The effects of the framing of time on delay discounting.

DeHart et al. (2015) asked college students to pick between a small reward today or a bigger reward later. The twist was how the wait time was shown.

Some saw the delay as a calendar date ("May 15"). Others saw days ("45 days") or just units ("45 units"). Everything else stayed the same.

Calendar dates made people more patient. They discounted the future reward less. Days and generic units made them more impatient.

The framing, not the actual wait, shifted choice. Words on the screen changed real decisions.

Taylor et al. (2017) extends this lab trick into daily life. Their students exercised on their own for seven weeks. Self-monitoring cut discounting for most of them. Brady shows a quick wording fix; J shows a longer habit fix. Both lower delay discounting.

Kendrick et al. (1981) and Saunders et al. (1988) echo the power of instructions. They changed fixed-interval performance just by telling adults different rules. Brady moves the same idea to intertemporal choice: re-label time and behavior shifts.

Rogers-Warren et al. (1976) adds a clock and responses drop. External time cues help in both studies. A clock or a calendar date acts like a visual anchor that steadies behavior.

When you write token boards, visual schedules, or contingency maps, swap "14 days" for "March 3." The date frame can make waiting feel shorter and the reinforcer feel bigger. One small wording tweak may boost your client’s patience without adding extra tokens or tangibles.