A deposit contract method to deliver abstinence reinforcement for cigarette smoking.

Adults who smoked and had a substance-use diagnosis joined a telehealth quit program.

Half paid a $50 deposit up front. They could earn the money back each week by blowing a clean carbon-monoxide (CO) sample. The other half got the same pay-outs but never paid a deposit.

The team flipped the deposit rule on and off four times (ABAB) to see if the deposit itself changed how many people stayed abstinent.

Both groups produced the same number of clean CO tests. The deposit rule did not hurt or help success.

It did save money. Staff paid out less because the deposit group used their own $50 first.

Batchelder et al. (2023) asked adults to wear step counters and used the same deposit-versus-no-deposit trick. Again, deposits cut cost and kept outcomes equal. Together the two papers show the rule works for different behaviors.

Leigh et al. (2015) ran a 12-week smoking trial but compared escalating pay-outs to flat ones. They found bigger, growing rewards kept people abstinent longer. Jesse et al. used a flat schedule, so the studies do not clash—they simply ask different questions.

Geurts et al. (2008) gave residential patients prize draws for clean CO tests and also beat standard care. Their prize method cost more than Jesse’s deposit method yet worked no better, hinting that a deposit may be the thriftier choice.

You can ask clients to front the incentive money and still get the same behavior change. The cash you save can fund more clients or bigger bonuses later. Try a $25–$50 deposit next time you run a voucher program and track if your budget stretches further.