Delay discounting of different outcomes: Review and theory

Amy L. Odum, Ryan J. Becker, Jeremy M. Haynes, Ann Galizio, Charles C.J. Frye, Haylee Downey, Jonathan E. Friedel, D. M. Perez

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

123 Scopus citations

Abstract

Steep delay discounting is characterized by a preference for small immediate outcomes relative to larger delayed outcomes and is predictive of drug abuse, risky sexual behaviors, and other maladaptive behaviors. Nancy M. Petry was a pioneer in delay discounting research who demonstrated that people discount delayed monetary gains less steeply than they discount substances with abuse liability. Subsequent research found steep discounting for not only drugs, but other nonmonetary outcomes such as food, sex, and health. In this systematic review, we evaluate the hypotheses proposed to explain differences in discounting as a function of the type of outcome and explore the trait- and state-like nature of delay discounting. We found overwhelming evidence for the state-like quality of delay discounting: Consistent with Petry and others' work, nonmonetary outcomes are discounted more steeply than monetary outcomes. We propose two hypotheses that together may account for this effect: Decreasing Future Preference and Decreasing Future Worth. We also found clear evidence that delay discounting has trait-like qualities: People who steeply discount monetary outcomes steeply discount nonmonetary outcomes as well. The implication is that changing delay discounting for one outcome could change discounting for other outcomes.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)657-679
Number of pages23
JournalJournal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
Volume113
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2020

Scopus Subject Areas

  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Behavioral Neuroscience

Keywords

  • commodity
  • delay discounting
  • domain
  • temporal discounting
  • trait

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Delay discounting of different outcomes: Review and theory'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this