Some effects of response-correlated increases in reinforcer magnitude on human behavior.

Researchers asked adults to press buttons for money. The twist: the more they pressed, the bigger the cash reward. They tested how tightly this link had to be to make people speed up.

Each person worked alone in a quiet room. Computers tracked every press and paid out instantly.

People pressed faster when bigger money followed faster pressing. The closer the match, the bigger the jump in speed.

Even small increases in reward size pushed response rates up, as long as the rule stayed clear.

Costa et al. (2025) seems to disagree. They found reward size did not help behavior stick when disruption hit; only reward rate mattered for persistence. The gap is about what each team measured. W et al. looked at how fast responding started. Costa looked at how long it lasted once things got tough.

Dougherty et al. (1994) adds a layer. They showed that social hints like 'try to beat the other person' can wipe out the power of bigger rewards. Together these studies tell us: magnitude boosts rate, but only if rate is the main cue and no social rule gets in the way.

Schmitt (1976) came first, proving that people pick the option that pays a little more. W et al. tightened the screw by making the size grow step-by-step with every extra response.

When you shape a new skill, tie the size of the reinforcer to the speed or effort you want. A child who writes five words quickly gets five stickers; two words gets two. Keep the rule simple and visible. Drop the size back once the pace feels natural to the learner.