Abstract
In four experiments, we compared the effects of delay, probability, and monetary amount on the subjective value of gains and losses. For delayed gains, smaller amounts were discounted more steeply than larger amounts, whereas the opposite pattern was observed with probabilistic gains. For both delayed and probabilistic losses, however, amount had much smaller and less reliable effects on discounting. Taken together, the pattern of differential magnitude effects leads to delayed gains’ being discounted significantly more steeply than delayed losses, but only at smaller amounts, whereas probabilistic gains are discounted significantly more steeply than probabilistic losses, but only at larger amounts. Even though the same hyperbola-like function described both individual and group discounting of delayed and probabilistic gains and losses, the present findings suggest that different processes are involved in discounting positive and negative outcomes. Raw data may be downloaded from www.psychonomic.org/archive.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ainslie, G. (1992).Picoeconomics: The strategic interaction of successive motivational states within the person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baker, F., Johnson, M. W., &Bickel, W. K. (2003). Delay discounting in current and never-before cigarette smokers: Similarities and differences across commodity, sign, and magnitude.Journal of Abnormal Psychology,112, 382–392.
Benzion, U., Rapoport, A., &Yagil, J. (1989). Discount rates inferred from decisions: An experimental study.Management Science,35, 270–284.
Chapman, G. B. (1996). Temporal discounting and utility for health and money.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 771–791.
Chapman, G. B., &Elstein, A. S. (1995). Valuing the future: Temporal discounting of health and money.Medical Decision Making,15, 373–386.
Du, W., Green, L., &Myerson, J. (2002). Cross-cultural comparisons of discounting delayed and probabilistic rewards.Psychological Record,52, 479–492.
Estes, W. K. (1956). The problem of inference from curves based on group data.Psychological Bulletin,53, 134–140.
Federal Reserve Statistical Release G.19: Consumer Credit (2004). Retrieved May 11, 2004 from www.federalreserve.gov/ releases/G19/current/.
Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., &O’Donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review.Journal of Economic Literature,40, 351–401.
Gonzalez, R., &Wu, G. (1999). On the shape of the probability weighting function.Cognitive Psychology,38, 129–166.
Green, L., Fry, A. F., &Myerson, J. (1994). Discounting of delayed rewards: A life-span comparison.Psychological Science,5, 33–36.
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.
Green, L., Myerson, J., &McFadden, E. (1997). Rate of temporal discounting decreases with amount of reward.Memory & Cognition,25, 715–723.
Green, L., Myerson, J., &Ostaszewski, P. (1999). Amount of reward has opposite effects on the discounting of delayed and probabilistic outcomes.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,25, 418–427.
Holt, D. D., Green, L., &Myerson, J. (2003). Is discounting impulsive? Evidence from temporal and probability discounting in gambling and non-gambling college students.Behavioural Processes,64, 355–367.
Kahneman, D., &Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.Econometrica,47, 263–292.
Kirby, K. N. (1997). Bidding on the future: Evidence against normative discounting of delayed rewards.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,126, 54–70.
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.
Laibson, D. (1997). Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting.Quarterly Journal of Economics,11, 443–477.
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: Sage.
Loewenstein, G., &Prelec, D. (1992). Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evidence and an interpretation.Quarterly Journal of Economics,107, 573–597.
Loewenstein, G., &Thaler, R. H. (1989). Intertemporal choice.Journal of Economic Perspectives,3, 181–193.
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.
Murphy, J. G., Vuchinich, R. E., &Simpson, C. A. (2001). Delayed reward and cost discounting.Psychological Record,51, 571–588.
Myerson, J., &Green, L. (1995). Discounting of delayed rewards: Models of individual choice.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,64, 263–276.
Myerson, J., Green, L., Hanson, J. S., Holt, D. D., &Estle, S. J. (2003). Discounting delayed and probabilistic rewards: Processes and traits.Journal of Economic Psychology,24, 619–635.
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.
Prelec, D., &Loewenstein, G. (1991). Decision making over time and under uncertainty: A common approach.Management Science,37, 770–786.
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., Siegel, E., &Cross, D. (1994). Lotteries and the time horizon.Psychological Science,5, 390–393.
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.
Sidman, M. (1952). A note on functional relations obtained from group data.Psychological Bulletin,49, 263–269.
Simpson, C. A., &Vuchinich, R. E. (2000). Reliability of a measure of temporal discounting.Psychological Record,50, 3–16.
Starmer, C. (2000). Developments in non-expected utility theory: The hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk.Journal of Economic Literature,38, 332–382.
Stevens, S. S. (1957). On the psychophysical law.Psychological Review,64, 153–181.
Stevenson, M. K. (1986). A discounting model for decisions with delayed positive and negative outcomes.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,115, 131–154.
Thaler, R. (1981). Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency.Economics Letters,8, 201–207.
Tversky, A., &Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.Science,211, 453–458.
Tversky, A., &Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty.Journal of Risk & Uncertainty,5, 297–323.
U.S. Census Bureau (2003).Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2003 (123rd ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Yates, J. F., &Watts, R. A. (1975). Preferences for deferred loss.Organizational Behavior & Human Performance,13, 294–306.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
A preliminary report of this study was presented at the May 2003 meeting of the Society for Quantitative Analyses of Behavior in San Francisco. Support for this research was provided by Grant MH55308 from the National Institute of Mental Health.
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Estle, S.J., Green, L., Myerson, J. et al. Differential effects of amount on temporal and probability discounting of gains and losses. Memory & Cognition 34, 914–928 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193437
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193437