Journal Press India^®

Author Details ( * ) denotes Corresponding author

This study examines how digital exposure, psychological factors, and temporal discounting influence Generation Z’s decision-making patterns, specifically their tendency toward instant gratification versus long-term planning. Using a quantitative research design, data were collected from 250–300 Gen Z respondents through a structured Likert-scale questionnaire measuring digital media usage, self-control, attention span, stress levels, temporal discounting, and decision preferences. Descriptive statistics revealed high digital exposure and instant gratification tendencies, paired with low attention span and moderate long-term planning ability. Correlation and regression analyses demonstrated that temporal discounting and digital exposure significantly predict instant gratification, while self-control and attention span strongly support long-term planning. ANOVA results showed clear age-related differences, with younger Gen Z respondents displaying higher impulsivity and older respondents demonstrating stronger planning orientation. The findings highlight that Gen Z’s decision-making is shaped not by inherent impulsiveness but by digital environments, psychological capacities, and contextual pressures. The study provides theoretical and practical insights for educators, employers, mental-health professionals, and policymakers seeking to strengthen future-oriented behavior among Gen Z.

Keywords

Generation Z; Instant gratification; Long-term planning; Digital exposure; Self-control; Temporal discounting; Decision-making

1. Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244(4907), 933–938. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2658056
2. Watts, T. W., Duncan, G. J., & Quan, H. (2018). Revisiting the marshmallow test: A conceptual replication. Psychological Science, 29(7), 1159–1177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618761661
3. Duckworth, A. L., & Kern, M. L. (2011). A meta-analysis of the convergent validity of self-control measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(3), 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.02.004
4. Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2010). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583–15587. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903620106
5. Rosen, L. D., Lim, A., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. (2014). An empirical examination of the educational impact of text message interruptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.005
6. Djafarova, E., & Bowes, T. (2021). Influencer marketing and impulse buying among Generation Z. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 59, 102345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102345
7. Lusardi, A., & Mitchell, O. S. (2014). The economic importance of financial literacy: Theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Literature, 52(1), 5–44. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.52.1.5
8. Twenge, J. M. (2020). The rise of anxiety and depression in iGen. Journal of Adolescence, 80, 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.02.001
9. Evans, G. W., & Kim, P. (2013). Childhood poverty, chronic stress, and young adult working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(16), 7871–7876. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1215580110
10. Duckworth, A. L., Gendler, T. S., & Gross, J. J. (2014). Situational strategies for self-control. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(2), 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614521033
11. Yeager, D. S., et al. (2019). A metacognitive intervention to improve adolescent goal pursuit. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(10), 1106–1114. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0673-0
12. Ridwan, N. H. (2024). Decision-making behavior of Generation Z: A systematic literature review. Malque Journal of Social Research, 5(2), 55–73.