Delay-discounting probabilistic rewards: Rates decrease as amounts increase

Abstract

The independence of delay-discounting rate and monetary reward size was tested by offering subjects (N = 621) a series of choices between immediate rewards and larger, delayed rewards. In contrast to previous studies, in which hypothetical rewards have typically been employed, subjects in the present study were entered into a lottery in which they had a chance of actually receiving one of their choices. The delayed rewards were grouped into small ($30–$35), medium ($55–$65), and large amounts ($70–$85). Using a novel parameter estimation procedure, we estimated discounting rates for all three reward sizes for each subject on the basis of his/her pattern of choices. The data indicated that the discounting rate is a decreasing function of the size of the delayed reward (p < .0001), whether hyperbolic or exponential discounting functions are assumed. In addition, a reliable gender difference was found (p = .005), with males discounting at higher rates than females, on average.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Ainslie, G. (1974). Impulse control in pigeons.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,21, 485–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ainslie, G. (1992).Picoeconomics: The strategic interaction of successive motivational states within the person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Benzion, U., Rapoport, A., &Yagil, J. (1989). Discount rates inferred from decisions: An experimental study.Management Science,35, 270–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Eysenck, S. B., Easting, G., &Pearson, P. R. (1984). Age norms for impulsiveness, venturesomeness and empathy in children.Personality & Individual Differences,5, 315–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Green, L., Fisher, E. B., Perlow, S., &Sherman, L. (1981). Preference reversal and self-control: Choice as a function of reward amount and delay.Behaviour Analysis Letters,1, 43–51.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Green, L., Fristoe, N., &Myerson, J. (1994). Temporal discounting and preference reversals in choice between delayed outcomes.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,1, 383–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Green, L., Fry, A., &Myerson, J. (1994). Discounting of delayed rewards: A life span comparison.Psychological Science,5, 33–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Green, L., &Myerson, J. (1993). Alternative frameworks for the analysis of self-control.Behavior & Philosophy,21, 37–47.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Herrnstein, R. J. (1981). Self-control as response strength. In C. M. Bradshaw, E. Szabadi, & C. F. Lowe (Eds.),Quantification of steadystate operant behavior (pp. 3–20). Amsterdam: Elsevier, North- Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kirby, K. N., &Herrnstein, R. J. (1995). Preference reversals due to myopic discounting of delayed reward.Psychological Science,6, 83–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kirby, K. N., &Maraković, N. N. (1995). Modeling myopic decisions: Evidence for hyperbolic delay-discounting within subjects and amounts.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,64, 22–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Loewenstein, G. (1992). The fall and rise of psychological explanations in the economics of intertemporal choice. In G. Loewenstein & J. Elster (Eds.),Choice over time (pp. 3–34). New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Logue, A. W. (1988). Research on self-control: An integrating framework.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,11, 665–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mazur, J. E. (1987). An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. In M. L. Commons, J. E. Mazur, J. A. Nevin, & H. Rachlin (Eds.),Quantitative analyses of behavior: Vol. 5. The effect of delay and of intervening events on reinforcement value (pp. 55–73). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rachlin, H. (1990). Why do people gamble and keep gambling despite heavy losses?Psychological Science,1, 294–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rachlin, H. (1992). Diminishing marginal value as delay discounting. Special Issue: Behavior dynamics.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,57, 407–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rachlin, H., &Green, L. (1972). Commitment, choice and self-control.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,17, 15–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rachlin, H., Raineri, A., &Cross, D. (1991). Subjective probability and delay.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,55, 233–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Raineri, A., &Rachlin, H. (1993). The effect of temporal constraints on the value of money and other commodities.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,6, 77–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Salkind, N. J., &Poggio, J. P. (1978). Sex differences in impulsivity and intellectual ability.Sex Roles,4, 91–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Samuelson, P. A. (1937). A note on measurement of utility.Review of Economic Studies,4, 155–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Stevenson, M. K. (1986). A discounting model for decisions with delayed positive or negative outcomes.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,115, 131–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Stevenson, M. K. (1993). Decision making with long-term consequences: Temporal discounting for single and multiple outcomes in the future.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,122, 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Strotz, R. H. (1955). Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utility maximization.Review of Economic Studies,23, 165–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Thaler, R. (1981). Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency.Economic Letters,8, 201–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Thaler, R. H., &Shefrin, H. M. (1981). An economic theory of selfcontrol.Journal of Political Economy,89, 392–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kris N. Kirby.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kirby, K.N., MarakoviĆ, N.N. Delay-discounting probabilistic rewards: Rates decrease as amounts increase. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 3, 100–104 (1996). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210748

Download citation

Keywords

  • Discount Rate
  • Delay Discount
  • Choice Trial
  • Hyperbolic Discount
  • Parameter Estimation Procedure