Decision Making
Experiential Discounting Task
Also called: EDT, experiential delay discounting, real-time delay discounting, operant delay discounting task
Measure how much a real wait of seconds lowers the value of points: adjusting choices between points now and more points after a wait the participant sits through, scored as the area under the discounting curve.
7-10 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Try it here first, with no account.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 3
- Evidence grade
- C
- Registered clinical studies
- 5
What it measures
Measures how much a real wait of some seconds lowers the value of points. Participants choose between some points now and 64 points after a wait they sit through, at 4 waits from 4 to 32 seconds. Every round lasts its wait whichever they choose. The area under the discounting curve is the main score.
Constructs
- Intertemporal choice
- Delay of gratification
- Reward valuation
- Impulsive choice
- Waiting
Research uses
- State changes in discounting, such as sleep loss
- Addiction and substance-use studies
- Comparison with question-based delay discounting
- Within-study group comparison
How the paradigm works
The experiential discounting task measures how much a real wait lowers the value of a reward. Unlike a question-based delay discounting task, the participant sits through the waits during the task (Reynolds and Schiffbauer, 2004). In each round the participant chooses between some points now and 64 points after a wait of 4, 8, 16 or 32 seconds, five rounds at each wait, in that order. The points now start at 32 and move down after they are taken or up after the participant waits, first by 16 points and then by half the step each round, the delay discounting task's adjusting procedure (Du, Green and Myerson, 2002). The amount that would come next is the indifference point. Every round lasts its wait whichever option is chosen: points now are added at once, and the next choice comes when the wait is over. Choosing the points now therefore never ends the task sooner. These amounts and waits were written for this test.
More about the paradigm
Two practice rounds with a 3-second wait, one with only the points now open and one with only the points after the wait, and a check question on when the next choice comes come first. The study decides what the points are worth, and the payment line says whether they are exchanged for money.
The main score is the area under the discounting curve (Myerson, Green and Warusawitharana, 2001), from 0 to 1, where 1 means no discounting. A hyperbolic discount rate per second, the indifference point at each wait and the Johnson and Bickel (2008) checks are also given. In the original task, discounting was steeper after a night without sleep (Reynolds and Schiffbauer, 2004). Real waits made choices more sensitive to the delay than waits that were only described (Steele, Gwinner, Smith, Young and Kirkpatrick, 2019). Over seven days, the original task's area under the curve correlated .32 between two sessions, against .86 for a question-based task (Smits, Stein, Johnson, Odum and Madden, 2013), so a single session is best read as part of a group. Scores support research and do not diagnose.
Scores
- Area Under the Curve%
- Area under the indifference points as shares of 64 points, with the waits scaled by the longest. A value of 1 means no discounting.
- Higher means less discounting
- Discount Rate (k)score
- Hyperbolic k fitted to the indifference points with V = A / (1 + kD), with the wait D in seconds, so k is per second.
- Higher means steeper discounting
- Log Discount Ratescore
- Natural logarithm of k.
- Higher means steeper discounting
- Hyperbolic Fit%
- Share of the variation in the indifference points that the hyperbola explains.
- Informational
- Points Now Rate%
- Share of rounds that took the points now.
- Informational
- Consistency Flagflag
- 1 when the indifference points pass both Johnson and Bickel (2008) checks. 0 when a point rises more than 12.8 points above the one before it, or the last point is not at least 6.4 points below the first.
- 1 supports interpretation
- Rising Point Checkflag
- 1 when an indifference point rises more than 20% of 64 points (12.8 points) above the one at the shorter wait.
- 0 supports interpretation
- Flat Curve Checkflag
- 1 when the indifference point at the longest wait is not at least 10% of 64 points (6.4 points) below the one at the shortest. Someone who always waits meets it genuinely.
- Informational
- Indifference Point, Shortest Waitpoints
- Points now worth as much as 64 points after the shortest wait (4 seconds at the standard).
- Higher means less discounting
- Indifference Point, Second Waitpoints
- Points now worth as much as 64 points after the second wait (8 seconds at the standard).
- Higher means less discounting
- Indifference Point, Third Waitpoints
- Points now worth as much as 64 points after the third wait (16 seconds at the standard).
- Higher means less discounting
- Indifference Point, Longest Waitpoints
- Points now worth as much as 64 points after the longest wait (32 seconds at the standard).
- Higher means less discounting
- Completed Waitscount
- Waits with an indifference point, out of 4.
- 4 supports interpretation
- Roundscount
- Scored rounds played.
- Informational
- Points Earnedpoints
- Points earned in the scored rounds.
- Informational
- Rounds With Focus Lostcount
- Rounds during which the page lost focus, so their wait may not have been sat through.
- Lower is better
- Check Correctflag
- 1 when the check question on when the next choice comes was answered correctly, 0 when not.
- 1 supports interpretation
- Choice Timems
- Median time from the options appearing to the choice.
- Informational
- Early Clickscount
- Clicks under 100 ms after the options appeared, not taken as choices.
- Lower is better
Use and evidence
3 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract. That ranks it 480 of 495 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 0 |
| 2024 | 0 |
| 2023 | 1 |
| 2022 | 0 |
| 2021 | 2 |
| 2020 | 0 |
| 2019 | 3 |
| 2018 | 5 |
| 2017 | 1 |
| 2016 | 0 |
| 2015 | 0 |
| 2014 | 2 |
| 2013 | 5 |
| 2012 | 3 |
| 2011 | 0 |
| 2010 | 0 |
| 2009 | 2 |
| 2008 | 0 |
| 2007 | 1 |
| 2006 | 3 |
| 2005 | 0 |
| 2004 | 2 |
| 2003 | 0 |
| 2002 | 0 |
| 2001 | 0 |
| 2000 | 0 |
Use grade E
Fewer than 30 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade C
At least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 2
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 6
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 5
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.22.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Choices
- Some points now or 64 points after a wait, as two buttons whose sides are drawn from the session's seed. No time limit; clicks under 100 ms are not taken.
- Waits
- 4, 8, 16 and 32 seconds (standard; the longest is a setting from 16 to 40 seconds, and the others are its half, quarter and eighth), in ascending order, 5 rounds at each, 20 in all.
- Same length
- Every round lasts its wait whichever option is chosen: points now are added at once and the next choice comes when the wait is over, and points after the wait are added when it ends. The points stay on screen for 1 second.
- Adjusting
- At each wait the points now start at 32 and move down after they are taken or up after the participant waits, by 16, then 8, 4, 2 and 1 points.
- Time
- The practice, the waits and the results take 5 minutes 28 seconds at the standard and 6 minutes 43 seconds at the longest setting, the same for every participant. Reading and choosing add a few minutes.
- Practice
- Two rounds with a 3-second wait, the first with only the points now open and the second with only the points after the wait, then a check question on when the next choice comes.
- Points
- The study decides what points are worth, and the payment line says whether they are exchanged for money.
- Scores
- The area under the indifference points as shares of 64, against the waits scaled from 0 to 1 (Myerson and colleagues, 2001). Also k per second of a fitted hyperbola, the indifference point at each wait and the share of points taken now.
- Checks
- Choosing one screen side on 90% of rounds invalidates. The Johnson and Bickel (2008) checks, a wait without an indifference point, a page that lost focus during a round and a wrong check answer are flagged and never exclude.
Reynolds and Schiffbauer (2004) paid cents, gave the later amount with a chance of 0.35 and ran each delay on a time budget. This test uses its own points and waits, gives the later points every time and makes every round as long as its wait, so its scores are not on the original's scale. The scores support research and do not diagnose.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: experiential_discounting_choice from the scored run, one per round. Choices have no correct answer. Choosing one screen side on 90% of rounds invalidates, because the side of the points now is drawn at random each time. Choices under 200 ms on at least half the rounds invalidate. A run without an indifference point at every wait, failing the Johnson and Bickel (2008) checks, a page that lost focus during a round and a wrong check answer are flagged.
Why these rules
There is no correct option to compare with chance, so accuracy is not judged against chance. A preference for points now or after the wait moves between screen sides, so choosing by side alone means the options were not read. Johnson and Bickel (2008) present their two checks for nonsystematic data as a tool for identification, not automatic exclusion, and someone who always waits fails the second one genuinely. The waits are the procedure: a page that lost focus during a round may have left a wait unattended, so it is flagged and a percentile is withheld after a hidden tab. A participant who misreads when the next choice comes may think the points now end the task sooner, so a wrong check answer is flagged for review and never invalidates. An answer under 200 ms is faster than a simple visual reaction, so it cannot reflect the item. Following response-time effort screening for untimed tests (Wise and Kong 2005), the session is invalid only when at least half the answers are that fast.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Longest wait (seconds) | 32 | 16 to 40 |
| Payment line | Hypothetical points (standard) | Hypothetical points (standard), The study pays for points |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Experiential Discounting Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Reynolds and Schiffbauer, 2004), with the standard settings (longest wait (seconds): 32; payment line: Hypothetical points). The main score was area under the curve (area under the indifference points as shares of 64 points, with the waits scaled by the longest).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Reynolds, B., & Schiffbauer, R. (2004). Measuring state changes in human delay discounting: An experiential discounting task. Behavioural Processes, 67(3), 343-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2004.06.003The task: delays of seconds sat through in the session, with steeper discounting after a night without sleep.
- Smits, R. R., Stein, J. S., Johnson, P. S., Odum, A. L., & Madden, G. J. (2013). Test-retest reliability and construct validity of the Experiential Discounting Task. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 21(2), 155-163. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031725The original procedure in detail, and a retest correlation of .32 over seven days.
- Steele, C. C., Gwinner, M., Smith, T., Young, M. E., & Kirkpatrick, K. (2019). Experience matters: The effects of hypothetical versus experiential delays and magnitudes on impulsive choice in delay discounting tasks. Brain Sciences, 9(12), 379. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci9120379Real waits made choices more sensitive to the delay than waits that were only described.
- Johnson, M. W. (2012). An efficient operant choice procedure for assessing delay discounting in humans: Initial validation in cocaine-dependent and control individuals. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 20(3), 191-204. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027088A shorter task with delays experienced in the session, which correlated with the original.
- Du, W., Green, L., & Myerson, J. (2002). Cross-cultural comparisons of discounting delayed and probabilistic rewards. The Psychological Record, 52(4), 479-492. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395199The adjusting-amount procedure.
- Myerson, J., Green, L., & Warusawitharana, M. (2001). Area under the curve as a measure of discounting. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 76(2), 235-243. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2001.76-235The main score.
- Johnson, M. W., & Bickel, W. K. (2008). An algorithm for identifying nonsystematic delay-discounting data. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 16(3), 264-274. https://doi.org/10.1037/1064-1297.16.3.264The checks for nonsystematic data.
Source papers
- Reynolds and Schiffbauer (2004): delays of seconds sat through in the session, steeper discounting after sleep loss. Smits et al. (2013): the original procedure and its retest correlation. Steele et al. (2019): real waits against described ones.Paradigm source, Adults
Questions
How long does the Experiential Discounting Task take?
About 7 to 10 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Area Under the Curve, Discount Rate (k), Log Discount Rate, Hyperbolic Fit, Points Now Rate, Consistency Flag, Rising Point Check, Flat Curve Check, Indifference Point, Shortest Wait, Indifference Point, Second Wait, Indifference Point, Third Wait, Indifference Point, Longest Wait, Completed Waits, Rounds, Points Earned, Rounds With Focus Lost, Check Correct, Choice Time and Early Clicks. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Experiential Discounting Task used in research?
3 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract. That ranks it 480 of 495 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade E). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.22.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Experiential Discounting Task have?
In the published research, 2 papers report its test-retest reliability and 5 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade C in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Longest wait (seconds) (16 to 40) and payment line (Hypothetical points (standard), The study pays for points). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.