and any consistency checks performed on the collected data, and we will explicitly note the absence of new validation as a limitation of the replication design. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Empirical replication with independent data collection; no derivations or self-referential reductions

full rationale

This paper reports results from a questionnaire-based observational replication on new participant samples (professionals and students from different countries). The central claims rest on direct empirical observations of temporal discounting rates and their association with self-reported professional experience breadth. No equations, fitted parameters, predictive models, or derivation chains appear in the work. Self-citations to the original study supply methodological context but do not substitute for or reduce the new observations; the replication design explicitly changes population and experimenter to increase validity. The reported findings are therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and do not reduce to prior inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Empirical replication study; relies on standard questionnaire analysis and the assumption that self-reported preferences on hypothetical scenarios map to real project decisions. No new entities or fitted parameters are introduced.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Questionnaire responses on hypothetical intertemporal choices validly measure discounting behavior in software project contexts
    Invoked in the method and results sections to interpret observed preferences as evidence of temporal discounting.
  • standard math Standard statistical comparison of means or correlations suffices to detect influence of professional experience
    Used to support the claim that broader experience reduces discounting.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5778 in / 1341 out tokens · 35977 ms · 2026-05-25T15:18:35.491009+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The two paradigms of software development research,

    P. Ralph, “The two paradigms of software development research,” Science of Computer Programming , vol. 156, pp. 68–89, May 2018. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0167642318300030

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Trade-off Decisions Across Time in Technical Debt Management: A Systematic Literature Review,

    C. Becker, R. Chitchyan, S. Betz, and C. McCord, “Trade-off Decisions Across Time in Technical Debt Management: A Systematic Literature Review,” in Proceedings of TechDebt ’18: International Conference on Technical Debt, co-located with the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2018) . IEEE Press, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Technical Debt,

    S. McConnell, “Technical Debt,” 2007. [Online]. Available: http: //www.construx.com/10x Software Development/Technical Debt

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    The WyCash Portfolio Management System,

    W. Cunningham, “The WyCash Portfolio Management System,” in Addendum to the Proceedings on Object-oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications , ser. OOPSLA ’92. New York, NY , USA: ACM, 1992, pp. 29–30

    work page 1992

  5. [5]

    Towards a Substantive Theory of Decision-Making in Software Project Management: Preliminary Findings from a Qualitative Study,

    J. A. O. G. da Cunha, F. Q. B. da Silva, H. P. de Moura, and F. J. S. Vasconcellos, “Towards a Substantive Theory of Decision-Making in Software Project Management: Preliminary Findings from a Qualitative Study,” in Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement , ser. ESEM ’16. New York, NY , US...

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    What Makes a Great Manager of Software Engineers?

    E. Kalliamvakou, C. Bird, T. Zimmermann, A. Begel, R. DeLine, and D. M. German, “What Makes a Great Manager of Software Engineers?” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering , vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 87–106, Jan 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Omission of Quality Software Development Practices: A Systematic Literature Review,

    H. Ghanbari, T. Vartiainen, and M. Siponen, “Omission of Quality Software Development Practices: A Systematic Literature Review,” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 38:1–38:27, Feb. 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Temporal Discounting in Technical Debt: How do Software Practitioners Discount the Future?

    C. Becker, F. Fagerholm, R. Mohanani, and A. Chatzigeorgiou, “Temporal Discounting in Technical Debt: How do Software Practitioners Discount the Future?” in 2019 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Technical Debt (TechDebt), 2019

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    Keren and G

    G. Keren and G. Wu, Eds., The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making . Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell,

    work page

  10. [10]

    Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/ 9781118468333

    [Online]. Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/ 9781118468333

    work page

  11. [11]

    Evidence-Based Software Engineering,

    B. A. Kitchenham, T. Dyba, and M. Jorgensen, “Evidence-Based Software Engineering,” in Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering, ser. ICSE ’04. Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society, 2004, pp. 273–281

    work page 2004

  12. [12]

    Evidence-based software engineering for practitioners,

    T. Dyba, B. A. Kitchenham, and M. Jorgensen, “Evidence-based software engineering for practitioners,” IEEE Software, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 58–65, Jan 2005

    work page 2005

  13. [13]

    The role and value of replication in empirical software engineering results,

    M. Shepperd, N. Ajienka, and S. Counsell, “The role and value of replication in empirical software engineering results,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 99, pp. 120–132, 2018

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    Context in industrial software engineering research,

    K. Petersen and C. Wohlin, “Context in industrial software engineering research,” in 2009 3rd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement , Oct 2009, pp. 401–404

    work page 2009

  15. [15]

    Behavioral software engineer- ing: A definition and systematic literature review,

    P. Lenberg, R. Feldt, and L. G. Wallgren, “Behavioral software engineer- ing: A definition and systematic literature review,” Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 107, pp. 15–37, 2015

    work page 2015

  16. [16]

    Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review,

    S. Frederick, G. Loewenstein, and T. O’Donoghue, “Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review,” Journal of Economic Literature, pp. 351–401, 2002

    work page 2002

  17. [17]

    The Psychology of Intertemporal Discounting: Why are Distant Events Valued Differently from Proximal Ones?

    D. Soman, G. Ainslie, S. Frederick, X. Li, J. Lynch, P. Moreau, A. Mitchell, D. Read, A. Sawyer, Y . Trope, K. Wertenbroch, and G. Zauberman, “The Psychology of Intertemporal Discounting: Why are Distant Events Valued Differently from Proximal Ones?” Marketing Letters, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 347–360, 2005

    work page 2005

  18. [18]

    Loewenstein, D

    G. Loewenstein, D. Read, and R. F. Baumeister, Time and Decision: Economic and Psychological Perspectives of Intertemporal Choice . Russell Sage Foundation, 2003

    work page 2003

  19. [19]

    Neuroeconomics,

    G. Loewenstein, S. Rick, and J. D. Cohen, “Neuroeconomics,” Annual Review of Psychology , vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 647–672, 2008

    work page 2008

  20. [20]

    Experience-Based and Description-Based Perceptions of Long-Term Risk: Why Global Warming does not Scare us (Yet),

    E. U. Weber, “Experience-Based and Description-Based Perceptions of Long-Term Risk: Why Global Warming does not Scare us (Yet),” Climatic Change, vol. 77, no. 1-2, pp. 103–120, 2006

    work page 2006

  21. [21]

    Taking stock of naturalistic decision making,

    R. Lipshitz, G. Klein, J. Orasanu, and E. Salas, “Taking stock of naturalistic decision making,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 331–352, Dec. 2001. [Online]. Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.381/abstract

    work page doi:10.1002/bdm.381/abstract 2001

  22. [22]

    How Senior Managers Think,

    D. Isenberg, “How Senior Managers Think,” Nov. 1984. [Online]. Available: https://hbr.org/1984/11/how-senior-managers-think

    work page 1984

  23. [23]

    Montgomery, R

    H. Montgomery, R. Lipshitz, and B. Brehmer, Eds., How professionals make decisions , ser. Naturalistic Decision Making Conference. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005. [Online]. Available: http://www.tandfebooks.com/isbn/9781410611727

    work page arXiv 2005

  24. [24]

    A model of design decision making based on empirical results of interviews with software designers,

    C. Zannier, M. Chiasson, and F. Maurer, “A model of design decision making based on empirical results of interviews with software designers,” Information and Software Technology , vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 637–653, Jun

    work page

  25. [25]

    Available: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0950584907000122

    [Online]. Available: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0950584907000122

    work page

  26. [26]

    Intertemporal Choice: Decision Making and Time in Software Engineering,

    C. Becker, D. Walker, and C. McCord, “Intertemporal Choice: Decision Making and Time in Software Engineering,” in 2017 IEEE/ACM 10th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE), May 2017, pp. 23–29

    work page 2017

  27. [27]

    C. E. Zsambok and G. A. Klein, Eds., Naturalistic decision making . Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates, 1997. [Online]. Available: http://www.tandfebooks.com/isbn/9781315806129

    work page arXiv 1997

  28. [28]

    G. A. Klein, Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998

    work page 1998

  29. [29]

    Naturalistic Decision Making,

    G. Klein, “Naturalistic Decision Making,” Human Factors , vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 456–460, Jun. 2008. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10. 1518/001872008X288385

    work page 2008

  30. [30]

    Crandall, G

    B. Crandall, G. Klein, and R. R. Hoffman, Working Minds: A Practi- tioner’s Guide to Cognitive Task Analysis , 1st ed. Cambridge, Mass: A Bradford Book, Jul. 2006

    work page 2006

  31. [31]

    Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution,

    K. Dorst and N. Cross, “Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution,” Design Studies, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 425–437, Sep

    work page

  32. [32]

    Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0142694X01000096

    [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0142694X01000096

    work page

  33. [33]

    Characteristics of Decision-making During Coding,

    P. Ralph and E. Tempero, “Characteristics of Decision-making During Coding,” in Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering , ser. EASE ’16. New York, NY , USA: ACM, 2016, pp. 34:1–34:10. [Online]. Available: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2915970.2915990

    work page doi:10.1145/2915970.2915990 2016

  34. [34]

    How to Measure Discount Rates? An Experimental Comparison of Three Methods,

    D. J. Hardisty, K. Fox-Glassman, D. Krantz, and E. U. Weber, “How to Measure Discount Rates? An Experimental Comparison of Three Methods,” SSRN, SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 1961367, Nov. 2011. [Online]. Available: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1961367

    work page 2011

  35. [35]

    A Note on Measurement of Utility,

    P. A. Samuelson, “A Note on Measurement of Utility,” The Review of Economic Studies, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 155–161, 1937

    work page 1937

  36. [36]

    An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement,

    J. E. Mazur, “An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement,” in Quantitative analyses of behavior. The effect of delay and intervening events on reinforcement value . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1987, vol. 5, pp. 55–73

    work page 1987

  37. [37]

    Survey of Time Preference, Delay Discounting Models,

    J. R. Doyle, “Survey of Time Preference, Delay Discounting Models,” Judgment and Decision Making , vol. 8, 04 2012

    work page 2012

  38. [38]

    Area Under the Curve as a Measure of Discounting,

    J. Myerson, L. Green, and M. Warusawitharana, “Area Under the Curve as a Measure of Discounting,” Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 235–243, 2001

    work page 2001

  39. [39]

    The Value of Direct Replication,

    D. J. Simons, “The Value of Direct Replication,” Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 76–80, 2014

    work page 2014

  40. [40]

    Using differences among replications of software engineering experiments to gain knowledge,

    N. Juristo and S. Vegas, “Using differences among replications of software engineering experiments to gain knowledge,” in 2009 3rd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement , Oct 2009, pp. 356–366

    work page 2009

  41. [41]

    Replications of software engineering experiments,

    J. C. Carver, N. Juristo, M. T. Baldassarre, and S. Vegas, “Replications of software engineering experiments,” Empirical Software Engineering , vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 267–276, Apr 2014

    work page 2014

  42. [42]

    Replicating software engineering experiments: a poisoned chalice or the Holy Grail,

    J. Miller, “Replicating software engineering experiments: a poisoned chalice or the Holy Grail,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 233–244, 2005

    work page 2005

  43. [43]

    Understanding replication of experiments in software engineering: A classification,

    O. S. G ´omez, N. Juristo, and S. Vegas, “Understanding replication of experiments in software engineering: A classification,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 56, no. 8, pp. 1033–1048, 2014

    work page 2014

  44. [44]

    Dataset and replication package for Temporal Discounting in Software Engineering: A Replication Study (Version 1.0.0),

    F. Fagerholm, C. Becker, A. Chatzigeorgiou, S. Betz, L. Duboc, B. Penzenstadler, R. Mohanani, and C. Venters, “Dataset and replication package for Temporal Discounting in Software Engineering: A Replication Study (Version 1.0.0),” 2019. [Online]. Available: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3257378

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.3257378 2019

  45. [45]

    J. H. Zar, Biostatistical Analysis , 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2010

    work page 2010

  46. [46]

    On the Psychology of Near and Far,

    K. Fujita, Y . Trope, and N. Liberman, “On the Psychology of Near and Far,” in The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2015, pp. 404–430. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118468333.ch14

    work page doi:10.1002/9781118468333.ch14 2015

  47. [47]

    The Developer’s Dilemma: Factors Affecting the Decision to Repay Code Debt,

    T. Amanatidis, N. Mittas, A. Chatzigeorgiou, A. Ampatzoglou, and L. Angelis, “The Developer’s Dilemma: Factors Affecting the Decision to Repay Code Debt,” in Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Technical Debt , ser. TechDebt ’18. New York, NY , USA: ACM, 2018, pp. 62–66. [Online]. Available: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3194164.3194174

    work page doi:10.1145/3194164.3194174 2018

  48. [48]

    L. A. Suchman, Human-Machine Reconfigurations : Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007

    work page 2007

  49. [49]

    G. A. Klein, Ed., Decision making in action : models and methods . Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Pub., 1993

    work page 1993

  50. [50]

    The Foresight Saga, Redux,

    P. G. Neumann, “The Foresight Saga, Redux,” Commun. ACM, vol. 55, no. 10, Oct. 2012. [Online]. Available: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/ 2347736.2347746

    work page arXiv 2012

  51. [51]

    Why classical decision theory is an inappropriate standard for evaluating and aiding most human decision making

    L. R. Beach and R. Lipshitz, “Why classical decision theory is an inappropriate standard for evaluating and aiding most human decision making.” in Decision making in action: Models and methods , G. A. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Calderwood, and Z. C. E., Eds. Westport, CT, US: Ablex Publishing, 1993. [Online]. Available: http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1993-97634-002

    work page 1993

  52. [52]

    Discounting Time and Time Discounting: Subjective Time Perception and Intertemporal Preferences,

    G. Zauberman, B. K. Kim, S. A. Malkoc, and J. R. Bettman, “Discounting Time and Time Discounting: Subjective Time Perception and Intertemporal Preferences,” Journal of Marketing Research , vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 543–556, Aug. 2009. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.4.543

    work page doi:10.1509/jmkr.46.4.543 2009

  53. [53]

    D. E. Bell, H. Raiffa, and A. Tversky, Eds., Decision making: descriptive, normative, and prescriptive interactions . Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989

    work page 1989

  54. [54]

    Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree,

    D. Kahneman and G. Klein, “Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree,” American Psychologist, vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 515–526, 2009

    work page 2009