ArticlePloS one2024
Gamification and motivation: Impact on delay discounting performance.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Intact delay discounting but more optimal reward-based decisions in anorexia nervosa during an experiential task.Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Delay discounting is a phenomenon strongly associated with impulsivity. However, in order for a measured discounting rate in an experiment to meaningfully generalize to choices made elsewhere in life, participants must provide thoughtful, engaged answers during the assessment. Classic discounting tasks may not optimize intrinsic motivation or enjoyment, and a participant who is disengaged from the task is likely to behave in a way that provides a biased estimate of their discounting function. We assessed degree of delay discounting in a task intended to vary level of participant motivation. This was accomplished by introducing varying levels of gamification, the application of game design principles to a non-game context. Experiment 1 compared three versions of the delay discounting task with differing degrees of gamification and compared performance and task enjoyment across those variations, while Experiment 2 used two conditions (one gamified, one not). Participants found more gamified versions of the task more enjoyable than the other conditions, without producing substantial between-group differences in most cases. Thus, more polished task gameplay can provide a more enjoyable experience for participants without undermining delay discounting effects commonly reported in the literature. We also found that in all experimental conditions, higher levels of interest in or enjoyment of the task tended to be associated with more rapid discounting. This may suggest that low task motivation may result in less impulsive choice and suggests that participants who find delay discounting experiments sufficiently boring may bias assessments of value across delays.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.