Understanding Delay Discounting in Personal and Organizational Contexts

When staff choose quick fixes over better long-term solutions, the problem may not be motivation—it may be how workplace uncertainty changes the value of delayed rewards. This research explores whether people make “now vs. later” money choices differently at work than in their personal lives, and what that means for designing effective incentive systems. For ABA practitioners, these findings offer practical guidance on why promised future benefits often fail to motivate staff—and what to do about it.

What is the research question being asked and why does it matter?

The researchers wanted to know if people make “now vs. later” money choices differently at work than in their personal lives. At work, money is often tied to budgets, approvals, and changing plans, so future money can feel less certain.

In ABA services, this same problem shows up when teams pick quick fixes instead of slower plans that could help more over time—like choosing short trainings instead of building a strong supervision system. Understanding when and why staff pick the immediate option helps us design supports that make long-term, high-quality choices easier.

They also asked whether job role changes these choices. Do managers think more “long-term” than non-managers? This matters because some workplaces assume leaders are automatically better at long-term planning. If that’s not true, training and supports shouldn’t be aimed at only one group.

Finally, they asked if a person’s personal “now vs. later” style predicts how they choose at work. If personal patterns carry into work, then work decisions aren’t only about policies and budgets. It also means two staff members may react very differently to the same delayed incentive plan, even with the same job.

What did the researchers do to answer that question?

They recruited workers from one private security company and had them complete two computerized choice tasks. One task involved “personal money,” where the person could spend the money any way they wanted. The other involved “organizational money,” where the money was for their work unit and had to be used for work activities. People chose between a smaller amount now and a larger amount later across many trials.

They tested two reward sizes—one small and one very large—and several delays ranging from about a month to many years. The computer adjusted the “small now” amount until it found the point where the person switched between “now” and “later.” This shows how much the delay reduced the value for that person. The researchers then summarized each person’s pattern into a single discounting score, where a lower score meant the person strongly preferred immediate outcomes.

They compared choices across context (personal vs. organizational), reward size (small vs. large), and role (manager vs. operative worker). They also checked whether personal discounting scores related to organizational discounting scores.

Important limits to keep in mind: the rewards were hypothetical, the study happened in only one company, and the “organizational money” task asked some workers to imagine having budget control they don’t really have.

How you can use this in your day-to-day clinical practice

Expect more “take it now” choices when staff are deciding about work resources, even if those same staff can wait for bigger rewards in their personal lives. In this study, people discounted organizational money more than personal money—the delayed work option lost value faster.

In practice, a delayed “clinic benefit” like “we’ll buy that program material next quarter” or “we’ll add paid training hours later” may not function as a strong reinforcer if staff doubt it will really happen. If you want staff to choose the long-term option, make the future outcome feel more certain and more concrete—not just bigger.

Treat uncertainty as a real variable you can assess and design for. The study’s pattern fits a common workplace story: delayed resources feel risky because plans change. In ABA settings, this could look like canceled meetings, delayed raises, changing caseloads, or promised supports that get bumped by emergencies.

A practical step is to do a brief “uncertainty check” before building a delayed reinforcement plan. Ask, in plain terms, what has happened the last few times the organization promised a delayed support, and whether staff expect follow-through. If follow-through has been weak, don’t be surprised if staff pick immediate, smaller options—like skipping extra training or choosing minimal documentation.

Don’t assume managers will naturally pick the long-term option. In this study, managers and non-managers did not differ in discounting. For clinical supervision, leadership title alone doesn’t tell you who will tolerate delay well.

If you’re building a long-term quality project—like improving treatment integrity over months—plan to teach and support the whole team the same way. Build weekly feedback, short cycles of goal setting, and quick access to tools, rather than waiting for quarterly outcomes. This is about making the path to the long-term goal easier to contact, not about blaming anyone for being “impulsive.”

Use bigger, clearer outcomes when you need people to wait, but don’t oversell what you can’t deliver. The study showed a common magnitude pattern: smaller amounts were discounted more than larger amounts. In everyday terms, people are more willing to wait when the later outcome feels truly worth it.

If you’re asking staff to do harder steps now for a future payoff, make sure the payoff is meaningful to them—not just to the organization. Make the payoff specific, written down, and time-linked. Vague future rewards often act like weak reinforcers.

Plan for individual differences without labeling staff. Personal discounting predicted organizational discounting for the large reward, but it didn’t explain everything. Two RBTs can respond differently to the same incentive system, even if both are competent and caring.

Instead of calling someone “not motivated,” treat it as an assessment issue. If one staff member repeatedly chooses the immediate option, try adding nearer-term reinforcement, more frequent progress signals, or smaller steps toward the same goal. Keep the focus on building a supportive environment rather than pressuring compliance.

When you design staff performance systems, reduce delay and increase certainty first—before adding more “value.” If your clinic wants better long-term outcomes like lower turnover, stronger parent training, or higher treatment integrity, start by tightening follow-through. Pay promised time, deliver promised materials, and protect scheduled supervision. Then add structured, short feedback loops so staff can contact progress quickly.

This matches the study’s main applied message: at work, delayed outcomes may lose value fast when people don’t trust the delay.

Be careful about generalizing the findings. This was one company in one industry, using hypothetical money choices on a computer task. It doesn’t tell you exactly what will happen with every ABA team, and it doesn’t prove that organizational choices are only about uncertainty.

Use it as a guide to ask better questions in your setting: “Do our staff experience our promises as reliable?” and “Are we accidentally training people that ‘later’ doesn’t happen?” Those answers should shape whether you use delayed incentives, immediate supports, or a mix—while still relying on clinical judgment and staff input.

Works Cited

Hernández-Toledano, R. A., Ruiz Mendez, D., & Vega Valero, C. Z. (2025). When less is more: Exploring the relation between delay discounting rates in a personal and organizational context. *Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 45*(4), 333–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2025.2454272