Social Cognition
Social Discounting Task
Also called: social discount function, social distance discounting
Measure how the value of a gift falls with social distance, with adjusting choices between money for oneself and $75 for people from #1 to #100 on an imagined list.
3-5 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Preview any test free after you sign up.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 277
- Evidence grade
- C
- Registered clinical studies
- 4
What it measures
Measures how much the value of a gift falls with social distance. Participants imagine a list of the 100 people closest to them and choose between money for themselves alone and $75 for person #N alone, at seven distances from #1 to #100. Adjusting choices give the amount worth as much as each gift, and a hyperbola fitted to those amounts gives the social discount rate k.
Constructs
- Social discounting
- Altruism
- Social preferences
- Social distance
Research uses
- Social decision-making research
- Altruism and generosity studies
- Behavioral economics batteries
- Within-study group comparison
How the paradigm works
The social discounting task measures how much the value of a gift to another person falls as that person becomes more socially distant. Participants imagine a list of the 100 people closest to them, from #1, the closest, to #100, someone they barely know, without writing the list or typing any name. At each of seven places on the list (1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100) they choose between an amount of hypothetical money for themselves alone and $75 for the person at that place alone.
More about the paradigm
The task follows Jones and Rachlin (2006) and Rachlin and Jones (2008), with the amounts set by the adjusting-amount procedure of the platform's delay discounting task. At each distance the amount for the participant starts at $75. It moves down after a choice of the money for oneself, or up after a choice of the $75 for the other person, first by $37.50 and then by half the previous step, within $0 to $150. The amount that would come next is the indifference point: the money for oneself worth as much as $75 for person #N. The standard 6 choices per distance find it to within $1.17. The distances come in order from #1 to #100 as standard, or in a random order drawn from the session's seed, and the side of each option is set at random on every choice. Before the choices, one question with feedback checks that the participant knows each option pays one person only.
The main score is log10 k, the social discount rate of the hyperbola v = V / (1 + kN) fitted to the seven indifference points by least squares with V held at $75. Higher values mean that the value of a gift falls faster with distance. The sources fitted V and k to the group's median points, then held V constant and fitted k to each participant (Jones and Rachlin, 2009). Scores also include k, the fit's R squared, the area under the curve (Myerson, Green and Warusawitharana, 2001), the indifference point at each distance, the share of choices for oneself, a consistency flag from the Johnson and Bickel (2008) checks and the median choice time. In the sources the amount given up fell hyperbolically with distance, and many participants valued $75 for person #1 or #2 above $75 for themselves. The scores support research and do not diagnose.
Scores
- Social Discount Rate (log10 k)score
- Base-10 logarithm of k in v = V / (1 + kN), fitted by least squares to the seven indifference points with V held at $75.
- Higher means steeper social discounting
- Area Under the Curve%
- Area under the indifference points as shares of $75, with distances scaled from 0 to 1 and the point (0, 1) added for oneself. Points above $75 count as $75.
- Higher means less social discounting
- Social Discount Rate (k)score
- The fitted k itself, before the logarithm.
- Higher means steeper social discounting
- Fit (R squared)%
- Share of the variance in the indifference points, as shares of $75, that the fitted hyperbola explains.
- Higher means the hyperbola describes the choices better
- Indifference Point at #10$
- Money for oneself worth as much as $75 for person #10. Points are also reported at #1, #2, #5, #20, #50 and #100, and can exceed $75 for close people.
- Higher means more given up for that person
- Choices for Oneself%
- Share of all choices that took the money for oneself.
- Informational
- Consistency Flagflag
- 1 when the indifference points pass both Johnson and Bickel (2008) checks, with $75 as the reference amount. 0 when a point rises more than $15 above the one before it, or the last point is not at least $7.50 below the first.
- 1 supports interpretation
- Comprehension Checkflag
- 1 when the question before the choices was answered correctly, 0 when not.
- 1 supports interpretation
- Choice Timems
- Median time to make a choice, over choices of at least 100 ms.
- Shows how long choices took
Use and evidence
277 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, down 3% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 92 of 395 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 67 |
| 2024 | 40 |
| 2023 | 52 |
| 2022 | 46 |
| 2021 | 72 |
| 2020 | 54 |
| 2019 | 51 |
| 2018 | 66 |
| 2017 | 59 |
| 2016 | 57 |
| 2015 | 50 |
| 2014 | 49 |
| 2013 | 56 |
| 2012 | 30 |
| 2011 | 48 |
| 2010 | 38 |
| 2009 | 31 |
| 2008 | 37 |
| 2007 | 31 |
| 2006 | 25 |
| 2005 | 16 |
| 2004 | 22 |
| 2003 | 9 |
| 2002 | 7 |
| 2001 | 11 |
| 2000 | 5 |
Use grade C
100 to 299 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
- 3
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 38
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 4
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 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- List
- Participants imagine the 100 people closest to them, from #1 to #100, without writing the list or typing any name.
- Distances
- #1, #2, #5, #10, #20, #50 and #100, asked from #1 to #100 (standard) or in a random order drawn from the session's seed.
- Choices
- An amount for the participant alone or $75 for person #N alone, with the side of each option drawn at random.
- Adjusting amounts
- The amount for the participant starts at $75 and moves by $37.50, then half the previous step after each choice, within $0 to $150.
- Length
- 6 choices per distance (standard, 3 to 10), 42 in all.
- Check
- One question with feedback before the choices.
- Money
- Hypothetical, as in the sources.
The sources listed amounts for the participant on one page per distance, in $10 steps, and took the point where the preference switched. Here each distance asks one adjusting question at a time, as the delay discounting task does, and the range reaches $150 so a close person can be valued above $75.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: the scored run's choices. Choices have no correct answer. Choosing one screen side on 90% of choices invalidates, because the side of the amount for oneself is drawn at random each time. Answers under 200 ms on at least half the choices invalidate. Failing the Johnson and Bickel (2008) checks or the comprehension question is flagged.
Why these rules
There is no correct option to compare with chance, so accuracy is not judged against chance. A preference for oneself or for the other person moves between screen sides, so choosing by side alone means the amounts 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 values every person on the list as much as themselves fails the second one genuinely. A participant who misreads who receives the money may choose the opposite of what they intend, so a wrong answer to the comprehension question 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Choices per distance | 6 | 3 to 10 |
| Order of distances | Ascending, #1 to #100 (standard) | Ascending, #1 to #100 (standard), Random |
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 Social Discounting Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Jones & Rachlin, 2006; Rachlin & Jones, 2008), with the standard settings (choices per distance: 6; order of distances: Ascending, #1 to #100). The main score was social discount rate (log10 k; base-10 logarithm of k in v = V / (1 + kN), fitted by least squares to the seven indifference points with V held at $75).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Jones, B., & Rachlin, H. (2006). Social discounting. Psychological Science, 17(4), 283-286. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01699.x
- Rachlin, H., & Jones, B. A. (2008). Social discounting and delay discounting. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21(1), 29-43. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.567
- Jones, B. A., & Rachlin, H. (2009). Delay, probability, and social discounting in a public goods game. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 91(1), 61-73. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2009.91-61Fitting k to each participant with V held constant.
- 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/10.1037/1064-1297.16.3.264Checks for nonsystematic data.
Source papers
- Jones and Rachlin (2006): social discounting. Rachlin and Jones (2008): social and delay discounting. Johnson and Bickel (2008): checks for nonsystematic data.Paradigm source, Adults
Questions
How long does the Social Discounting Task take?
About 3 to 5 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?
Social Discount Rate (log10 k), Area Under the Curve, Social Discount Rate (k), Fit (R squared), Indifference Point at #10, Choices for Oneself, Consistency Flag, Comprehension Check and Choice Time. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Social Discounting Task used in research?
277 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, down 3% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 92 of 395 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade C). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Social Discounting Task have?
In the published research, 3 papers report its test-retest reliability and 4 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?
Choices per distance (3 to 10) and order of distances (Ascending, #1 to #100 (standard), Random). 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.
Related tests