Reward and Decision Making

Reward-Cost Conflict Task

Also called: approach–avoidance conflict, reward-cost choice

Measure which rewards people accept when they come with a possible point loss. Compare choices across reward amounts, costs and loss probabilities.

4-6 minUntimed

Create a study with this test

Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Try it here first, with no account.

Papers, 2021 to 2025: 189
Evidence grade: C
Registered clinical studies: 7

How these are counted

Gain 6 points25% chance of losing 8 points

AcceptSkip

Gain 6 pointsNo points lost

Offer acceptanceReward and cost effects

Accept a reward with a possible cost or skip it

What it measures

Measures choices when a reward comes with a possible cost. Participants accept an offer of points with a stated chance of losing points, or skip it. Scores show offer acceptance and how choices change with rewards, costs and loss probability.

Constructs

Approach-avoidance conflict
Reward-cost choice
Sensitivity to possible losses

Research uses

Research on reward and cost preferences
Studies of approach and avoidance decisions

How the paradigm works

The Reward-Cost Conflict Task measures decisions when a reward comes with a possible loss. Participants accept an offer or skip it. Accepting always adds the stated reward and may also deduct the stated cost; skipping changes nothing. The loss probability is shown before each choice.

More about the paradigm

The standard session has 72 choices: four repeats of 18 combinations of reward (2, 6 or 10 point units), cost (4, 8 or 12 units) and loss probability (25% or 75%). Repeats range from two to six; a point multiplier from one to ten scales the balance and all outcomes together. Four practice choices use separate points. Choices have no deadline; feedback lasts 1,000 ms, followed by a 250 ms gap.

This points-only version adapts the approach/avoid structure described by Rolle and colleagues. Point losses replace unpleasant images, so these scores describe choices about points rather than responses to emotional threat. The values, probabilities and displays are original; no source items or software are used.

Scores

Offer Acceptance%: Accepted offers divided by readable test choices.; Higher means accepting more offers of a reward paired with a possible loss
Low Reward Acceptance%: Acceptance rate for 2-unit rewards.; Informational
High Reward Acceptance%: Acceptance rate for 10-unit rewards.; Informational
Reward Effect%: High-reward acceptance minus low-reward acceptance.; Positive means more acceptance for larger rewards
Low Cost Acceptance%: Acceptance rate for offers with 4-unit costs.; Informational
High Cost Acceptance%: Acceptance rate for offers with 12-unit costs.; Informational
Cost Effect%: Low-cost acceptance minus high-cost acceptance.; Positive means less acceptance for larger possible losses
25% Loss Chance Acceptance%: Acceptance rate when the chance of a cost is 25%.; Informational
75% Loss Chance Acceptance%: Acceptance rate when the chance of a cost is 75%.; Informational
Loss Probability Effect%: Acceptance at 25% loss probability minus acceptance at 75%.; Positive means less acceptance when a loss is more likely
Point Changepoints: Net test points, reconstructed from the seed and actual choices.; Informational
Final Pointspoints: Starting balance plus net test points. The starting balance covers the maximum possible loss.; Informational
Median Choice Timems: Median readable choice time at or above 100 ms.; Informational
Anticipationscount: Presses rejected under 100 ms, plus any saved responses under 100 ms.; Quality check
Choices Answeredcount: Unique readable choices in the selected run.; Informational
Planned Choicescount: 18 offer combinations times the repeats setting.; Informational
Complete Run0/1: 1 when all planned choices are present with no unreadable rows; otherwise 0.; Quality check
Unreadable Choicescount: Rows with duplicate or invalid sequence numbers, responses or settings.; Quality check

Use and evidence

189 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 11% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 160 of 582 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.

2021 to 2025, the years gradedEarlier years

Papers per year whose title or abstract names this task (OpenAlex).

Show the numbers

Year	Papers
2025	57
2024	28
2023	35
2022	33
2021	36
2020	47
2019	37
2018	30
2017	37
2016	20
2015	24
2014	22
2013	14
2012	10
2011	16
2010	13
2009	7
2008	7
2007	11
2006	8
2005	6
2004	6
2003	5
2002	4
2001	3
2000	1

Use grade C

100 to 299 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: 4
Papers on reliability or validity: 51
Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome: 7

Measured on ConductCognition

Pooled across the studies that feed our platform norms, by device group. A figure needs 50 or more people.

No pooled figure yet.

Note on the counts: Points-only adaptation: possible point losses replace unpleasant images or sounds..

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 0.39.0, counted 8 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.

Task design

The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.

Offers: 72 choices by default: four repeats of 18 combinations. Rewards are 2, 6 or 10 point units; costs are 4, 8 or 12; cost probabilities are 25% or 75%.
Choice: Accept always gives the reward and may also deduct the cost. Skip leaves points unchanged. Option sides are balanced across the session.
Settings: Two to six repeats (36 to 108 choices); a point multiplier from 1 to 10. Starting balance is 12 times the number of choices times the multiplier: 864 points by default.
Practice and timing: Four practice choices with separate points. No response deadline; 1,000 ms outcome feedback and a 250 ms gap.
Scores: Offer acceptance is primary, followed by acceptance at low/high rewards, costs and loss probabilities and their differences, points, choice time and completion checks. Percentiles are off.
Devices: Desktop, tablet or phone; click, tap or F/J keys. Minimum touch screen 360 by 640. Estimated duration 4 to 6 minutes.

A points-only adaptation of approach–avoidance conflict. Point losses replace unpleasant pictures; the scores measure reward-cost preferences in this task. No source stimuli, item values or software are copied.

Quality checks

Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.

Scores accept/skip choices from the most complete run. Repeated choices can express a preference and are not errors. Answers under 200 ms on at least half the choices invalidate. An incomplete run or unreadable choices are flagged for review.

Why these rules

Offer acceptance is a preference, with no universal correct answer. The randomly ordered amounts and probabilities need to be read before deciding; responses below visual choice time can indicate clicking through.

No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.

Running this test

Settings you can change

Setting	Standard	Allowed
Repeats per offer	4	2 to 6
Point multiplier	1	1 to 10
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.

How test settings work

Need a setting this test does not have?

Devices and languages

Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. 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

Methods text, with the standard settings

Participants completed the Reward-Cost Conflict Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Rolle et al., 2022), with the standard settings (repeats per offer: 4; point multiplier: 1; payment line: Hypothetical points). The main score was offer acceptance (accepted offers divided by readable test choices).

ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.

Rolle, C. E., Pedersen, M. L., Johnson, N., Amemori, K., Ironside, M., Graybiel, A. M., Pizzagalli, D. A., & Etkin, A. (2022). The Role of the Dorsal–Lateral Prefrontal Cortex in Reward Sensitivity During Approach–Avoidance Conflict. Cerebral Cortex, 32(6), 1269–1285. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhab292Full task methods read; approach receives reward and cost, avoidance receives neither. Our costs are possible point losses.

Source papers

Questions

How long does the Reward-Cost Conflict Task take?

About 4 to 6 minutes, as listed in the test library.

What device does a participant need?

Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.

What scores does it produce?

Offer Acceptance, Low Reward Acceptance, High Reward Acceptance, Reward Effect, Low Cost Acceptance, High Cost Acceptance, Cost Effect, 25% Loss Chance Acceptance, 75% Loss Chance Acceptance, Loss Probability Effect, Point Change, Final Points, Median Choice Time, Anticipations, Choices Answered, Planned Choices, Complete Run and Unreadable Choices. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.

How widely is the Reward-Cost Conflict Task used in research?

189 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 11% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 160 of 582 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade C). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.39.0, counted 8 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.

How much reliability evidence does the Reward-Cost Conflict Task have?

In the published research, 4 papers report its test-retest reliability and 7 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?

Repeats per offer (2 to 6), point multiplier (1 to 10) 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.

Start free