en pl
en pl


Show issue
Year 12/2016 
Issue 26

The Effect Of Delay On Risk Tolerance And Probability Weights

Katarzyna Idzikowska
Kozminski University

Tadeusz Tyszka
Kozminski University

Marcin Palenik
Kozminski University

12/2016 (26) Decyzje

DOI 10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.76


People often face choices where outcomes are both delayed and uncertain. Numerous studies of delayed gains and losses show the hyperbolalike discounting process of delayed payoffs. We assumed that when evaluating a delayed lottery people act according to the prospect theory model, where payoffs are discounted according to a hyperbolic function. The problem that we addressed is whether the a parameter of the value function v( ) and the g parameter of the probability weighting function w( ) differ for evaluations of delayed and instant lotteries. We found that when people compare delayed certain payoffs with delayed risky payoffs they are more risk prone than in situations where both certain payoffs and risky payoffs are instant. However, when people compare
present certain payoffs with delayed risky payoffs they are less risk prone than in situations where both certain payoffs and risky payoffs are instant. Additionally, the probability weighting curves were more linear for delayed lotteries than for instant lotteries (people were more sensitive to changes of probability).


  1. Abdellaoui, M., Diecidue, E., & Öncüler, A. (2011). Risk preferences at different time periods: An Experimental Investigation. Management Science, 57(5), 975–987. [Google Scholar]
  2. Abdellaoui, M., Klibanoff, P., & Placido, L. (2015). Experiments on compound risk in relation to simple risk and to ambiguity. Management Science, 61(6), 1306-1322. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ahlbrecht, M., & Weber, M. (1997). An Empirical Study on Intertemporal Decision Making Under Risk. Management Science, 43(6), 813-826. [Google Scholar]
  4. Blackburn, M., & El-Deredy, W. (2013). The future is risky: Discounting of delayed and uncertain outcomes. Behavioural Processes, 94, 9–18. [Google Scholar]
  5. Budescu, D., & Fischer, I. (2001). The Same but Different: An Empirical Investigation of the Reducibility Principle. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14(3), 187-206. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cohen, A. L., Sanborn, A. N., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2008). Model evaluation using grouped or individual data. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15, 692–712. [Google Scholar]
  7. Dillenberger, D. (2010). Preferences for One-Shot Resolution of Uncertainty and Allais-Type Behavior. Econometrica, 78(6), 1973–2004. [Google Scholar]
  8. Du, W., Green, L., & Myerson, J. (2002). Cross-Cultural Comparisons of Discounting Delayed and Probabilistic Rewards. Psychological Record, 52(4), 479-492. [Google Scholar]
  9. Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O’Donoghue, T. (2002). Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 351-401. [Google Scholar]
  10. Halevy, Y. (2007). Ellsberg Revisited: An Experimental Study. Econometrica, 75(2), 503-536. [Google Scholar]
  11. Hardisty, D. J., Thompson, K. F., Krantz, D. H., & Weber, E. U. (2013). How to measure time preferences: An experimental comparison of three methods. Judgment and Decision Making, (3), 236-249. [Google Scholar]
  12. Huber, O., Wider, R., & Huber, O.W. (1997). Active Information Search and Complete Information Presentation in Naturalistic Risky Decision Tasks. Acta Psychologica, 95(1), 15-29. [Google Scholar]
  13. Kahneman, D., & Tversky A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. [Google Scholar]
  14. Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (1971). Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89(1), 46–55. [Google Scholar]
  15. Mazur, J. E. (1987). An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. In M. L. Commons J. E. Mazur, J. A. Nevin, & H. Rachlin (Eds.), Quantitative analyses of behavior: Vol. 5. The effect of delay and of intervening events on reinforcement value (pp. 55-73). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  16. McClure, S., Laibson, D., & Loewenstein, G., & Cohen J. (2004). Separate Neural Systems Value Immediate and Delayed Monetary Rewards. Science, 306(5695), 503-507. [Google Scholar]
  17. McKerchar, T.L., Green, L., & Myerson, J. (2010). On the scaling interpretation of exponents in hyperboloid models of delay and probability discounting. Behavioural Processes, 84(1), 440–444. [Google Scholar]
  18. Noussair, C., & Wu, P. (2006). Risk Tolerance in the Present and the Future: An Experimental Study. Managerial and Decision Economics, 27(6), 401-412. [Google Scholar]
  19. Prelec, D. (1998). The probability weighting function. Econometrica, 66(3), 497–527. [Google Scholar]
  20. Rachlin, H., Raineri, A., & Cross, D. (1991). Subjective Probability and Delay. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 55(2), 233-244. DOI: 10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.76 DECYZJE NR 26/2016 [Google Scholar]
  21. Rolison, J.J., Girotto, V., Legrenzi, P., & Hanoch Y. (2013). The time horizon of risky choice: Effects of delayed outcomes. Manuscript submitted. [Google Scholar]
  22. Rottenstreich, Y., & Hsee, C. K. (2001). Money, kisses and electric shocks: On the affective psychology of probability weighting. Psychological Science, 12(3), 185–190. [Google Scholar]
  23. Sagristano, M. D., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2002). Time-dependent gambling: Odds now, money later. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131(3), 364–376. [Google Scholar]
  24. Savadori, L., & Mittone, L. (2015). Temporal distance reduces the attractiveness of p-bets compared to $-bets. Journal of Economic Psychology, 46, 26–38. [Google Scholar]
  25. Spears, D. (2013). Poverty and probability: aspiration and aversion to compound lotteries in El Salvador and India. Experimental Economics, 16(3), 263-284. [Google Scholar]
  26. Thaler, R., & Benartzi, S. (2007, January). The Behavioral Economics of Retirement Savings Behavior. The AARP Public Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/econ/2007_02_savings.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  27. Tyszka, T., & Zaleskiewicz, T. (2006). When does information about probability count in choices under risk? Risk Analysis, 26(6), 1623-1636. [Google Scholar]
  28. Vanderveldt, A., Green, L., & Myerson, J. (2015). Discounting of Monetary Rewards That Are Both Delayed and Probabilistic: Delay and Probability Combine Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(1), 148-162. Multiplicatively, Not Additively. [Google Scholar]
  29. Wärneryd, K.-E. (1996). Risk attitudes and risky behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 17(6), 749–770. [Google Scholar]
  30. [Google Scholar]

Full metadata record

Cite this record

APA style

Idzikowska, Katarzyna & Tyszka, Tadeusz & Palenik, Marcin (2016). The Effect Of Delay On Risk Tolerance And Probability Weights. (2016). The Effect Of Delay On Risk Tolerance And Probability Weights. Decyzje, (26), 5-26. https://doi.org/10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.76 (Original work published 12/2016AD)

MLA style

Idzikowska, Katarzyna and Tyszka, Tadeusz and Palenik, Marcin. “The Effect Of Delay On Risk Tolerance And Probability Weights”. 12/2016AD. Decyzje, no. 26, 2016, pp. 5-26.

Chicago style

Idzikowska, Katarzyna and Tyszka, Tadeusz and Palenik, Marcin. “The Effect Of Delay On Risk Tolerance And Probability Weights”. Decyzje, Decyzje, no. 26 (2016): 5-26. doi:10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.76.