Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Discounting of Delayed Reinforcers: Measurement by Questionnaires Versus Operant Choice Procedures

  • Published:
The Psychological Record Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The ability of a reinforcer to maintain behavior decreases as a hyperbolic function of its delay. This discounted value can help explain impulsivity defined as the choice of an immediate, small reinforcer over a delayed, large reinforcer. Human operant studies using consumable reinforcers such as videos have found impulsivity with delays under 1 min. However, measures of discounting rates using questionnaires that describe hypothetical amounts of monetary reinforcers and delays of days, months, or years have found discounting rates that are much too low to explain impulsive choice in operant procedures. A comparison of discounting rates across questionnaire and operant studies indicates that questionnaires produce slower discounting because of the absence of both reinforcement and consumption processes. Combining reinforcement with questions about future reinforcers could facilitate the integration of questionnaire research into a behavioral framework.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AINSLIE, G. (1975). Specious reward: A behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 463–496.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • CHAPMAN, G. B. (2003). Time discounting of health outcomes, In George Lowenstein, Daniel Read, & Roy Baumeister (Eds.), Time and decision: Economic and psychological perspectives on intertemporal choice (pp. 395–418). New York: Russel Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • GREEN, L., MYERSON, J., & MCFADDEN, E. (1997). Rate of temporal discounting decreases with amount of reward. Memory & Cognition, 25, 715–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HYTEN, C., MADDEN, G. J., & FIELD, D. P. (1994). Exchange delays and impulsive choice in adult humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 225–233.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • JOHNSON, W. J., & BICKEL, W. K. (2002). Within-subject comparison of real and hypothetical money rewards in delay discounting. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 77, 129–146.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • MAZUR, J. E. (1987). An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. In M. L. Commons & J. E. Mazur (Eds.), Quantitative analysis of behavior (pp. 55–73). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • MILLAR, A., & NAVARICK, D. J. (1984). Self-control and choice in humans: Effects of video game playing as a positive reinforcer. Learning and Motivation, 15, 203–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MOELLER, F. G., BARRATT, E. S., DOUGHERTY, D. M., SCHMITZ, J. M., & SWAIN, A. C. (2001). Psychiatric aspects of impulsivity. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 1783–1793.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • NAVARICK, D. J. (1982). Negative reinforcement and choice in humans. Learning and Motivation, 13, 361–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NAVARICK, D. J. (1986). Human impulsivity and choice: A challenge to traditional operant methodology. The Psychological Record, 36, 343–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NAVARICK, D. J. (1987). Reinforcement probability and delay as determinants of human impulsiveness. The Psychological Record, 37, 219–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NAVARICK, D. J. (1996). Choice in humans: Techniques for enhancing sensitivity to reinforcement immediacy. The Psychological Record, 46, 539–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NAVARICK, D. J. (1998). Impulsive choice in adults: How consistent are individual differences? The Psychological Record, 48, 665–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NAVARICK, D. J. (2001). Control of impulsive choice through biasing instructions. The Psychological Record, 51, 549–560.

    Google Scholar 

  • NAVARICK, D. J., Bernstein, D. J., & Fantino, E. (1990). The experimental analysis of human behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, 159–162.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • NAVARICK, D. J., & FANTINO, E. (1976). Self-control and general models of choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 2, 75–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • PRELEC, D., & LOWENSTEIN, G. (1991). Decision making overtime and under uncertainty: A common approach. Management Science, 37, 770–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • RAJALA, A. K., & HANTULA, D. A. (2000). Towards a behavioral ecology of consumption: Delay-reduction effects on foraging in a simulated internet mall. Managerial and Decision Economics, 21, 145–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, California State University, P. O. Box 6846, Fullerton, CA, 92834-6846, USA

    Douglas J. Navarick

Authors
  1. Douglas J. Navarick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas J. Navarick.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Navarick, D.J. Discounting of Delayed Reinforcers: Measurement by Questionnaires Versus Operant Choice Procedures. Psychol Rec 54, 85–94 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395463

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395463

Search

Navigation