A first-person shooter video game was adapted for the study of choice between smaller sooner and larger later outcomes. Participants chose when to fire a weapon that increased in damage potential over a 10 s interval, an escalating interest situation. Across two experiments, participants demonstrated sensitivity to the nature of the mathematical function that defined the relationship between waiting and damage potential. In Experiment 1, people tended to wait longer when doing so allowed them to eliminate targets more quickly. In Experiment 2, people tended to wait longer to increase the probability of a constant magnitude outcome than to increase the magnitude of a 100% certain outcome that was matched for the same expected value (i.e., probability times magnitude). The two experiments demonstrated sensitivity to the way in which an outcome improves when the outcome is continuously available. The results also demonstrate that this new video game task is useful for generating sensitivity to delay to reinforcement over time scales that are typically used in nonhuman animal studies.

Using a video-game-based escalating interest task, participants repeatedly encountered a reward that gradually increased in value over a 10-second interval. Responding early in the interval netted less immediate reward than responding later in the interval. Each participant experienced four different reward contingencies for waiting. These contingencies were changed three times as the experiment proceeded. Behavior tracked these changing contingencies, but wait times reflected long-term carryover from the previously assigned contingencies. Both the tendency to respond slowly and the optimality of behavior were affected by the order of contingencies experienced. Demographic variables only weakly predicted behavior, and delay discounting rate in a hypothetical money choice task predicted choice only when the contingencies in the game were weaker.

A first-person shooter video game was adapted for the study of choice between smaller sooner and larger later rewards. Participants chose when to fire a weapon that increased in damage potential over a short interval. When the delay to maximum damage was shorter (5 – 8 s), people showed greater sensitivity to the consequences of their choices than when the delay was longer (17 – 20 s). Participants also evidenced a magnitude effect by waiting proportionally longer when the damage magnitudes were doubled for all rewards. The experiment replicated the standard magnitude effect with this new video game preparation over time scales similar to those typically used in nonhuman animal studies and without complications due to satiation or cost.

Using a continuous impulsivity and risk platform (CIRP) that was constructed using a video game engine, choice was assessed under conditions in which waiting produced a continuously increasing probability of an outcome with a continuously decreasing magnitude (Experiment 1) or a continuously increasing magnitude of an outcome with a continuously decreasing probability (Experiment 2). Performance in both experiments reflected a greater desire for a higher probability even though the corresponding wait times produced substantive decreases in overall performance. These tendencies are considered to principally reflect hyperbolic discounting of probability, power discounting of magnitude, and the mathematical consequences of different response rates. Behavior in the CIRP is compared and contrasted with that in the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART).

In everyday decision making, people often face decisions with outcomes that differ on multiple dimensions. The trade-off in preferences between magnitude, temporal proximity, and probability of an outcome is a fundamental concern in the decision-making literature. Yet, their joint effects on behavior in an experience-based decision-making task are understudied. Two experiments examined the relative influences of the magnitude and probability of an outcome when both were increasing over a 10-second delay. A first-person shooter video game was adapted for this purpose. Experiment 1 showed that participants waited longer to ensure a higher probability of the outcome than to ensure a greater magnitude when experienced separately and together. Experiment 2 provided a precise method of comparing their relative control on waiting by having each increase at different rates. Both experiments revealed a stronger influence of increasing probability than increasing magnitude. The results were more consistent with hyperbolic discounting of probability than with cumulative prospect theory's decision weight function.