The effects of outcome unit framing on delay discounting
Say "5 cookies" instead of "some cookies" and people will wait longer for them.
01Research in Context
What this study did
DeHart and colleagues asked adults to pick between a small reward now or a bigger reward later.
They changed how the reward was described. Sometimes they said "50 dollars." Other times they said "a handful of quarters."
The team then measured how much people discounted the future reward.
What they found
People waited longer when the reward was framed in clear units like "50 dollars" or "10 pizza slices."
When the same amount was called "a handful of quarters" or "some servings," people took the smaller-sooner option more often.
Clear numbers made the future payoff feel real and worth the wait.
How this fits with other research
McKerchar et al. (2016) also used fake money choices, but they looked at fixed versus random delays. They found no strong preference, while DeHart shows wording matters more than delay type.
de Méo Luiz et al. (2025) used point gains and losses. They saw that losses hurt rate but not staying power. DeHart adds that simply naming the gain clearly can boost staying power.
Delmendo et al. (2009) showed kids eat less when the price per unit goes up. DeHart flips the lens: even with zero extra work, fuzzy units lower value. Together they say "spell out the unit" whether you are changing price or not.
Why it matters
When you write a token board, say "5 tokens = 5 minutes iPad," not "some tokens = screen time." Clear units help clients wait and work longer. It costs nothing and takes ten seconds to fix.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Change your token board labels to exact numbers (e.g., "10 stars = 10 min swing") and watch waiting improve.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
We examined the effects of outcome framing on delay discounting. In Experiment 1, participants completed four delay-discounting tasks. In one monetary task, money was framed in units of dollars (＄50), and in the other, money was framed in units of handfuls of quarters (equal to ＄50). In one food task, food was framed in clear units of food (e.g., 100 M&Ms), and in the other, food was framed in units of servings (e.g., 10 servings of M&Ms). When money was framed in units of dollars, participants discounted less by delay compared to discounting of handfuls of quarters. When food was framed as clear units, participants also discounted less compared to how they discounted servings. In Experiment 2, participants completed two delay-discounting tasks for dollars and quarters (e.g., ＄50 or 200 quarters) to determine if the results of Experiment 1 were due to the differences in handling costs. In one delay-discounting task, money was framed in units of dollars. In the other delay-discounting task, money was framed in units of quarters. There was no difference in how participants discounted delayed money framed as dollars or quarters. Clear unit framing may result in less discounting by delay than fuzzy unit framing.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2018 · doi:10.1002/jeab.469