Effects of reward magnitude frames on measures of delay discounting in a hypothetical money scenario

Harman et al. (2020) asked college students to pick between small money now or larger money later.

The catch: the same reward was described three ways. One group read "\$10 for 5 seconds," another "\$10, 5 items," and the last "\$10, 5 ounces."

No real cash changed hands. The team simply tracked how steeply each group discounted the delayed cash.

Duration wording made students act more impulsive. Their discounting curves were steeper than with quantity or volume wording.

In plain numbers, the "seconds" frame shrank the area under the curve the most. Same dollars, same delay—just different words.

Odum et al. (2020) reviewed dozens of delay-discounting studies and say wording tweaks like these reliably shift choices.

Au-Yeung et al. (2015) saw a similar pattern when real game points were used: smaller stated amounts were discounted more. Harman’s work shows you don’t need real rewards; the wording alone is enough.

Macaskill et al. (2023) moved from words to real life. They found that blocking access to other reinforcers during the wait also steepens discounting. Together the papers say: both how you talk and what else is available shape patience.

If you teach delay tolerance, watch your labels. Saying "work for five tokens" may keep kids waiting longer than "work for five minutes." Try both frames and graph the choices—then pick the wording that produces the flatter curve.