An apparatus and procedure for studying discounting of real outcomes of money and aversive sound
A new lab task trades real noise for real money and shows that extra seconds of aversive sound quickly push adults toward instant relief.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Meshes et al. (2024) built a new lab rig. Adults could stop an ugly noise right away or keep listening to earn money later.
The team tested two money amounts and varied how long the sound played. They wanted to see how much pain people will take for cash.
What they found
Longer noise made people more likely to hit "stop now" and skip the cash. The pattern looked the same for both money sizes.
In short, extra seconds of bad sound pushed choices toward instant relief.
How this fits with other research
Odum et al. (2020) reviewed dozens of discounting tasks. They show that real aversive outcomes are discounted more sharply than money. Meshes adds real noise data that match this rule.
Harman et al. (2020) used only hypothetical money and found that wording changes the curve. Meshes moves past words: real sound and real dollars make the choice concrete.
Nickerson et al. (2015) proved that sitting and waiting steepens discounting. Meshes keeps the wait real—you must hear the sound—so their curve looks even steeper, tying the two findings together.
Why it matters
You now have a lab model that mirrors tough client choices: endure discomfort now for a later payoff. Use it to test self-control tactics, such as shorter wait blocks or added rewards, before trying them in the field. If you work on tolerance or delay-of-gratification programs, this setup gives clear, quick feedback on what makes people bail out.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Break a long non-preferred task into short timed blocks and add a bigger reinforcer at the end—steep noise curves say shorter waits boost staying power.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
We developed and examined a laboratory preparation with adult humans that pits shorter term avoidance over longer term positive reinforcement and may serve as a useful laboratory functional analogue of problematic behavior. Participants were exposed to choices between (1) avoiding an aversive sound and acquiring no money or (2) listening to an aversive sound for a set duration and then receiving money. The first choice, avoiding an aversive sound and acquiring no money, was conceptualized as immediate negative reinforcement and no positive reinforcement, whereas the latter choice, listening to an aversive sound for a set duration and then receiving money, was conceptualized as a potential positive punisher paired with a larger later positive reinforcer. We manipulated the duration of the sound and the magnitude of money to identify the point at which individual participants' choices changed from avoiding the sound to choosing the sound plus money. As the sound duration increased, the choice of listening to the sound and receiving money decreased. Similar functions were observed with two different monetary magnitudes. The model has potential applicability to real-world problems such as smoking, addiction, gambling, anxiety disorders, and other impulse control disorders.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2024 · doi:10.1002/jeab.912