IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v15y2020i3p381-400_7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Delay discounting and risky choice: Meta-analytic evidence regarding single-process theories

Author

Listed:
  • Johnson, Kelli L.
  • Bixter, Michael T.
  • Luhmann, Christian C.

Abstract

Preferences about delayed rewards and preferences about risk are central to the literature on decision making. Several proposals suggest that such preferences arise from a single process and thus predict strong associations between preferences about delay and risk. Although there is a wealth of data on this association, the evidence is inconclusive; some studies have reported significant associations but many have not. Consequently, it is unclear whether the association between delay preferences and risk preferences is strong enough to support single-process theories. To further explore this question, we took a meta-analytic approach surveying 26 studies totaling 32 effect sizes. Results reveal a small to moderate association between risk preferences and delay preferences. This result provides little support for existing proposals because the observed relationship is no stronger than associations observed between either delay preferences or risk preferences and other variables. Moderating variables provide some explanation for inconsistencies across studies. Implications, including the apparent discrepancy between this literature and the conventional construct of impulsivity, are also discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Johnson, Kelli L. & Bixter, Michael T. & Luhmann, Christian C., 2020. "Delay discounting and risky choice: Meta-analytic evidence regarding single-process theories," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 381-400, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:3:p:381-400_7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S193029750000718X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:3:p:381-400_7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.