Tie your money to your commitment — but first ask if you’re willing to pay
Original: eternity4719 · source details
Original author: eternity4719 · Chinese source: · English adaptation: parveen0029. Translation and grade notes ↗
Bibliographic titles are retained in their original language.
Source author's views and grades; not individually verified by this site.
Cost and benefit at a glance
- Check the cost Cost ↓
- Under this deposit‑based approach, participants must put up their own cash upfront; if they fail to meet the target, the money is forfeited. In this trial, the …
- Then the source benefit Benefit ↓
- In a U.S. trial with 2,538 participants, employees and their relatives were randomly assigned to one of four incentive schemes or standard care. The reward model (earning roughly $…
In plain terms
A randomized trial compared two incentive models: one offering a cash reward for success, and another requiring an upfront deposit that is refunded plus a bonus only if the goal is met. Among those willing to join either program, the deposit model produced a success rate 13 percentage points higher than the reward model. Yet only 13.7% of participants agreed to pay the deposit, while 90% opted for the reward option. Thus the deposit approach works best for those willing to pay; for everyone else it essentially has no effect.
This guide's cartoon · show illustration
Enlarge illustrationOriginal illustration with Chinese lettering; the English dialogue is below. Humour is a reading aid, not evidence.
English dialogue
- Tomorrow. Definitely.
- Which step happens today?
Cost: what it takes
Under this deposit‑based approach, participants must put up their own cash upfront; if they fail to meet the target, the money is forfeited. In this trial, the required deposit was $150.
Benefit: what the source reports
In a U.S. trial with 2,538 participants, employees and their relatives were randomly assigned to one of four incentive schemes or standard care. The reward model (earning roughly $800 for success) attracted 90.0% participation, whereas the deposit model (requiring a $150 upfront payment plus a $650 bonus) attracted just 13.7%. After six months, overall quit rates ranged from 9.4% to 16.0% across all incentive groups, compared with 6.0% under standard care. The reward model yielded a 15.7% quit rate, while the deposit model produced 10.2%. However, when looking only at the 13.7% of participants willing to pay the deposit, the deposit model achieved a six‑month quit rate 13.2 percentage points higher than the reward model (95% CI 3.1–22.8, a reliable range).
Conditions, limits and disagreements
This trial focused on smoking cessation; extrapolating the findings to activities such as essay writing or exercise suggests a moderate overall benefit. The key takeaway is not which method is more effective, but whether you’d actually be willing to use it: a powerful incentive that most people reject is essentially useless for them. Therefore, pick an approach you’re comfortable with — even a modest deposit can be more effective than no deposit at all. For practical smoking‑cessation strategies, see Section 2, Item 3 (smoking‑cessation medications).
Original references
Original bibliographic titles and links are preserved; some titles are in Chinese.
Halpern SD, French B, Small DS, et al. (2015). Randomized trial of four financial-incentive programs for smoking cessation. New England Journal of Medicine, 372(22), 2108–2117. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1414293
Medical, legal, financial and policy conditions vary by person, place and time. Policy material primarily concerns mainland China; check the cited document and current local requirements.