Probability and delay in commitment.

The team asked people and pigeons to pick between two reward paths. One path gave a small reward right away. The other path gave a bigger reward later, but only if a first-stage gamble paid off.

The gamble chance changed across trials: 90 %, 50 %, or 10 %. Subjects could lock in their choice early or wait to decide until the gamble result came out.

Both humans and pigeons acted the same way. When the first-stage gamble was very likely (90 %), they waited to commit. When the gamble was unlikely (10 %), they committed early, before they knew the result.

In short, low probability made both species "jump the gun" and grab the big reward path sooner.

Lancioni et al. (2011) later showed a similar pattern in rats and pigeons. They stretched the time between trials and saw the same drop in risky choices, backing up the 1987 link between probability and delay.

Tracey et al. (1974) had already shown that pigeons follow a "momentary maximizing" rule—pick the option that pays off most right now. Meyer et al. (1987) add the twist that low chance of payoff is treated like extra delay, so birds jump early to escape the wait.

Funderburk et al. (1983) found that signal length can flip preference for signaled versus unsignaled food. Together these studies show timing cues, probability, and commitment rules all push the same choice lever.

If you want a client to wait for a bigger reinforcer, check the odds they see. When the chance of payoff looks low, they may "commit early" to a smaller, sure thing. You can raise the perceived probability by adding clearer signals, shortening wait times, or showing repeated small wins. Try giving a 10 % shot at a large prize only after the client has seen a few easy wins first. This keeps the "gamble" from feeling like endless delay.