The effect of magnitude on the displacement of leisure items by edible items

Miller et al. (2025) asked a simple question: can we make kids pick toys over snacks just by giving longer play time?

They ran a paired-choice preference assessment. First kids chose between a bite of food and a short turn with a toy. Then the team lengthened toy time and ran the choices again.

The design was ABAB: baseline, longer toy time, back to short, then long again. This let them see if more play time really swung the choices.

When toy time was short, kids usually picked the snack. When toy time grew to five minutes, the same kids now picked the toy.

The swing happened each time the researchers changed the duration. Longer access reversed the edible-toy preference almost immediately.

Goldberg et al. (2023) first showed that mixing edibles, toys, and social items in one assessment can bump toys out of the top spot. Miller’s team flips that problem: they give longer toy time and the toy climbs back to first place.

Hodges et al. (2021) also played with size and duration, but for a different goal. They handed out big cookies or long iPad time right before work to boost compliance. Both studies show the same rule: bigger or longer equals more power, whether the outcome is choice or cooperation.

Landon et al. (2003) proved the basic rule in a lab: larger reinforcers create larger preference spikes. Miller moves that rule into an everyday preference assessment and uses minutes instead of sugar drops.

You no longer have to toss toys from your reinforcer bag just because snacks win once. Add a five-minute access condition to your next paired-stimulus assessment. If the toy rises in rank, you have a durable, non-caloric reinforcer that can cut down on constant edible delivery and still keep motivation high.