The sign effect, systematic devaluations and zero discounting

Furrebøe (2020) asked the adults to choose between money now or more money later. Half the choices were about gains (win money), half about losses (pay a bill). The team tracked how people valued future rewards and future costs.

Each person did the task on a computer. Delays ranged from one week to 25 years. The program adjusted the amounts until each participant reached an indifference point.

Gains showed the usual pattern: people steeply discounted big delayed rewards. Losses looked very different. Many adults gave the delayed loss the same value as the immediate loss, a pattern called zero discounting.

Some participants switched between zero and very high values for losses. This messy, nonsystematic pattern happened in about one-third of all loss trials.

Lerner et al. (2012) also studied delay effects, but with pigeons pecking for food. Both papers use titrating-delay methods, yet species and reinforcers differ. The cross-species match shows the method works for studying how delay changes value.

Matson et al. (2009) looked at how adults with mild ID think about stressful events. Like Furrebøe, they found that negative events can produce illogical or extreme judgments. Together, the studies warn that loss-related or stressful choices may not follow tidy economic rules.

Cadette et al. (2016) tried to measure cognitive biases in adults with mild-borderline ID and found unreliable data. Furrebøe’s messy loss data in neurotypical adults hints that even without ID, negative stimuli can make choice patterns unstable.

If you run delay-based interventions, do not assume clients treat future losses like future gains. A student who easily waits for a bigger reinforcer may still show zero tolerance for a delayed penalty. Check both types of choices during preference assessments and be ready to teach different self-control skills for each.