Choice versus no choice: Practical considerations for increasing choices

Kim and team read 38 older lab and applied studies that used choice. They pulled out how each study sized, timed, and delivered the options. They also noted when the client had to work harder or wait longer to get the reinforcer.

The goal was to see which levers you can move—number of choices, seconds of delay, amount of effort—to keep the client happy and working.

No single recipe worked for everyone. Some kids liked three toys on the table; others felt overwhelmed and quit. If the child had a history of quick pay-offs, even a five-second delay made them walk away.

The big point: preferences slide. Yesterday’s favorite option can lose today if it now costs more button presses or sits next to a faster reward.

Walley et al. (2005) already showed that harder work rarely kills a reinforcer, but long delays do. Kim’s review folds that finding in and adds the warning that past reinforcement speed sets the danger line for each client.

Kydd et al. (1982) found pigeons didn’t care about immediacy when total delay stayed equal. Kim’s data say humans do care, because our histories are packed with fast pay-offs like texts and snacks. Same variable—immediacy—different outcome, because the species and histories differ.

Soreth et al. (2009) proved that a tiny chance of a super-fast reward keeps animals picking the risky slot. Kim shows clinicians the same rule: sprinkling in an easy, quick option can keep a child choosing the task stack instead of escaping.

You can stop guessing how many choices to give. Start with two, watch the client’s response, then adjust up or down. If you must add delay or effort, slip in an occasional instant reward to protect the response. Track what the client picked last week; their reinforcement history is your map, not the protocol binder.