Abstract
Delay and probability discounting occur when the subjective value of an outcome changes because its delivery is either delayed or uncertain, respectively. Although theorists have argued whether these processes are one in the same or distinct, few studies have investigated if and how they interact. Experiment 1 had 191 university students complete a discounting task in which both the delay to and the probability of the outcome were varied across questions about a hypothetical romantic relationship. Experiment 2 replicated this procedure with 153 participants completing a discounting task with a hypothetical monetary amount as the outcome. Experiment 3 had 181 participants complete the discounting task about a hypothetical romantic relationship and measured discounting over an increased number of delays or probabilities. Results across all three experiments showed that rates of delay discounting changed as a function of probability; greater impulsive responding was observed as the likelihood of obtaining the outcome decreased. Rates of probability discounting were largely unaltered by the delay to receiving the outcome. The present results support the idea that delay and probability discounting are at least somewhat distinct. Furthermore, they suggest that the processes may differentially interact with one another.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Data for delay and probability discounting were analyzed separately via two one-way ANOVAs rather than via a single two-way (Type of Discounting × Level of Delay/Probability) ANOVA, because there was no theoretical reason to believe that the delays used were equivalent to the probabilities used. That is, one cannot assume that waiting 1 week for the outcome is identical to having a 95 % chance of receiving the outcome, which would need to be the case to conduct the two-way ANOVA mentioned above.
When the fill-in-the-blank method is employed, participants provide a free response (e.g., one percent, 1 percent, one %, or 1 %). Because such responses are not numerical or uniform, they cannot be directly downloaded into a statistical software package. Use of the multiple-choice method in Experiment 2 ensured that all responses were both numerical and uniform.
References
Andrade, L. F., & Petry, N. M. (2012). Delay and probability discounting in pathological gamblers with and without a history of substance abuse problems. Psychopharmacology, 219, 491–499.
Beck, R. C., & Triplett, M. F. (2009). Test–retest reliability of a group-administered paper–pencil measure of delay discounting. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 17, 345–355.
Bickel, W. K., Jones, B. A., Landes, R. D., Christensen, D. R., Jackson, L., & Mancino, M. (2010). Hypothetical intertemporal choice and real economic behavior: delay discounting predicts voucher redemptions during contingency-management procedures. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 18, 546–552.
Chapman, G. B. (1996). Temporal discounting and utility for health and money. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 771–791.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Estle, S. J., Green, L., Myerson, J., & Holt, D. D. (2006). Differential effects of amount on temporal and probability discounting of gains and losses. Memory & Cognition, 34, 914–928.
Green, L., & Myerson, J. (1996). Exponential versus hyperbolic discounting of delayed outcomes: risk and waiting time. American Zoologist, 36, 496–505.
Green, L., & Myerson, J. (2004). A discounting framework for choice with delayed and probabilistic rewards. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 769–792.
Johnson, M. W., & 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.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–292.
Keren, G., & Roelofsma, P. (1995). Immediacy and certainty in intertemporal choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 287–297.
Lawyer, S. R., Schoepflin, F., Green, R., & Jenks, C. (2011). Discounting of hypothetical and potentially real outcomes in nicotine-dependent and nondependent samples. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 19, 263–274.
Locey, M. L., Jones, B. A., & Rachlin, H. (2011). Real and hypothetical rewards in self-control and social discounting. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 522–564.
Madden, G. J., & Bickel, W. K. (Eds.). (2010). Impulsivity: The behavioral and neurological science of discounting. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
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 intervening events on reinforcement value (pp. 55–73). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Mobini, S., Chiang, T. J., Ho, M. Y., Bradshaw, C. M., & Szabadi, E. (2000). Effects of central 5-hydroxytryptamine depletions on sensitivity to delayed and probabilistic reinforcement. Psychopharmacology, 152, 390–397.
Myerson, J., Green, L., & Warusawitharana, M. (2001). Area under the curve as a measure of discounting. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 76, 235–243.
Petry, N. M., & Madden, G. J. (2010). Discounting and pathological gambling. In G. J. Madden & W. K. Bickel (Eds.), Impulsivity: The behavioral and neurological science of discounting (pp. 273–294). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Rachlin, H., Logue, A. W., Gibbon, J., & Frankel, M. (1986). Cognition and behavior in studies of choice. Psychological Review, 93, 33–45.
Rachlin, H., Raineri, A., & Cross, D. (1991). Subjective probability and delay. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 55, 233–244.
Rachlin, H., Brown, J., & Cross, D. (2000). Discounting in judgments of delay and probability. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 145–159.
Reynolds, B., Patak, M., Shroff, P., Penfold, R. B., Melanko, S., & Duhig, A. M. (2007). Laboratory and self-report assessments of impulsive behavior in adolescent daily smokers and nonsmokers. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 15, 264–271.
Smith, C. L., & Hantula, D. A. (2008). Methodological considerations in the study of delay discounting in intertemporal choice: a comparison of tasks and modes. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 940–953.
Thaler, R. H. (1981). Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency. Economic Letters, 8, 201–207.
Weatherly, J. N., & Derenne, A. (2011). Comparing delay discounting rates when using the fill-in-the-blank and multiple-choice methods. Journal of General Psychology, 138, 300–318.
Weatherly, J. N., & Derenne, A. (2013a). Probability and delay discounting of gains and losses using the multiple-choice method. The Psychological Record, 63 563-582.
Weatherly, J. N., & Derenne, A. (2013b). Testing the reliability of paper–pencil versions of the fill-in-the-blank and multiple-choice methods of measuring probability discounting for seven different outcomes. The Psychological Record, 63 835-862.
Weatherly, J. N., Derenne, A., & Terrell, H. K. (2011). Testing the reliability of delay discounting of ten commodities using the fill-in-the-blank method. The Psychological Record, 61, 113–126.
Yi, R., de la Piedad, X., & Bickel, W. K. (2006). The combined effects of delay and probability in discounting. Behavioural Processes, 73, 149–155.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting Experiments 2 and 3.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Weatherly, J.N., Petros, T.V., Jόnsdόttir, H.L. et al. Probability Alters Delay Discounting, but Delay Does Not Alter Probability Discounting. Psychol Rec 65, 267–275 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-014-0102-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-014-0102-3