Memory & Cognition

, Volume 25, Issue 5, pp 715–723 | Cite as

Rate of temporal discounting decreases with amount of reward

  • Leonard GreenEmail author
  • Joel Myerson
  • Edward Mcfadden


The present, subjective value of a delayed reward is a decreasing function of the duration of the delay. This phenomenon is termed temporal discounting. To determine whether the amount of the reward influences the rate of temporal discounting, we had subjects choose between immediate and delayed hypothetical rewards of different amounts ($100, $2,000, $25,000, and $100,000 delayed rewards). As predicted by psychological models of the choice process, hyperbolic functions described the decrease in the subjective value of the delayed reward as the time until its receipt was increased (R2s from .86 to .99). Moreover, hyperbolic functions consistently provided more accurate descriptions of the data than did exponential functions predicted by an economic model of discounted utility. Rate of discounting decreased in a negatively accelerated fashion as the amount of the delayed reward increased, leveling off by approximately $25,000. These findings are interpreted in the context of different psychological models of choice, and implications for procedures to enhance self-control are discussed.


Discount Rate Exponential Model Hyperbolic Function Large Reward Hyperbolic Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ainslie, G. (1975). Specious reward: A behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control.Psychological Bulletin,82, 463–496.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ainslie, G. (1992).Picoeconomics: The strategic interaction of successive motivational states within the person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Benzion, U., Rapoport, A., &Yagil, J. (1989). Discount rates inferred from decisions: An experimental study.Management Science,35, 270–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chung, S.-H., &Herrnstein, R. J. (1967). Choice and delay of reinforcement.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,10, 67–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Gallant, A. R. (1987).Nonlinear statistical models. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Green, L. (1982). Self-control behavior in animals. In V. L. Smith (Ed.),Research in experimental economics (Vol. 2, pp. 129–150). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  7. Green, L., Fry, A. F., &Myerson, J. (1994). Discounting of delayed rewards: A life-span comparison.Psychological Science,5, 33–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Green, L., &Myerson, J. (1993). Alternative frameworks for the analysis of self control.Behavior & Philosophy,21, 37–47.Google Scholar
  9. Green, L., &Myerson, J. (1996). Exponential versus hyperbolic discounting of delayed outcomes: Risk and waiting time.American Zoologist,36, 496–505.Google Scholar
  10. Kirby, K. N., &Marakovic, N. N. (1995). Modeling myopic decisions: Evidence for hyperbolic delay-discounting within subjects and amounts.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,64, 22–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kirby, K. N., &Marakovic, N. N. (1996). Delay-discounting probabilistic rewards: Rates decrease as amounts increase.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,3, 100–104.Google Scholar
  12. Koopmans, T. C. (1960). Stationary ordinal utility and impatience.Econometrica,28, 287–309.CrossRefGoogle 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. Loewenstein, G., &Prelec, D. (1992). Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evidence and an interpretation.Quarterly Journal of Economics,107, 573–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Loewenstein, G., &Thaler, R. H. (1989). Anomalies: Intertemporal choice.Journal of Economic Perspectives,3, 181–193.Google Scholar
  16. Logue, A. W. (1988). Research on self-control: An integrating framework.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,11, 665–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Myerson, J., &Green, L. (1995). Discounting of delayed rewards: Models of individual choice.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,64, 263–276.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Rachlin, H. (1974). Self-control.Behaviorism,2, 94–107.Google Scholar
  20. Rachlin, H., &Green, L. (1972). Commitment, choice and selfcontrol.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,17, 15–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Rachlin, H., Logue, A. W., Gibbon, J., &Frankel, M. (1986). Cognition and behavior in studies of choice.Psychological Review,93, 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rachlin, H., Raineri, A., &Cross, D. (1991). Subjective probability and delay.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,55, 233–244.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Samuelson, P. A. (1937). A note on measurement of utility.Review of Economic Studies,4, 155–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Strotz, R. H. (1956). Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utility maximization.Review of Economic Studies,23, 165–180.Google Scholar
  26. Thaler, R. (1981). Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency.Economics Letters,8, 201–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyWashington UniversitySt. Louis

Personalised recommendations