IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/0020152.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Humans Can Adopt Optimal Discounting Strategy under Real-Time Constraints

Author

Listed:
  • N Schweighofer
  • K Shishida
  • C E Han
  • Y Okamoto
  • S C Tanaka
  • S Yamawaki
  • K Doya

Abstract

Critical to our many daily choices between larger delayed rewards, and smaller more immediate rewards, are the shape and the steepness of the function that discounts rewards with time. Although research in artificial intelligence favors exponential discounting in uncertain environments, studies with humans and animals have consistently shown hyperbolic discounting. We investigated how humans perform in a reward decision task with temporal constraints, in which each choice affects the time remaining for later trials, and in which the delays vary at each trial. We demonstrated that most of our subjects adopted exponential discounting in this experiment. Further, we confirmed analytically that exponential discounting, with a decay rate comparable to that used by our subjects, maximized the total reward gain in our task. Our results suggest that the particular shape and steepness of temporal discounting is determined by the task that the subject is facing, and question the notion of hyperbolic reward discounting as a universal principle.Synopsis: When we make a choice between two options, we compare the values of their outcomes and select the option with a larger value. However, what if one option leads to a larger delayed reward and the other leads to a smaller more immediate reward? Naturally, we assign a larger value for a larger reward, but it is “discounted” if the reward is to be delivered later. Thus, the value is a monotonically decreasing function of the delays. Previous behavioral studies have repeatedly demonstrated that humans and animals discount delayed rewards hyperbolically. This has practical importance, as hyperbolic discounting can sometimes lead to “irrational” preference reversal: for instance, an individual may prefer two apples in 51 days to one apple in 50 days, but if the days come closer, he prefers one apple today to two apples tomorrow. On the contrary, exponential discounting is always “rational,” as it predicts constant preference. Here, in a new task that mimics animal foraging, and that uses delayed monetary rewards, Schweighofer and colleagues showed that humans can also discount reward exponentially. Furthermore, it is remarkable that by adopting exponential discounting, their subjects maximized their total gain. Thus, depending on the task at hand, the authors' study suggests that humans can flexibly choose the type of reward discounting, and can exhibit rational behavior that maximizes long-term gains.

Suggested Citation

  • N Schweighofer & K Shishida & C E Han & Y Okamoto & S C Tanaka & S Yamawaki & K Doya, 2006. "Humans Can Adopt Optimal Discounting Strategy under Real-Time Constraints," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(11), pages 1-8, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:0020152
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020152
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020152
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020152&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020152?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. E. S. Phelps & R. A. Pollak, 1968. "On Second-Best National Saving and Game-Equilibrium Growth," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 35(2), pages 185-199.
    2. Thaler, Richard H & Shefrin, H M, 1981. "An Economic Theory of Self-Control," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(2), pages 392-406, April.
    3. George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 1992. "Anomalies in Intertemporal Choice: Evidence and an Interpretation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 107(2), pages 573-597.
    4. George-Marios Angeletos, 2001. "The Hyberbolic Consumption Model: Calibration, Simulation, and Empirical Evaluation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(3), pages 47-68, Summer.
    5. David Laibson, 1997. "Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 443-478.
    6. Read, Daniel, 2001. "Is Time-Discounting Hyperbolic or Subadditive?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 5-32, July.
    7. Kirby, Kris N. & Marakovic, Nino N., 1995. "Modeling Myopic Decisions: Evidence for Hyperbolic Delay-Discounting within Subjects and Amounts," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 22-30, October.
    8. Shane Frederick & George Loewenstein & Ted O'Donoghue, 2002. "Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(2), pages 351-401, June.
    9. Paul A. Samuelson, 1937. "A Note on Measurement of Utility," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 4(2), pages 155-161.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. David Laibson, 1997. "Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 443-478.
    2. Lionel Rigoux & Emmanuel Guigon, 2012. "A Model of Reward- and Effort-Based Optimal Decision Making and Motor Control," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-13, October.
    3. Giancarlo La Camera & Barry J Richmond, 2008. "Modeling the Violation of Reward Maximization and Invariance in Reinforcement Schedules," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(8), pages 1-17, August.
    4. Petr Houdek, 2008. "Time Preferences in the Perspective of Cognitive Neurosciences [Časové preference z pohledu kognitivní neurovědy]," E-LOGOS, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2008(1), pages 1-9.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrew Meyer, 2013. "Estimating discount factors for public and private goods and testing competing discounting hypotheses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 133-173, April.
    2. Anke Gerbe & Kirsten I.M. Rohde, 2010. "Risk and Preference Reversals in Intertemporal Choice," Post-Print hal-00911832, HAL.
    3. Lu, Yang & Wu, Dongmei & Zhuang, Xintian, 2016. "Part-whole bias in intertemporal choice: An empirical study of additive assumption," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 463(C), pages 231-235.
    4. Benhabib, Jess & Bisin, Alberto & Schotter, Andrew, 2010. "Present-bias, quasi-hyperbolic discounting, and fixed costs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 205-223, July.
    5. Gerber, Anke & Rohde, Kirsten I.M., 2010. "Risk and preference reversals in intertemporal choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 654-668, December.
    6. Méder, Zsombor Z. & Flesch, János & Peeters, Ronald, 2017. "Naiveté and sophistication in dynamic inconsistency," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 40-54.
    7. W. David Bradford & Paul Dolan & Matteo M. Galizzi, 2019. "Looking ahead: Subjective time perception and individual discounting," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 43-69, February.
    8. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    9. Bart Cockx & Corinna Ghirelli & Bruno Van der Linden, 2013. "Monitoring Job Search Effort with Hyperbolic Time Preferences and Non-Compliance: A Welfare Analysis," CESifo Working Paper Series 4187, CESifo.
    10. Read, Daniel & Roelofsma, Peter H. M. P., 2003. "Subadditive versus hyperbolic discounting: A comparison of choice and matching," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 140-153, July.
    11. Manzini Paola & Mariotti Marco, 2006. "A Vague Theory of Choice over Time," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-27, October.
    12. Dorian Jullien, 2018. "Under Risk, Over Time, Regarding Other People: Language and Rationality within Three Dimensions," Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, in: Including a Symposium on Latin American Monetary Thought: Two Centuries in Search of Originality, volume 36, pages 119-155, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    13. Giles W Story & Ivo Vlaev & Peter Dayan & Ben Seymour & Ara Darzi & Raymond J Dolan, 2015. "Anticipation and Choice Heuristics in the Dynamic Consumption of Pain Relief," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-32, March.
    14. George Ainslie, 2012. "Pure hyperbolic discount curves predict “eyes open” self-control," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(1), pages 3-34, July.
    15. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten I. & Rutström, E. Elisabet, 2014. "Discounting behavior: A reconsideration," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 15-33.
    16. Balbus, Łukasz & Reffett, Kevin & Woźny, Łukasz, 2022. "Time-consistent equilibria in dynamic models with recursive payoffs and behavioral discounting," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    17. Musau, Andrew, 2009. "Modeling Alternatives to Exponential Discounting," MPRA Paper 16416, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Galizzi, Matteo M. & Miraldo, Marisa & Stavropoulou, Charitini & van der Pol, Marjon, 2016. "Doctor–patient differences in risk and time preferences: A field experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 171-182.
    19. Ali al-Nowaihi & Sanjit Dhami, 2018. "Foundations for Intertemporal Choice," CESifo Working Paper Series 6913, CESifo.
    20. Shi Yingnan & Xinghao Li, 2017. "The Time Preference of Chinese Tend to be Less Affected by Positive Emotions: As Proved by an Experimental Study," Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, AMH International, vol. 9(4), pages 201-216.

    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:plo:pcbi00:0020152. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    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.