Human self-control and the density of reinforcement.
Make the self-control option pay denser, not just bigger, and people will wait.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Adults pressed buttons in a computer game. They could pick a small reward right away or a bigger one later.
Points acted like tokens. The researchers changed how often points came for each choice. They wanted to see if the pay rate, not just the delay, guided self-control.
What they found
People chose the large delayed reward when it also had the richer schedule. When the small immediate reward paid faster, they took it instead.
Density beat delay. Arranging the schedule so the self-control option paid more often made waiting easy.
How this fits with other research
Sanford et al. (1980) showed that longer absolute delays hurt the big reward even when the ratio stayed the same. Demello et al. (1992) add that you can fix this by packing more pay into the big option.
Hamilton et al. (1978) taught pigeons to wait by slowly stretching the delay. R et al. prove the same jump can be done just by shifting density, no fading needed.
Wulfert (1994) later showed that extra points given during the wait push choice back to impulsive. Together the papers draw a clear line: whoever owns the denser schedule owns the choice.
Why it matters
You can make clients wait for the better reinforcer without long lectures. Set your token board, point system, or sticker chart so the patient choice pays faster. For example, give two tokens for the 5-minute task and only one for the quick task. The numbers do the teaching.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Give the longer task two tokens and the quick task one token, then let the client choose.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Choice responding in adult humans on a discrete-trial button-pressing task was examined as a function of amount, delay, and overall density (points per unit time) of reinforcement. Reinforcement consisted of points that were exchangeable for money. In T 0 conditions, an impulsive response produced 4 points immediately and a self-control response produced 10 points after a delay of 15 s. In T 15 conditions, a constant delay of 15 s was added to both prereinforcer delays. Postreinforcer delays, which consisted of 15 s added to the end of each impulsive trial, equated trial durations regardless of choice, and was manipulated in both T 0 and T 15 conditions. In all conditions, choice was predicted directly from the relative reinforcement densities of the alternatives. Self-control was observed in all conditions except T 0 without postreinforcer delays, where the impulsive choices produced the higher reinforcement density. These results support previous studies showing that choice is a direct function of the relative reinforcement densities when conditioned (point) reinforcers are used. In contrast, where responding produces intrinsic (immediately consumable) reinforcers, immediacy of reinforcement appears to account for preference when density does not.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1992 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1992.57-201