The effect of reinforcer magnitude on probability and delay discounting of experienced outcomes in a computer game task in humans.

Au-Yeung et al. (2015) let adults play a computer game for real prizes. Players chose between a small prize now or a bigger prize later. The team changed the size of the bigger prize to see how size changes patience.

They also tested choices between a sure small prize and a chance at a bigger prize. This let them ask: does prize size matter more for waiting or for gambling?

Small prizes lost value fast when players had to wait. Large prizes kept their value longer. In plain words, people will wait for a big bag of candy but not for one piece.

Prize size did not change how people gambled. A 5-dollar raffle ticket and a 50-dollar raffle ticket were treated the same. Delay and risk follow different rules.

Odum et al. (2020) reviewed dozens of studies and found the same thing: bigger rewards are discounted less steeply. The 2015 game result sits right inside their bigger picture.

Harman et al. (2020) asked college students to imagine money choices. They also found that how you talk about size changes patience. Together, the two studies show the magnitude effect in both real and pretend tasks.

Macaskill et al. (2023) added a twist: when players cannot do anything else while they wait, discounting gets even steeper. Their finding builds on K et al. by showing that wait-room rules matter as much as prize size.

When you teach a learner to wait for reinforcement, go big. A large, delayed reinforcer holds its power better than a small one. This is useful for toilet training, homework routines, or saving tokens for Friday popcorn. Do not worry as much about prize size when you use lottery-style systems; the odds drive the choice more than the amount.