Behavioral Assessment
Delay Discounting Test
How much does waiting change what a reward is worth to you? Make 27 quick money choices to find out.
Before you begin:
Treat each amount as real money that would be guaranteed.
Answer based on what you would actually prefer right now.
There are no right or wrong answers.
Would you prefer...
Choose what you'd genuinely prefer.
Your Results
Based on your 27 responses
Calculating...
How quickly a $100 reward loses subjective value as the wait increases, based on your responses.
- Pick one daily "now vs later" decision and notice what you choose.
- Add a 10-minute wait before any unplanned purchase. See if you still want it.
- Make the delayed option easier: auto-transfer to savings, batch meal-prep on Sunday, set out gym clothes the night before.
- Track one repeated small decision for a full week, then redesign the choice so the better option takes less effort.
These are behavioral experiments, not clinical advice. Results may vary by context.
Delay discounting is a tendency, not a moral judgment. Higher discounting is common and context-dependent. Research shows it varies by reward type, mood, and circumstances. There is no "bad" score.
Delay discounting is related to impulsivity at the group level, but it measures one specific pattern: monetary time tradeoffs. It does not capture "general impulsivity," risk-taking, or decision quality overall. A meta-analysis found only a small-to-moderate overlap between delay and risk preferences.
Yes. Research shows delay discounting has trait-like stability (test-retest around 0.77 at 5 weeks), but it can also shift with context, stress, and deliberate strategies like precommitment. It is stable enough to measure meaningfully, but it is not a fixed identity.
Scored using the consistency-based inferred k algorithm (Kaplan et al., 2016). Model: V = A / (1 + kD).
Research & Methodology
From the Research
"Delay discounting is the decline in the present value of a reward with delay to its receipt."
— Odum, A.L. (2011). Delay Discounting: I'm a k, You're a k. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior.
In plain terms: a reward you have to wait for feels worth less than the same reward available right now. The longer the wait, the less appealing it becomes. Researchers measure this by giving you repeated choices between a smaller amount now and a larger amount later. Your pattern of choices reveals how steeply you discount delayed rewards.
What this does not measure: delay discounting captures one specific decision pattern (time-based tradeoffs with money). It does not directly measure general impulsivity, intelligence, morality, or mental health status. Results can change with context, stress, and the type of reward involved.
This assessment uses the 27-item Monetary Choice Questionnaire (MCQ-27), originally developed by Kirby, Petry, & Bickel (1999). Scoring follows the consistency-based algorithm described by Kaplan et al. (2016).
Each of the 27 items has a known "indifference k" value, calculated from the hyperbolic model V = A / (1 + kD). Your responses are sorted by these k values. The algorithm finds where your answers most consistently switch from choosing "now" to choosing "later." That switch point, refined with a geometric mean, becomes your inferred discounting rate.
A consistency score (0 to 1) measures how cleanly your choices follow a single switch pattern. Scores below 0.75 suggest the results should be interpreted with caution.
From the Research
"We recommend ... closely examine ... cases where consistency scores are less than 75%."
— Kaplan, B.A. et al. (2016). Automating Scoring of Delay Discounting for the 21- and 27-Item Monetary Choice Questionnaires. The Behavior Analyst.
The 27 items break into three sets of 9 by the size of the delayed reward: small ($25-$35), medium ($50-$60), and large ($75-$85). Each set is scored independently, producing separate k values. This lets you see if your discounting pattern changes with reward size.
From the Research
"These results provide strong evidence of greater [delay discounting] in individuals ... with an addictive disorder."
— MacKillop, J. et al. (2011). Delayed reward discounting and addictive behavior: a meta-analysis. Psychopharmacology.
Key findings from the research literature:
- Reliability: Test-retest stability around 0.77 at 5 weeks and approximately 0.71 at one year, showing the measure is stable enough to capture a real tendency (Kirby, 2009).
- Hypothetical rewards work: Multiple studies find similar discounting patterns whether the money choices are real or hypothetical, supporting online delivery.
- Group-level associations: A meta-analysis found a medium effect linking higher discounting to addictive behaviors, with larger effects in clinical samples. This supports relevance but not individual diagnosis.
- Magnitude effect: People tend to discount small rewards more steeply than large rewards. This is a consistent finding across studies.
Limitations: There are no universal clinical cut-offs for delay discounting. The measure captures monetary time tradeoffs specifically, and results may differ for other rewards (food, social outcomes). A single assessment reflects your current pattern, which can shift with context and state.
How a Reward Loses Value With Delay
The same $100 feels worth less the longer you have to wait. This chart uses a moderate discounting rate (k = 0.01) as an example.
Values calculated using V = A / (1 + kD), the standard hyperbolic discounting model. Your personal curve may be steeper or flatter.
Related Assessments
These tools measure related patterns in decision-making and self-regulation.
About This Assessment
This tool uses the 27-item Monetary Choice Questionnaire (MCQ-27) developed by Kirby, Petry, & Bickel (1999). The MCQ-27 protocol is listed as freely available by the PhenX Toolkit ("permission not required for use"). We are not affiliated with PhenX, NIH, or the original authors.
This is an educational self-reflection tool, not a clinical instrument. It does not diagnose any condition, including addiction, ADHD, or impulse control disorders. Results represent a snapshot of your monetary time preferences in this session and may vary with mood, stress, and context.
Items and scoring follow the MCQ-27 as described in the PhenX protocol. The consistency-based inferred k algorithm is implemented following Kaplan et al. (2016). Interpretation bands are descriptive, based on proportions of delayed choices. No clinical thresholds are applied.
If your results raise concerns about impulsive behavior, substance use, or financial decision-making, consider speaking with a licensed mental health professional or counselor. This tool cannot replace professional evaluation. In a crisis, contact your local emergency services or call 988 (Suicide & Crisis Lifeline).