The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Preference Reversals Due to Myopic Discounting of Delayed Reward
Abstract
A basic stationarity axiom of economic theory assumes stable preference between two deferred goods separated by a fixed time To test this assumption, we offered subjects choices between delayed rewards, while manipulating the delays to those rewards Preferences typically reversed with changes in delay, as predicted by hyperbolic discounting models of impulsiveness Of 36 subjects, 34 reversed preference from a larger, later reward to a smaller, earlier reward as the delays to both rewards decreased We conclude that the stationarity axiom is not appropriate in models of human choice
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The hyperbolic shape of the discounting function also helps to explain the previously mentioned violations of the stationarity axiom in economics (Strotz, 1955); i.e., the tendency to prefer LLRs when SSRs are not readily available, and to reverse this preference when the SSR is immediately accessible.”
From Changing Delay Discounting and Impulsive Choice: Implications for Addictions, Prevention, and Human Health (2019) · cites this paper as Kirby & Herrnstein, 1995
Citations
Cites
Detection Theory: A User's Guide
Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (1991) · Cited by 5,415
A Theory of Rational Addiction
Becker, G. S., & Murphy, K. (1988) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/261558 · Cited by 3,906
Delay of gratification in children.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (1989) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.2658056 · Cited by 3,397
Myopia and Inconsistency in Dynamic Utility Maximization
Strotz, R. H. (1955) · The Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.2307/2295722 · Cited by 2,834 · cited 1×
“Mischel & RoAccording to one stationarity axiom of standard economic theory, given two goods separated by a fixed time but both in the future, relative preference between those goods is unaffected by how far in the future they may be (Fishburn & Rubinstein, 1982; Koopmans, 1960; Prelec, 1989; Strotz, 1955).”
BackgroundMyopia and Inconsistency in Dynamic Utility Maximization
Strotz, R. H. (1973) · doi:10.1007/978-1-349-15492-0_10 · Cited by 2,803
An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement.
Commons, M. L., Mazur, J., Nevin, J. A., & Rachlin, H. C. (1987) · doi:10.4324/9781315825502-11 · Cited by 1,842
Stationary Ordinal Utility and Impatience
Koopmans, T. C. (1960) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1907722 · Cited by 1,568
Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification.
Mischel, W., Ebbesen, E. Β., & Zeiss, A. R. (1972) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0032198 · Cited by 1,364
COMMITMENT, CHOICE AND SELF‐CONTROL1
Rachlin, H., & Green, L. (1972) · Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior · doi:10.1901/jeab.1972.17-15 · Cited by 1,204
Research on self-control: An integrating framework
Logue, A. W. (1988) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00053978 · Cited by 792
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Ainslie G., 1992, Choice over time, 177
- Green L., 1981, Behaviour Analysis Letters, 1, 43
- Prelec D., 1989, Decreasing impatience. Definition and consequences
- 10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.358 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review
Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O’Donoghue, T. (2002) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/002205102320161311 · Cited by 6,106
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.110.3.403 · Cited by 3,006
Rabin, M. (1997) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 2,463
Investor Psychology and Asset Pricing
Hirshleifer, D. A. (2001) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/0022-1082.00379 · Cited by 2,430
The somatic marker hypothesis: A neural theory of economic decision
Bechara, A., & Damasio, A. R. (2005) · Games and Economic Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.geb.2004.06.010 · Cited by 1,986
Metadata
- Authors
- Kirby, K. N., & Herrnstein, R. J.
- Affiliations
- Williams College (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kirby, Kris N.
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1995-03
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 83-89
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W2135574561
- Cited by
- 591
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 26
- FWCI
- 6.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- preference reversal, hyperbolic discounting, delayed rewards, impulsivity, time preference, intertemporal choice, delay sensitivity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
