Sign effect in adolescents: Within‐subject comparison of delay discounting of hypothetical monetary gains and losses

Furrebøe (2020) asked teenagers to choose between small money now or bigger money later.

Each teen played two games: one for winning cash and one for losing cash.

The delays grew longer each round so the team could see when kids switched to the quick option.

Teens grabbed the smaller-sooner reward more often when the choice was about gains.

They were calmer about future losses; many refused to trade away any delay.

Immediacy ruled rewards, but penalties kept their cool.

Kim et al. (2024) stretched the idea into real classrooms. Second-graders who hated waiting saved fewer tokens, proving the lab result matters on the playground.

Vessells et al. (2018) flipped the script: they taught little kids to wait by fading delays and adding signals. Their training shows you can undo steep discounting if you start early.

Porter et al. (2020) used the same delay trick with chores teens disliked. Adding a pause to both hard tasks nudged kids to pick the longer, tougher job—mirroring the sign effect but with work instead of money.

You now know rewards feel urgent faster than penalties feel painful. When you write a behavior plan, put the good stuff within seconds and stretch the cost across minutes. Try front-loading praise or tokens while spacing out response-cost fines. The teen brain will thank you with steadier choices.