Abstract
Intertemporal choice and risky choice are fundamental aspects of decision-making, involving trade-offs between delay, risk, and monetary outcomes. This study explores the differences in preferences between intertemporal and risky choices when the potential gains are held constant. Through two behavioral experiments utilizing fixed monetary amounts and subjectively equivalent delay and risk levels, we assessed participants’ preferences. The results demonstrate a consistent preference for delayed, larger rewards (LL) over certainty immediate, smaller certain reward (CSS) and risky, larger rewards (UL). This preference suggests that individuals value the certainty of obtaining a larger reward in the future more than the uncertainty associated with taking risks, even when the potential gains are equal. Our findings highlight that the evaluation of delay in intertemporal choice and the assessment of risk in risky choice involve distinct psychological mechanisms, with individuals showing a stronger inclination towards intertemporal choices. These insights contribute to a deeper understanding of the factors influencing decision-making and provide a foundation for future research to further explore the underlying mechanisms and their implications for real-world applications.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The anonymized raw data, coding manual, and analysis scripts that support the findings of this study are available in the supplementary ZIP file Data_Package_v8.zip. These data are intended solely for academic, non-commercial use and comply with the university’s data-sharing policy.
References
Barber BM, Odean T (2001) Boys will be boys: gender, overconfidence, and common stock investment. Q J Econ 116(1):261–292. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355301556400
Blais A-R, Weber EU (2006) A domain-specific risk-taking (DOSPERT)scale for adult populations. Judgm Decis Mak 1(1):33–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/t13084-000
Blavatskyy PR, Viscusi WK (2022) Intertemporal choice as a tradeoff bet ween cumulative payoff and average delay. J Risk Uncertain 64(1):89–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-022-09370-3
Cesarini D, Johannesson M, Lichtenstein P et al (2010) Genetic Variation in Financial Decision-Making[J]. J Financ 65(5):1725–1754. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2010.01592.x
Chen H, He G (2014) The effect of psychological distance on intertemporal choice and risky choice. Acta Psychol Sin 46(5):677–690. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.00677
Chen H, He G (2011) The effect of construal level on intertemporal choice and risky choice. Acta Psychol Sin 43(4):442–452. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2011.00442
Chen X, Zhao X (2024) How time flies: time perception and intertemporal choice. J Behav Exp Econ 109: 102160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2023.102160
Corcos A (2023) How nudges and marketing, frame time preference “for your own good”: a behavioral model. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10:652. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02182-z
Cruz Rambaud S, Sanchez Perez AM (2020) Discounted and expected utility from the probability and time trade-off model. Mathematics 8(4):601. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8040601
Dohmen T, Falk A, Huffman D, Sunde U, Schupp J, Wagner GG (2011) Individual risk attitudes: measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. J Eur Econ Assoc 9(3):522–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01015.x
Frederick S, Loewenstein G, O’Donoghue T (2002) Time discounting and time preference: a critical review. J Econ Lit 40(2):351–401. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.40.2.351
Green L, Fristoe N, Myerson J (1994) Temporal discounting and preference reversals in choice between delayed outcomes. Psychon Bull Rev 1(3):383–389. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213979
Green L, Myerson J, Ostaszewski P (1999) Discounting of delayed rewards across the life span: Age differences in individual discounting functions. Behav Process 46(1):89–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-6357(99)00021-2
Hardisty DJ, Weber EU (2009) Discounting future green: money versus the environment. J Exp Psychol: Gen 138(3):329–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016433
Hertwig R, Barron G, Weber EU, Erev I (2004) Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychol Sci 15(8):534–539. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00715.x
Jiang J, Dai J (2021) Time and risk perceptions mediate the causal impact of objective delay on delay discounting: An experimental examination of the implicit-risk hypothesis. Psychon Bull Rev 28(4):1399–1412. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-01890-4
Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
Kőszegi B, Rabin M (2007) Reference-dependent risk attitudes. Am Econ Rev 97(4):1047–1073. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.97.4.1047
Loewenstein G, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N (2001) Risk as feelings. Psychol Bull 127(2):267–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267
Luckman A, Donkin C, Newell BR (2018) Can a single model account for both risky choices and inter-temporal choices? Testing the assumptions underlying models of risky inter-temporal choice. Psychon Bull Rev 25(2):785–792. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1330-8
Mazur JE (1987) An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. In ML Commons, JE Mazur, JA Nevin, & H Rachlin (Eds.), Quantitative analyses of behavior: Vol. 5. The effect of delay and of intervening events on reinforcement value (pp. 55-73). Erlbaum
Park H, Martin W (2022) Effects of risk tolerance, financial literacy, and financial status on retirement planning. J Financ Serv Mark 27(3):167–176. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41264-021-00123-y
Prelec D, Loewenstein G (1991) Decision making over time and under uncertainty: a common approach. Manag Sci 37(7):770–786. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.37.7.770
Reynolds B, Schiffbauer RM (2004) Impulsive choice and workplace safety: A new area of inquiry for research in occupational settings. Behav Anal 27(2):239–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393183
Singh M, Nandan T (2024) “A bibliometric and visualization analysis of intertemporal choice: origins, growth and future research avenues”. J Model Manag 19(5):1644–1669. https://doi.org/10.1108/JM2-07-2023-0157
Yael S, Yefim R, Jerome B et al (2022) Intertemporal decisions from experience versus description: similarities and differences.[J]. Decision 9(2):131–152. https://doi.org/10.1037/DEC0000164
Strotz RH (1956) Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utility maximization. Rev Econ Stud 23(3):165–180. https://doi.org/10.2307/2295722
Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481):453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683
Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertain 5(4):297–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122574
Weber EU, Blais AR, Betz NE (2002) A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. J Behav Decis Mak 15(4):263–290. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.414
Wu Y, Zhou X, Luo Y (2010) The neuroscience of intertemporal choices and decision-making under risk and uncertainty. Stud Psychol Behav 8(1):76–80
Wang M (2010) The relationship between intertemporal choice and risky decision-making in loss situations [Master’s thesis, Zhejiang University]
Xu P, Cheng J, Sang H (2022) The effect of risk on intertemporal choice and preference reversal. J Exp Anal Behav 117(2):151–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.732
Yan X-H (2014) The effect of self-control resource on risk preference. Soc Behav Personality: Int J 42(8):1335–1344. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.8.1335
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Southwest Minzu University Research Startup Funds (Grant No. RQD2023057). We extend our gratitude to the editor and the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions. Additionally, we appreciate the polishing and revising advice offered by Home for Researchers (https://www.home-for-researchers.com/).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Xiang-hui Yan wrote the main manuscript, A-fang Deng collected data. All authors reviewed and revised the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Consent to participate
The consent form detailed the study’s objectives, procedures, potential risks, and benefits. Participants were clearly informed that their involvement was entirely voluntary and that they had the right to withdraw at any time without facing any penalties or negative repercussions. The confidentiality of their personal information and data was also assured.
Consent to publish
All participants provided written informed consent for the anonymous and aggregated presentation of their data in any publication arising from this study.
Ethics approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki (1964 and its later amendments) and were approved by the Southwest Minzu University, Department of Education and Psychology Research Ethics Committee (Approval No. 202318, dated 12 November 2023). A written informed consent—signed by each participant—was obtained prior to every phase of the study: 15 November 2023 for the pre-experiment, and 21 November 2023 and 21 December 2023 for the two sessions of the formal experiment.
Informed consent
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Yan, Xh., Deng, Af. Is delay equivalent to risk? A comparative study of intertemporal choice and risky choice in gain scenarios. Humanit Soc Sci Commun (2026). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-06953-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-06953-2
