Decision Making
Rising Points Task
Also called: risky gains task, sequential offer task
Measure whether people take certain points or wait for larger offers that can turn into losses, and how each outcome changes the next choice.
7-9 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. Try it here first, with no account.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 1
- Evidence grade
- D
- Registered clinical studies
- 0
What it measures
Measures whether people take a small certain gain or wait for larger offers that can turn into losses. Three offers appear in order, each for one second. Scores report waiting for higher points and how the previous outcome changes that choice.
Constructs
- Sequential risk taking
- Sensitivity to gains and losses
- Post-outcome choice
Research uses
- Research on risk and reward
- Behavioral studies of decisions following gains and losses
How the paradigm works
Ascending offers reveal whether a person takes a certain small gain or waits for a larger gain with a chance of an immediate loss. Our implementation follows the risky gains paradigm: three one-second offers, positive and negative points, and a balanced outcome schedule. The primary measure counts waiting into a loss as a choice, while separately reporting accepted positive offers and missed final offers. It also compares waiting after gains and losses.
Scores
- Waited for a Larger Offer%
- Share of non-omitted rounds that passed the certain first offer, including rounds ending in an automatic loss.
- Higher values mean more waiting for larger offers
- Waited After a Loss%
- Waiting share on consecutive rounds after a loss; requires at least five observations. Rests break the sequence.
- Descriptive
- Waited After a Gain%
- Waiting share on consecutive rounds after a gain; requires at least five observations.
- Descriptive
- Waiting, Loss Minus Gain%
- Waiting after a loss minus waiting after a gain; null unless both estimates are available.
- Negative values mean more first-offer choices after losses
- First Offers Taken%
- First offers accepted divided by non-omitted rounds.
- Descriptive
- Second Offers Taken%
- Positive second offers accepted divided by non-omitted rounds. Automatic losses are separate.
- Descriptive
- Third Offers Taken%
- Positive third offers accepted divided by non-omitted rounds.
- Descriptive
- Rounds with a Loss%
- Automatic losses divided by non-omitted rounds.
- Descriptive
- Net Pointspoints
- Points added minus points removed, across test rounds.
- Descriptive
- Median Offer Acceptance Timems
- Median time from the accepted offer appearing to its acceptance, excluding presses before 100 ms.
- Descriptive
- Early Pressescount
- Presses within 100 ms of a positive offer appearing; these do not accept the offer.
- Quality check
- Final Offers Missedcount
- Rounds where the last positive offer expired without acceptance.
- Quality check
- Rounds Completedcount
- Completed offer sequences, including omissions.
- Descriptive
- Planned Roundscount
- The session rounds setting.
- Descriptive
Use and evidence
1 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, down 92% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 491 of 495 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 0 |
| 2024 | 0 |
| 2023 | 0 |
| 2022 | 0 |
| 2021 | 1 |
| 2020 | 2 |
| 2019 | 3 |
| 2018 | 2 |
| 2017 | 2 |
| 2016 | 3 |
| 2015 | 2 |
| 2014 | 1 |
| 2013 | 2 |
| 2012 | 2 |
| 2011 | 1 |
| 2010 | 1 |
| 2009 | 0 |
| 2008 | 2 |
| 2007 | 1 |
| 2006 | 0 |
| 2005 | 0 |
| 2004 | 1 |
| 2003 | 0 |
| 2002 | 0 |
| 2001 | 0 |
| 2000 | 0 |
Use grade E
Fewer than 30 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade D
Little published measurement evidence found.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 0
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 0
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 0
Note on the counts: Original implementation named Rising Points; no published norms..
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 0.22.0, counted 2 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Offers
- 20, 40 and 80 points as standard. The first offer is configurable from 1 to 100 points; the next two are twice and four times that amount.
- Timing
- Each offer lasts 1,000 ms. Press Space or click Take to accept a positive offer. Waiting advances to the next offer, which can instead cause an immediate loss. Each round lasts 4,000 ms including feedback.
- Schedule
- 96 rounds as standard; 32, 64, 128, 160 or 192 are also available. The seeded schedule contains 9/16 all-positive sequences, 4/16 second-offer losses and 3/16 third-offer losses. Each consistent stopping strategy has the same net points over a complete schedule.
- Practice and rests
- 3 practice rounds precede the test. A self-paced rest follows each 32 test rounds except the last.
- Responses
- Presses before 100 ms are counted but do not accept the offer. A positive final offer that expires is an omission and adds no points. Losses are automatic when a negative offer appears.
- Scores
- Waiting for a larger offer overall and after losses or gains, accepted-offer shares, losses, omissions and net points. Post-outcome comparisons require five consecutive observations on each side and do not cross rests.
This implementation records choices and response times, without brain imaging. Waiting into an automatic loss counts as a risk choice; missed final offers are reported separately. Points are not a promise of payment.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: completed offer sequences from the selected run. No offer is correct, so accuracy and repeated choices are not judged. Waiting into a loss counts as a decision; letting the final positive offer expire is an omission. Fewer than half the planned rounds invalidates and other incomplete runs are flagged. Missing more than the larger of 3 or 25% of rounds invalidates; any missed round is flagged.
Why these rules
There is no correct option to compare with chance, so accuracy is not judged against chance. All three consistent stopping strategies have equal total points under the balanced schedule. Waiting is part of the response, and automatic losses reveal that waiting choice. Post-outcome contrasts need five consecutive observations on each side and exclude rests.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Rounds | 96 (standard) | 32, 64, 96 (standard), 128, 160, 192 |
| First offer in points | 20 | 1 to 100 |
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 Rising Points Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Paulus et al., 2003; Lee et al., 2008), with the standard settings (rounds: 96; first offer in points: 20). The main score was waited for a larger offer (share of non-omitted rounds that passed the certain first offer, including rounds ending in an automatic loss).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Paulus, M. P., Rogalsky, C., Simmons, A., Feinstein, J. S., & Stein, M. B. (2003). Increased activation in the right insula during risk-taking decision making is related to harm avoidance and neuroticism. NeuroImage, 19(4), 1439-1448. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00251-9The origin of the risky gains paradigm.
- Lee, T. M. C., Leung, A. W. S., Fox, P. T., Gao, J.-H., & Chan, C. C. H. (2008). Age-related differences in neural activities during risk taking as revealed by functional MRI. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 3(1), 7-15. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsm033Full methods for the one-second offers, four-second rounds and 54:24:18 schedule.
Source papers
- No normative data for this implementation.Paradigm source, N/A
Questions
How long does the Rising Points Task take?
About 7 to 9 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?
Waited for a Larger Offer, Waited After a Loss, Waited After a Gain, Waiting, Loss Minus Gain, First Offers Taken, Second Offers Taken, Third Offers Taken, Rounds with a Loss, Net Points, Median Offer Acceptance Time, Early Presses, Final Offers Missed, Rounds Completed and Planned Rounds. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Rising Points Task used in research?
1 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, down 92% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 491 of 495 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade E). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.22.0, counted 2 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Rising Points Task have?
In the published research, 0 papers report its test-retest reliability and 0 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade D in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Rounds (32, 64, 96 (standard), 128, 160, 192) and first offer in points (1 to 100). 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.
Related tests