Cited by 991Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis

WITHIN‐SUBJECT COMPARISON OF REAL AND HYPOTHETICAL MONEY REWARDS IN DELAY DISCOUNTING

Open access
Johnson, Matthew W., Bickel, Warren K.·2002·Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

Abstract

A within‐subject design, using human participants, compared delay discounting functions for real and hypothetical money rewards. Both real and hypothetical rewards were studied across a range that included $10 to $250. For 5 of the 6 participants, no systematic difference in discount rate was observed in response to real and hypothetical choices, suggesting that hypothetical rewards may often serve as a valid proxy for real rewards in delay discounting research. By measuring discounting at an unprecedented range of real rewards, this study has also systematically replicated the robust finding in human delay discounting research that discount rates decrease with increasing magnitude of reward. A hyperbolic decay model described the data better than an exponential model.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1901/jeab.2002.77-129

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Rachlin, H., & Green, L. (1972). Commitment, choice and self-control. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 17, 15-22.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Johnson, M. W., & Bickel, W. K.
Affiliations
University of Vermont (US)
Corresponding author
Johnson, Matthew W.
Venue
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-03
Volume
77
Issue
2
Pages
129-146
ISSN
  • 0022-5002 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-3711
OpenAlex
W2005033227
Cited by
991
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 66 · 2021: 65 · 2020: 62 · 2019: 57 · 2018: 51 · 2017: 49 · 2016: 72 · 2015: 70 · 2014: 55 · 2013: 56 · 2012: 44
FWCI
10.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (T32-DA-07242, R01 DA11692, R01DA011692, T32DA007242)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Financial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Keywords
delay discounting, discount rate, reward magnitude, exponential discounting, time preference, within-subject comparison
MeSH terms
Adult, Choice Behavior, Female, Humans, Impulsive Behavior, Individuality, Internal-External Control, Male, Motivation, Reinforcement Schedule, Token Economy

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