Understanding Delay Discounting
The Impact of Social and Economic Background on Behavior
Delay Gratification
You are probably somewhat familiar with Walter Mischel’s marshmallow test. A marshmallow (or another preferred snack) was placed on a plate in front of a kid. The experimenter told them they would get TWO marshmallows (or snacks) if they waited a few minutes before eating the one on their plate (there is more to it than this, but you get the gist). Their results predicted that kids who waited (delayed their gratification) and ate two marshmallows would have higher SAT scores and fewer behavioral problems.
It wasn’t until recently that this study was replicated and researchers found that the child’s likelihood to delay gratification was less associated with better outcomes, and more importantly, shaped by the child’s social and economic background. This should not be a surprise if you have been reading our Substack over the last couple of months. The environment shapes behavior, and that includes social and economic background. If you have money, you can buy food, books, toys, a home in a quiet neighborhood, and anything else that will promote brain development in a young mind (see our December 14th post on genetic and environmental interactions). Furthermore, families with money might be more likely to provide their kids with a stable home environment, with consistent and healthy meals. They might not experience hunger the way children whose family has less money, or perhaps less often. These are all factors that shape behavior, and to assume that any child can demonstrate self-control and those who might behave impulsively are “bad kids,” is person-blaming at its finest.
Delay Discounting
One way to conceptualize delay gratification is through a behavioral economic lens called delay discounting. Delayed discounting (or delay discounting) is a phenomenon in which the value or perceived utility of a reward decreases as the delay to receiving that reward increases. It is a measure of temporal discounting, which is the tendency for people to prefer smaller, immediate rewards over larger, delayed rewards. This phenomenon is often used to explain a wide range of human decision-making activities, such as addiction and financial planning, but it truly impacts every choice we make (as we’ll discuss below). Studies on delay discounting are used to understand how people make choices and trade-offs between immediate and future rewards. For example, if you offered me 2 dollars now or 5 dollars in three days, I might be likely to wait the three days. However, if you offer me 2 dollars now or 5 dollars in twelve days, I’ll probably just take the 2 dollars. The value of 2 dollars now is more than the value of 5 dollars in twelve days (at least to me). This is not a static variable. It does change. For example, if I’m very hungry and I don’t have any money with me, I might take the 2 dollars now over the 5 dollars in three days (or even two days! I’m hungry now and I don’t have money).
Behavior as Choice
What we are describing are choices. All behavior is a choice. We choose to wake up early and work out or sleep in. We choose to smoke a cigarette to relax or take a walk around the block. We choose to litter or hold onto our garbage until we see a trash can. Delay discounting becomes relevant when we consider what the consequences of our choices include. Oftentimes, these consequences might not affect us until much later, and even then, there is a chance we won’t notice the effect. Going back to smoking, the immediate release of dopamine and the good feeling it causes is enough to keep people coming back for more. But there are long-term health concerns correlated with smoking: heart disease, lung cancer, etc. However, these not only take years to occur, but they also might not occur at all. We’re all familiar with that story of someone who smoked two packs a day for 50 years and never had any heart or lung problems (perhaps just some yellowed teeth). The point is, we are going to discount delayed consequences (and even more so if they’re delayed and not guaranteed). I’ll eat that extra slice of pizza because it is immediately delicious and the potential negative health effects (e.g., weight gain) are delayed and gradual. And I’ll drive to work instead of taking the bus because a) I will get there faster, b) I can be more flexible with my schedule, and c) I’ll be more comfortable. The impact little ol’ me will have on the environment with my car is trivial and delayed. Apply that reasoning to the entire population and you get something that looks like this:
"My behavior isn’t making a significant impact on the environment" × 8 billion people = Climate Change
We are intentionally being facetious. We are well aware this is a very complex problem with many contributors, such as agriculture and forestry practices. But there is zero doubt that humans are the primary contributors to climate change. Specifically, human behavior. The same human behavior is sensitive to the temporal relation between when a behavior occurs and the consequences of said behavior.
Another societal problem is crime. Crime such as theft or selling drugs is a direct result of engaging in behavior that provides immediate access to rewards and discounting the delayed (and improbable) consequences associated with it. Example: Crime is often highest in communities with less money. Money is what we call a generalized conditioned reinforcer: We use it for everything. Food. Shelter. Healthcare. Leisure. Everything. So when you do not have a lot of it, you cannot buy the things that you need to live. (See Green et al. (1996) for a demonstration of greater temporal discounting [more likely to choose the immediate reinforcer] among adults with a lower income relative to a higher income.) Should it be a surprise that individuals without money will break the law to acquire things they want or need? Breaking the law provides immediate access to things you cannot otherwise have. Yes, there is a chance you get caught (probabilistic discounting). There is a chance you are arrested and released on bail for months which further delays aversive consequences for the crime. And there is a chance nothing happens except you can immediately buy the things you previously could not have.
At this point, you’ll often hear the argument “Well they should go to school so they can get good jobs and earn lots of money!” Okay. Let's wrap up with this. If you are one of the 11 million children living in poverty, you are experiencing environmental stressors that children of higher socioeconomic status are not. See the flowchart below:
If your family has less income, they might be required to work more hours (or multiple jobs) to make ends meet. That means children who might need to study for an exam or do their homework (both of which might contribute to higher education and wages later in life) are required to allocate their finite time to their younger siblings who perhaps cannot yet feed or care for themselves. So they might fall behind in school, and our education system is not designed (or supported) in such a way to support these kids who need that additional support.
So for those describing these kids who might struggle in school as impulsive and unregulated, or that these kids do not care about school, they are simply person-blaming. Instead of focusing on the behavior, why don’t we ask “what are the variables that are competing with this child to succeed?” Brian Resnick touches upon this in his 2018 article for Vox. He writes, “It’s not that these noncognitive factors are unimportant. No one doubts delaying gratification is an important life skill, and one that squirmy kids need to master. And it’s obviously nice if kids believe in the possibility of their own growth. What the latest marshmallow test paper shows is that home life and intelligence are very important for determining both delaying gratification and later achievement. These are factors that are constantly influencing a child.”
Jared Diamond's Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (2005) examines why some societies collapse while others survive. The book explores a number of past societies and argues that environmental factors, such as the overuse of resources and climate change, played a significant role in their collapse. Diamond also suggests that societal factors such as political, economic, and cultural systems can contribute to a society's decline. The book suggests that by understanding the factors that led to the collapse of past societies, we can take steps to prevent a similar fate for our own society. We discussed this book in our January 3rd post.
Everything Diamond describes in his book describes human behavior and how our environment can shape our behavior. Understanding discounting is imperative if we are to understand why people make the choices they make. Human behavior is lawful. This means it can be described and predicted using mathematical models (yes, we have data to share if you are interested!). And to create a more positive and supportive society, it is crucial to recognize how our actions are influenced by the environment and how our tendency to prioritize immediate rewards over long-term benefits affects our decision-making. These behaviors, whether considered positive or negative, are not fixed and cannot be attributed to innate personality characteristics. This understanding is essential for developing more effective education and criminal justice systems, addressing climate change, and promoting fairness and equality through policy.
Pass it on and see you next week.
We agree, we are also included! Thank you for your kind words. Francisco
From what I've read, pre-K children in the bottom 20% of families in income don't learn to read before they enter kindergarten (the top 80% do) and also come from homes with much more emotionally dysregulated communication. So what you're writing resonates with me, as does your prior assertions for the need for universal pre-K, which can help ameliorate both problems. Am I correct about your view?