Decision Making
Effort for Rewards Task
Also called: EEfRT, Effort-Expenditure for Rewards Task, effort-based decision-making task, hard task choice
Measure willingness to work for a reward with choices between easy and hard key-pressing tasks at three chances of winning, scored as the share of hard choices.
10-12 minTimed: desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Preview any test free after you sign up.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 68
- Evidence grade
- C
- Registered clinical studies
- 61
What it measures
Measures willingness to work for a reward. On each trial participants choose an easy key-pressing task for fewer points or a hard one for more, at a 12, 50 or 88 percent chance of winning, then press the key to fill a bar in time. The main score is the share of hard-task choices.
Constructs
- Effort-based decision-making
- Reward motivation
- Anhedonia
- Cost-benefit choice
Research uses
- Anhedonia and depression research
- Motivation and apathy research
- Schizophrenia negative-symptom research
- Within-study group comparison
How the paradigm works
The effort for rewards task measures willingness to work for a reward (Treadway and colleagues, 2009). On each trial the participant sees the chance of winning, 12%, 50% or 88%, and chooses between an easy task worth 10 points and a hard task worth 12 to 37 points. The easy task is 30 presses of one key in 7 seconds with the index finger of the hand the participant writes with. The hard task is 100 presses in 21 seconds with the little finger of the other hand, as in the source. A bar fills with each press. A finished task wins its points with the chance shown, which is the same for both tasks. The point values were written for this test, not taken from the source's dollar amounts.
More about the paradigm
The choices run for 8 minutes as standard, whatever the participant chooses, so hard choices leave time for fewer trials, as in the source. Each trial has a 1 second cross, up to 5 seconds to choose with the task's key (otherwise the computer chooses at random, as in the source), a 1 second Ready screen, the presses, then 2 seconds saying whether the task was finished and, when it was, 2 seconds saying whether it won. The chances and the hard task's points come in an order drawn from the session's seed that pairs each chance with each of six levels of points once in every 18 trials. A check question on the time limit and four practice trials, the first two naming the task to choose, come first. The study decides what the points are worth, and the payment line says whether they are exchanged for money.
The main score is the share of hard-task choices. In the source, hard choices rose with the chance of winning, and people with more anhedonia chose the hard task less often, most clearly at the 12% and 50% chances (Treadway and colleagues, 2009). People with major depression chose the hard task less often than controls and made less use of the amount and the chance of the reward (Treadway and colleagues, 2012). The share at each chance, the share for the lower and upper levels of points, the share of tasks finished, the time between presses on the hard task, choice time and missed choices are also given. Because the time is fixed, some hard choices reflect a plan to win the most points as well as motivation (Ohmann, Kuper and Wacker, 2022), so compare people on the same settings. Scores support research and do not diagnose.
Scores
- Hard-Task Choices%
- Share of the participant's choices that took the hard task, in the timed part. Trials where the computer chose are left out.
- Higher means more choices of effort
- Hard Choices at 12%%
- Share of hard-task choices when the chance of winning was 12%.
- Higher means more choices of effort
- Hard Choices at 50%%
- Share of hard-task choices when the chance of winning was 50%.
- Higher means more choices of effort
- Hard Choices at 88%%
- Share of hard-task choices when the chance of winning was 88%.
- Higher means more choices of effort
- Hard Choices, Lower Points%
- Share of hard-task choices when the hard task paid 12, 15 or 19 points.
- Higher means more choices of effort
- Hard Choices, Upper Points%
- Share of hard-task choices when the hard task paid 24, 30 or 37 points.
- Higher means more choices of effort
- Hard Tasks Finished%
- Hard tasks finished in time, over the hard tasks done.
- Low values limit what the choices mean
- Easy Tasks Finished%
- Easy tasks finished in time, over the easy tasks done.
- Low values limit what the choices mean
- Hard-Task Press Intervalms
- Median time between presses on hard tasks.
- Lower means faster pressing
- Choice Timems
- Mean time from the options appearing to the choice.
- Informational
- Missed Choicescount
- Trials with no choice within 5 seconds, where the computer chose at random.
- Lower is better
- Trials Playedtrials
- Trials in the timed part.
- Fewer trials follow more hard choices
- Points Wonpoints
- Points won in the timed part.
- Informational
- Early Pressescount
- Choice keys pressed under 100 ms after the options appeared, not taken as choices.
- Lower is better
- Check Correctflag
- 1 when the check question on the time limit was answered correctly, 0 when not.
- 1 supports interpretation
Use and evidence
68 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 8% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 227 of 395 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 19 |
| 2024 | 13 |
| 2023 | 13 |
| 2022 | 19 |
| 2021 | 4 |
| 2020 | 13 |
| 2019 | 25 |
| 2018 | 9 |
| 2017 | 10 |
| 2016 | 6 |
| 2015 | 7 |
| 2014 | 4 |
| 2013 | 2 |
| 2012 | 4 |
| 2011 | 1 |
| 2010 | 0 |
| 2009 | 2 |
| 2008 | 0 |
| 2007 | 0 |
| 2006 | 0 |
| 2005 | 0 |
| 2004 | 0 |
| 2003 | 0 |
| 2002 | 0 |
| 2001 | 0 |
| 2000 | 0 |
Use grade D
30 to 99 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade C
At least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 1
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 21
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 61
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Tasks
- Easy: 30 presses in 7 seconds with the index finger of the writing hand. Hard: 100 presses in 21 seconds with the little finger of the other hand. A bar fills with each press.
- Points
- Written for this test: the easy task pays 10 points and the hard task 12, 15, 19, 24, 30 or 37 points.
- Chances
- A finished task wins its points 12%, 50% or 88% of the time, shown before the choice and the same for both tasks.
- Trial
- A 1,000 ms cross, up to 5,000 ms to choose by key (otherwise the computer chooses at random), a 1,000 ms Ready screen, the presses, then 2,000 ms on finishing and 2,000 ms on winning.
- Time
- 8 minutes of choices (standard, 5 to 20) whatever the choices, so hard choices leave time for fewer trials.
- Order
- From the session's seed: every 18 trials pair each chance with each level of points once.
- Practice
- A check question on the time limit, then 4 trials with feedback, the first 2 naming the task to choose.
- Keys
- F and J for the index fingers, Q and P for the little fingers, read by position or letter. Choice keys pressed under 100 ms are not taken as choices.
Treadway and colleagues (2009) paid dollar amounts on two winning trials and ran 20 minutes. This test pays points of its own, runs 8 minutes as standard and adds up every win. Because the time is fixed, some hard choices reflect a plan for the most points as well as motivation, so compare people on the same settings. The scores support research and do not diagnose.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: effort_for_rewards_trial from the scored run, one per trial of the timed part. Choosing the hard or the easy task has no correct answer, so neither accuracy nor a repeated choice is judged. A trial where no choice came within 5 seconds counts as a missed response, and a choice key pressed under 100 ms after the options appeared as a response under 100 ms: missing more than the larger of 3 or 25% of choices, or more than the larger of 2 or 20% under 100 ms, invalidates; any is flagged. A run that stopped before half its time invalidates, and any shorter run is flagged. Finishing the hard or the easy task on under half of at least 3 trials, and a wrong answer to the check question, are flagged.
Why these rules
There is no correct option to compare with chance, so accuracy is not judged against chance. Taking one task throughout can be a real preference, so it is not judged. Missed responses and responses under 100 ms keep the platform's timed-test rule: more than max(3, 25%) missed responses or more than max(2, 20%) responses under 100 ms invalidate, and any is flagged. A response under 100 ms cannot be a reaction to the stimulus. The share of hard choices is read against the time the task lasts, so a run that stopped early is not comparable. When a task is seldom finished, choosing it says as much about being able to press fast enough as about wanting its points, so the session is flagged. A hidden tab keeps key presses from reaching the task while the time runs, so a percentile is withheld after one.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Task length (minutes) | 8 | 5 to 20 |
| Payment line | Hypothetical points (standard) | Hypothetical points (standard), The study pays for points |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Timed test: participants need a desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Effort for Rewards Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Treadway et al., 2009), with the standard settings (task length (minutes): 8; payment line: Hypothetical points). The main score was hard-task choices (share of the participant's choices that took the hard task, in the timed part).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Treadway, M. T., Buckholtz, J. W., Schwartzman, A. N., Lambert, W. E., & Zald, D. H. (2009). Worth the 'EEfRT'? The Effort Expenditure for Rewards Task as an objective measure of motivation and anhedonia. PLoS ONE, 4(8), e6598. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006598
- Treadway, M. T., Bossaller, N. A., Shelton, R. C., & Zald, D. H. (2012). Effort-based decision-making in major depressive disorder: A translational model of motivational anhedonia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121(3), 553-558. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028813Fewer hard-task choices in major depressive disorder.
- Ohmann, H. A., Kuper, N., & Wacker, J. (2022). Examining the reliability and validity of two versions of the Effort-Expenditure for Rewards Task (EEfRT). PLoS ONE, 17(1), e0262902. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262902Split-half reliability, and strategy in the fixed-time design.
Source papers
- Treadway et al. (2009): the task, and hard choices by chance of winning and by anhedonia. Treadway et al. (2012): the same task in major depressive disorder. Ohmann, Kuper and Wacker (2022): split-half reliability of the share of hard choices.Paradigm source, Adults
Questions
How long does the Effort for Rewards Task take?
About 10 to 12 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Timed test: participants need a desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Hard-Task Choices, Hard Choices at 12%, Hard Choices at 50%, Hard Choices at 88%, Hard Choices, Lower Points, Hard Choices, Upper Points, Hard Tasks Finished, Easy Tasks Finished, Hard-Task Press Interval, Choice Time, Missed Choices, Trials Played, Points Won, Early Presses and Check Correct. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Effort for Rewards Task used in research?
68 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 8% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 227 of 395 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade D). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Effort for Rewards Task have?
In the published research, 1 paper reports its test-retest reliability and 61 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade C in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Task length (minutes) (5 to 20) and payment line (Hypothetical points (standard), The study pays for points). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.