ABA Fundamentals

Self-control in adult humans: variation in positive reinforcer amount and delay.

Logue et al. (1986) · Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior 1986
★ The Verdict

Typical adults already pick bigger later rewards, so the basic lab test hides, not reveals, impulsivity.

✓ Read this if BCBAs who assess delay discounting or build self-control programs with teens, IDD clients, or neurodiverse adults.
✗ Skip if Practitioners who only work with typically developing adults in everyday settings where delay choices are already stable.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Researchers asked adult women to pick between two rewards. One was small and came right away. The other was bigger but came after a wait. The team changed the size of the big reward and the length of the wait across five small tests. All choices happened alone in a quiet lab room.

02

What they found

Every adult chose the bigger later reward almost every time. Even when the wait grew longer, they still waited. The data showed strong self-control and a clear 'maximizing' plan. These women did not look impulsive at all.

03

How this fits with other research

Reed et al. (1988) ran the same setup with teens who had severe intellectual disability. Those teens flipped to the small quick reward as soon as delays grew. The adults in Logue et al. (1986) never flipped, so the adult pattern does not hold for every group.

Hansen et al. (1989) tested kids aged 4 to 12. Six- to nine-year-olds acted like the adults, but both younger and older kids flipped toward small-quick rewards. The adult 'always wait' pattern peaks only in mid-childhood.

Dunkel-Jackson et al. (2016) later showed that adults with autism can learn to wait if you fade the delay in steps. That study adds training, while the 1986 paper simply shows what adults already do.

04

Why it matters

If you test self-control in typical adults, do not expect to see impulsive choices. Their baseline is already 'wait for the big one.' To study impulsivity, use kids, individuals with ID, or add strong rewards that compete with waiting. When you design delay-tolerance programs, start by knowing your client's baseline. Typical adults do not need shaping to wait; other populations do.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Run a quick two-choice probe: one edible now vs three edibles in 30 s; if the client grabs the single, you have a real self-control target.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
single case other
Population
neurotypical
Finding
positive

03Original abstract

In five experiments, choice responding of female human adults was examined, as a function of variations in reinforcer amount and reinforcer delay. Experiment 1 used a discrete-trials procedure, and Experiments 2, 3, 4, and 5 used a concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedule. Reinforcer amount and reinforcer delay were varied both separately and together. In contrast to results previously reported with pigeons, the subjects in the present experiments usually chose the larger reinforcers even when those reinforcers were delayed. Together, the results from all the experiments suggest that the subjects followed a maximization strategy in choosing reinforcers. Such behavior makes it easy to observe self-control and difficult to observe impulsiveness in traditional laboratory experiments that use adult human subjects.

Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1986 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1986.46-159