Which would you prefer?
Getting one dollar today, or three dollars tomorrow?
According to research, individuals and companies often choose options that give them a small gain in the short term, when if they were to wait a bit longer they would receive more.
This is due to a cognitive bias known as hyperbolic discounting.
With hyperbolic discounting, people value something more if it were to happen immediately, and their value drops quickly if they were to have to wait a few days.
However, if they had to wait a longer time anyway before receiving anything, then they might show a preference to wait a bit longer for a larger reward.
For instance: “Would you prefer a dollar today or three dollars tomorrow?” or “Would you prefer a dollar in one year or three dollars in one year and one day?” (which both have a delay of one day).
Research has shown that a significant fraction of subjects will take the lesser amount today, but will gladly wait one extra day in a year in order to receive the higher amount instead.
This behaviour has even been seen in animals, which show a preference for receiving something immediately compared to more of it in the future.
Researchers believe that people and animals show a strong preference for something they can have now in the present, because there is uncertainty about whether the thing will actually come in the future if we wait.
Uncertainty is one of the fundamental fears in humans, and has a strongly negative feeling.
Therefore, people’s preference would usually be for the certainty of getting something now, rather than the risk of getting something more (but also perhaps not getting it) in the future.
This has profound implications on human behaviour, especially areas where people make decisions about money, such as economic decisions.
Hyperbolic discounting and innovation
I have worked with many companies on their project business cases.
And one of the things which companies are always looking out for are the “quick wins”.
The types of projects which are going to solve problems and deliver value almost immediately.
Innovation projects on the other hand will usually take longer to come to a scalable solution.
Innovation projects will also usually not be able to provide the same level of detail in a business case as a project which can be delivered faster will.
However, the potential rewards for executing innovation over the longer-term can be much higher than smaller, less risky, short-term projects.
Nonetheless, due to biases like hyperbolic discounting, many decision makers will prefer the certainty of a project delivering a smaller return almost immediately, resulting in a lot of innovation projects not being prioritised.
While it has not been proven in scientific study, I expect that hyperbolic discounting may also impact non-financial metrics used to develop innovation capabilities over time. When it comes to fixing issues with culture, or developing new skills and capabilities through training, decision makers often look at the easy solutions which deliver a small immediate improvement or pain-reduction, instead of the more complex and challenging efforts which take a lot of time, but may fix some of the more fundamental issues preventing long-term growth.
The opposite might also be true. There is also the issue of teams and companies which lack psychological safety. In teams where open discussion of challenges and problems is not encouraged or tolerated, people are more likely to want to avoid the immediate pain of judgement that comes from saying something which leadership does not want to hear, rather than do it even though it may result in longer-term improvement of the situation. Therefore, they may be looking for the short-term immediate benefit (avoid pain) rather than the greater reward of benefiting in the future.
This is why it is important to view innovation projects in the form of an overall innovation portfolio, to ensure that there is investment not only in short-term projects, but also more long-term innovations.
Nick Skillicorn
Latest posts by Nick Skillicorn (see all)
- What AI Actually Is (And Why Everyone’s Suddenly Obsessed) - July 31, 2025
- The EU AI Act is Here: What you need to know to get compliant by 2nd August 2025 - July 18, 2025
- The Question Every Project Manager Is Secretly Asking (And Why Your Answer Determines Your Career) - July 3, 2025
- The Spontaneous Genius of Keith Jarrett’s Köln Concert - June 26, 2025
Such discounting tendencies are affected by child-rearing practices and, even more, by household socioeconomics. Children growing up in poverty, living from mote to motel and with constant food insecurity reason much differently than the affluent.
I respectfully disagree with the above statement, the sentiment of which states that an individual’s socioeconomic bracket directly effects one’s – namely children born to affluence on the positive long term side as opposed to those from poverty on the negative short term side of the cognitive bias of hyperbolic discounting. While it may be true that this bias is more evident in lower socioeconomic classes, the reality remains, that this is a human condition – spoiled rich kid, anyone? The logical fallacy in assuming that the instant gratification side of hyperbolic discounting is more inherent and prevalent in those born in lower socioeconomic as opposed to those born into higher socioeconomic conditions implies a cognitive bias itself – that is, how one’s beliefs directly affect and influence their perspective on an issue. Put plainly, if you see and believe the world (i.e human condition) to be divided into two groups, the rich and the poor, then this world-view of humanity is the lens by which you will discern, define, and seek to explain all aspects related to human decision making and function. This is known as materialism, an aspect of secular humanism. Not entirely untrue, but not entirely true either. Valuation of safety, food, and shelter, on a primitive non-monetary based cultural level is probably more-so determined by a long view approach. Energy of mind, body, and spirit is still the most powerful influencer of decision making. Having to set up camp daily, and not seek to find a location for long term habitation, directly impacts the overall quality of life of the individual or tribe. Yes, even homeless people in urban environments struggle with thinking about where they can bed down for a lengthier time period that is safe, comfortable, and close to food sources. The shrewd ones go out of their way to ensure that they do what they have to to remain off the radar and “unseen” around their “home”. In other words, a person, regardless of their socio economic status is constantly making decisions based upon hyperbolic discounting ideation, with both short and long term views in mind. The other fallacy made in the above assertion is that of correlation causation. Personally, I believe that it is wisest to view every human being from the standpoint of God, not that I am God 😊, but that God sees us as we are, rich and poor alike – poor, weak, insecure, scared, and lonely. In the immortal words of Tiny Tim, “ God bless us, every one.”