A delay discounting task produces a greater likelihood of waiting than a deferred gratification task.

Austin et al. (2015) compared two waiting games. In one game you could quit halfway and take a smaller prize. In the other game you had to wait the full delay or get nothing.

They asked which setup makes people wait longer for the bigger reward.

People waited more often when there was no mid-way quit button.

They also cared less when the payoff amounts changed, showing the task itself reduced temptation.

García‐Leal et al. (2019) and Fortes et al. (2015) added extra work during the wait. Their pigeons and humans waited longer when each second cost more pecks or clicks. These studies extend the 2015 finding: both removing the quit option and adding effort make self-control easier.

McGeown et al. (2013) looks like a contradiction at first. They removed discounting by keeping reward rate the same across choices. But they held payoff timing constant, while E et al. held the response option constant. The two papers show different levers—timing versus choice—can each flatten the delay curve.

Ainslie et al. (2003) bundled three tiny rewards in a row. Rats waited longer for the big pile, just as humans did when the quit key vanished. Both tricks shrink the urge to grab the small-sooner prize.

If your client bolts from tasks that take time—long math sheets, toilet training, job routines—remove the early-exit option first. Lock the material in a clear bin, set a visual timer, or use a task card that can’t be put away until the bell. One small procedural tweak can buy you extra minutes of on-task behavior without extra tokens or praise.