Reduced access to reinforcement drives delay discounting during experienced delays
Blocking side reinforcers during a wait makes any delayed reward lose value fast.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Macaskill et al. (2023) let people play a computer game. They could pick a small reward now or a bigger one later. The twist was blocking other games or snacks while they waited. The team watched how fast the later prize lost value when nothing else was around.
The study ran in a lab with single-case logic. Each person served as their own control. The key change was how much fun stuff they could reach during the wait.
What they found
When the room stayed boring, people dumped the delayed reward faster. The chance to do something else mattered more than the wait itself. Take away side reinforcers and the bigger-later prize felt worthless.
The result lines up with everyday ABA: clients work harder when the table is clear of competing toys.
How this fits with other research
Nickerson et al. (2015) saw the same slope years earlier. They kept adults stuck at the screen and called the effect opportunity cost. Macaskill simply renames it reduced access to reinforcement. The two papers agree; the new one just uses clearer words.
van Timmeren et al. (2016) took the idea into a DTI classroom. Kids with autism learned slower when praise was late, even by a few seconds. Macaskill’s lab finding now backs that classroom warning: delays hurt most when nothing else is fun.
Au-Yeung et al. (2015) tested reward size in a similar game. They showed bigger prizes hold value longer. Macaskill adds the flip side: shrink the surroundings, not the prize, and you get the same fast drop.
Richards (1981) signaled delays to pigeons. Birds pecked more when a light promised the food was still coming. Macaskill did not signal, so the steep drop they saw fits the old bird data: no cue, fast quit.
Why it matters
You can use this tomorrow. Before a delay, strip the area of phones, toys, or chat. The client’s tolerance for wait will shrink, letting you shape delay discounting or teach patience faster. When teaching, deliver the reinforcer right away or fill the gap with neutral tasks; otherwise the target skill may lose value just like the delayed prize did in the lab.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Clear the table of all toys before asking a client to wait two minutes for the iPad.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Rewards lose value as a function of delay. Previous studies suggest that delays have a bigger effect on reward value when people must wait during the delay. However, whether delays involve waiting or postponing has often been confounded with whether choices are about hypothetical or real rewards. The current study characterized the effects of waiting and postponing in hypothetical and experiential choice contexts separately. In Experiment 1 we observed steeper delay discounting for waiting than for postponing in choices about both hypothetical money and about experienced computer game points. Two factors potentially contributing to steeper discounting in choices about waiting are reduced access to other rewards and direct costs of waiting. In Experiment 2, we adapted the experiential delay-discounting task to manipulate each factor separately. Reduced access to other reinforcers had a bigger effect on delay discounting than direct costs of waiting. These results underscore the importance of considering the unique influence of waiting and associated opportunity costs in both basic delay-discounting research and in applied contexts.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2023 · doi:10.1002/jeab.883