Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Timing and Consequences on Behavior01:08

Timing and Consequences on Behavior

61
In operant conditioning, the timing of reinforcement is crucial. For animals like rats and cats, immediate reinforcement (within a few seconds) is much more effective than delayed reinforcement. For example, a food reward for a rat needs to follow within 30 seconds of pressing a bar to be effective. 
Humans, however, can respond to delayed reinforcers. We often make decisions between immediate small rewards and delayed larger rewards. This ability to delay gratification is a significant...
61
Decision Making: P-value Method01:09

Decision Making: P-value Method

5.2K
The process of hypothesis testing based on the P-value method includes calculating the P- value using the sample data and interpreting it.
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is proposed. The claim is based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to the claim  is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses:  a null hypothesis would be a neutral statement while the alternative hypothesis can...
5.2K
Hindsight Biases01:12

Hindsight Biases

3.4K
Hindsight bias leads you to believe that the event you just experienced was predictable, even though it really wasn’t. In other words, you knew all along that things would turn out the way they did. Can you relate this to the phrase "Hindsight is 20/20" now? 
3.4K
The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic01:25

The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic

7.2K
In order to make good decisions, we use our knowledge and our reasoning. Often, this knowledge and reasoning is sound and solid. However, sometimes, we are swayed by biases or by others manipulating a situation. For example, let’s say you and three friends wanted to rent a house and had a combined target budget of $1,600. The realtor shows you only very run-down houses for $1,600 and then shows you a very nice house for $2,000. Might you ask each person to pay more in rent to get the...
7.2K
Expected Value01:15

Expected Value

3.8K
The expected value is known as the "long-term" average or mean. This means that over the long term of experimenting over and over, you would expect this average. The expected average is represented by the symbol μ. It is calculated as follows:
3.8K
Reason and Intuition01:37

Reason and Intuition

6.3K
The human brain processes information for decision-making using one of two routes: an intuitive system and a rational system (Epstein, 1994; popularized by Kahneman, 2011 as System 1 and System 2, respectively). The intuitive system is quick, impulsive, and operates with minimal effort, relying on emotions or habits to provide cues for what to do next, while the rational system is logical, analytical, deliberate, and methodical. Research in neuropsychology suggests that the...
6.3K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Disinformation elicits learning biases.

eLife·2026
Same author

Challenges in replay detection by TDLM in post-encoding resting state.

eLife·2026
Same author

Indecision and recency-weighted evidence integration in non-clinical and clinical settings.

Nature human behaviour·2026
Same author

Trait-like visual cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety.

Nature communications·2025
Same author

Factors that influence the commissioning and implementation of integrated care for adults at risk of cardiovascular disease and mild-to-moderate mental health concerns in the UK: a systematic review protocol.

Systematic reviews·2025
Same author

Habenula-ventral tegmental area functional coupling and risk aversion in humans.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America·2025
Same journal

Dual-systems and Fuzzy-trace Theory Predictions of COVID-19 Risk Taking in Young Adults.

Decision (Washington, D.C.)·2025
Same journal

Correction to Mullet and Stewart (2016).

Decision (Washington, D.C.)·2025
Same journal

Cognitive Graphs: Representational Substrates for Planning.

Decision (Washington, D.C.)·2025
Same journal

Hierarchies improve individual assessment of temporal discounting behavior.

Decision (Washington, D.C.)·2021
Same journal

Is Cognitive Impairment Related to Violations of Rationality? A Laboratory Alcohol Intoxication Study Testing Transitivity of Preference.

Decision (Washington, D.C.)·2021
Same journal

The Endowment Effect and Beliefs About the Market.

Decision (Washington, D.C.)·2021
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 16, 2025

Measuring Delay Discounting in Humans Using an Adjusting Amount Task
07:47

Measuring Delay Discounting in Humans Using an Adjusting Amount Task

Published on: January 9, 2016

15.3K

Discounting Future Reward in an Uncertain World.

G W Story1,2, Z Kurth-Nelson2,3, M Moutoussis2,4

  • 1Division of Psychiatry, University College London.

Decision (Washington, D.C.)
|March 31, 2025
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Impatience, or delay discounting, is partly driven by uncertainty in reward magnitude, termed volatility. This study shows that higher reward volatility increases discounting, suggesting a key factor in individual differences in decision-making.

Keywords:
discountingimpulsivityriskuncertaintyvolatility

More Related Videos

Errors as a Means of Reducing Impulsive Food Choice
07:07

Errors as a Means of Reducing Impulsive Food Choice

Published on: June 5, 2016

8.5K
The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies
08:24

The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies

Published on: August 25, 2023

593

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 16, 2025

Measuring Delay Discounting in Humans Using an Adjusting Amount Task
07:47

Measuring Delay Discounting in Humans Using an Adjusting Amount Task

Published on: January 9, 2016

15.3K
Errors as a Means of Reducing Impulsive Food Choice
07:07

Errors as a Means of Reducing Impulsive Food Choice

Published on: June 5, 2016

8.5K
The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies
08:24

The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies

Published on: August 25, 2023

593

Area of Science:

  • Behavioral Economics
  • Neuroeconomics
  • Decision Science

Background:

  • Humans often discount delayed rewards compared to immediate ones.
  • Existing theories link discounting to the risk of reward non-materialization.
  • The role of uncertainty in reward *magnitude* for delay discounting is less explored.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate how uncertainty in the magnitude of delayed rewards (volatility) influences delay discounting.
  • To propose and test a model where discounting is proportional to reward volatility.
  • To explore the neural mechanisms underlying volatility discounting.

Main Methods:

  • Three experiments with 158 participants involving intertemporal choice tasks.
  • Participants learned product price dynamics and chose selling times.
  • Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to assess brain activity and connectivity.

Main Results:

  • Delay discounting increased with higher price volatility across experiments.
  • The effect persisted over naturalistic delays up to 4 months.
  • fMRI revealed decreased hippocampal-prefrontal coupling correlating with volatility.

Conclusions:

  • Delay discounting is influenced by time-dependent uncertainty in reward magnitude (volatility).
  • A novel model captures how discounting adapts to volatility, explaining individual differences in impatience.
  • Neural findings suggest uncertainty impairs prospective simulation of future outcomes.