Delay of consequences and the riskiness of decisions.

The present experiments were designed to explore whether the length of the interval between decision and consequence might affect the amount of risk the decision-maker is willing to tolerate. The basic hypothesis of the study can be presented simply: the greater the delay between making a decision and experiencing its consequences, the greater the tendency to choose risky rather than conservative decision alternatives. Researcher M. Nisan's study was conceived in the framework of the expectancy times valence view of need for achievement. Implications of the findings are restricted to skill rather than chance situations whereas the present experiments are directed to the more generalized setting where specific pleasurable and painful consequences are involved and where outcomes are determined essentially by chance. The experimental hypothesis derives in part from intuition and anecdote. The hypothesis implies that the riskiness of racetrack wagers declines as post time approaches, that it is more difficult to change from a job that is a known quantity to a new job with unknown risks, the closer one comes to a committing decision, that anxious public speakers are easier to sign up several months in advance than when the date of the speech is close at hand, that it is easier to agree to surgery scheduled for next month than for next week. Many of these anecdotes invite multiple explanations, and one might even cite counter examples where risky decisions are impulsively made. The nature and conditions of the hypothesis become clarified when it is viewed in the context of approach-avoidance conflict theory.