Effects of escalating and descending schedules of incentives on cigarette smoking in smokers without plans to quit.

Romanowich et al. (2010) paid adult smokers to stop smoking for one day. No one planned to quit.

Half the smokers got a descending pay plan: $20, then $15, then $10. The other half got an escalating plan: $5, then $10, then $15. The team watched who stayed smoke-free first.

The descending group started abstinence faster. The edge was small and vanished after the money stopped.

Bigger payments helped more people start, but the schedule shape mattered most for the first try.

Weiss et al. (2001) meta-analysis says money does not wreck motivation when it is tied to clear goals. Paul’s data fit: smokers still chose to try even with cash on the table.

Alsop et al. (1995) tested token schedules with adults and saw rule-following drop under lean pay. Paul saw the same: lean later pay (escalating) slowed the first step.

Saunders et al. (1988) showed varied rules keep schedule control. Paul’s brief rule — “get paid if breath test is clean” — worked, but only while cash was present.

If you run a token board or cash plan, start with the biggest payoff on day one. It sparks quick action even when the client is not yet motivated. Fade fast and add other supports, because the money effect dies without backup.