The rich get richer: students' discounting of hypothetical delayed rewards and real effortful extra credit.

The present research compared choices among students with higher or lower grades for rewards that were devalued by imposing a delay to their receipt (Study 1) or by requiring more work for a larger reward (Study 2). In Study 1, students chose between hypothetical and noncontingent smaller immediate or larger delayed monetary rewards. In Study 2, students chose from among different amounts of real, response-contingent academic rewards (extra credit) that required different amounts of work. The results of both studies were similar: The highest scoring students discounted the value of the delayed money less than did their lower scoring counterparts, and the highest scoring students also chose to do and actually did more extra-credit work than lower scoring students did. Differences in the discounting of devalued rewards might represent a fundamental difference between the highest and lower scoring students.