On the Complexity of Discounting, Choice Situations, and People
Steep delay discounting is context, not character—use finer choice tools and skip the “impulsive” label.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Green et al. (2019) wrote a theory paper. They looked at delay discounting in people with drug problems and in typical adults.
The authors said steep discounting is not a fixed flaw. They asked future work to test richer choice setups.
What they found
The paper found that many people who use drugs discount money less steeply than control subjects.
Calling clients “impulsive” misses the point. The steepness changes with context, not character.
How this fits with other research
Stancato et al. (2020) answered the call. They split magnitude and delay sensitivity in college drinkers. The finer parts predicted alcohol problems better than old single scores.
Miller et al. (2024) went further. A two-minute “willingness-to-wait” task beat standard discounting at spotting risky drinking. Both studies show that richer tasks give clearer answers.
Bellon-Harn et al. (2020) seems to clash. Eight ACT sessions cut real-world impulsive acts yet left discounting scores the same. The clash fades when you see Green’s point: behavior can shift even if a lab score does not.
Why it matters
Stop tagging clients as “impulsive.” Check the setting, the reward size, and the wait time. Try quick new tools like willingness-to-wait. They may show risk faster than old discounting tests.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a 2-minute willingness-to-wait probe before your next substance-use session.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Although steep delay discounting is associated with various behavioral problems, perhaps most prominently substance abuse, we argue that it is best not conceived of as a character flaw such as impulsivity. Such a view, although part of a centuries-old tradition, does not distinguish between actions whose outcomes involve gains and losses, or between delayed outcomes and probabilistic outcomes, nor does it acknowledge that how steeply an individual discounts one of these kinds of outcome appears to be independent of how steeply they discount other kinds. Therefore, we advocate an approach that does not require making judgments about the character of the individuals involved. We show that when drug-dependent individuals are compared with controls, a substantial number of the drug-dependent individuals discount delayed monetary rewards less steeply than the average (median) member of the control group. Moreover, a substantial number of the controls discount more steeply than the average drug-dependent individual. Finally, we point out that many everyday choice situations differ from those studied in most discounting experiments in that they involve both gains and losses as well as qualitatively different outcomes that may be both delayed and probabilistic. Past research on discounting that focused on simple choice situations has provided a solid foundation, but research on more complicated situations is now needed. We believe that the principles revealed by such research will both inform the choices of treatment providers and improve our understanding of the complicated decisions that people face every day.
Perspectives on Behavior Science, 2019 · doi:10.1007/s40614-019-00209-y