The High Price of Ignoring the Future

Would you rather be given £45 in three days, or £70 in three months? That was the question put to 40,000 people who took part in an experiment conducted by the BBC and the University College of London. Slightly more than half the respondents said they'd prefer to wait 90 days for the bigger payout. Those who opted for the immediate reward were found to be more impulsive in other areas of life, too, said Dr Stian Reimers of the ESRC Centre for Economic Learning and Social Evolution. They were more likely to smoke, engage in extramarital affairs, and be overweight than the delayed-gratification crowd.

This experiment echoes the findings of the Marshmallow Test, which I wrote about in January. In that test, young children were told that if they could resist eating a marshmallow placed in front of them for fifteen minutes, they'd be given an additional marshmallow. The children in the test were tracked through adulthood and researchers found that the resisters were more successful than the kids who ate the marshmallow without waiting.

I wonder if it is possible to teach kids and adults how to have more patience? Reimers' advice doesn't seem like it would have much of an effect. He said, "Simple techniques can help reduce impulsivity: like imagining how you'd feel about your decision in a year's time, or trying to avoid making decisions in the heat of the moment." The problem is, in the heat of the moment, it's hard to resist making a decision!

I'm curious to know if any readers have learned to control their impulsiveness. If you have been, please share how you did it.

Mark Frauenfelder – Editor-in-chief of MAKE magazine and the founder of the popular Boing Boing weblog, Mark was an editor at Wired from 1993-1998 and is the founding editor of Wired Online.

Comments

[adam]

I would actually take the 45 before waiting for the 70, and it has nothing to do with impulsiveness. I'm usually the last person to get a new technology, I plan things out before doing. BUT when it comes to money, there are no guarantees. Who knows if I'll ever see that money in three months? That's also part of the reason I don't buy things that offer mail in rebates. Most of the time, they never come! As the old proverb says, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Throw in that I'm an American, and my money is on the constant downfall and that 40 today could have more buying power than that 70 in three months (not really, but you never know!).

[Wm Ager]

Adam, that's an important part of the "ignoring the future" point. Often, agreeing to the larger reward later can constitute ignoring the situation and the future. In both the money and marshmallow experiments, there is a choice between an immediate reward and the promise of a future reward. The value of the immediate reward needs to be weighed against both the value of the future reward and the value of the promise.

In the case of mail-in rebates vs buying something that is cheaper only when the rebate on the other product is ignored, that promise isn't very valuable. In the case of an experiment like one of these, it probably is.

In the real world, of course, if someone offered to give me £45 now or £70 later, it would probably be a scam of some sort, and refusing the money entirely would probably be the best option.

[tut]

Wm Ager:

No it isn't. In the money experiment it is 45 quid in three days or 70 quid in three months. So it is promise vs promise, just different amounts and different waiting times. And in the marshmallow experiment all the children chose two marsmallows later, ie they preferred the promise, but they failed to wait for fifteen minutes.

[Simon]

How about this mind blowing option: Take the 45 today, invest it, and in three months it will be worth more than 70. Stupid test.