PASTE Framework: Why Extrinsic Thing Rewards Drive Wanting More Than Liking (and Why Free Feels So Good)
Heather Arbiter ?? GDC
Product Manager | Gamification and Game Designer | Engagement, Retention & Behavior Design Specialist | MSc, CSPO | Check out my #FeatureFriday Newsletter | DMs open!
We've reached the T in my PASTE rewards framework. If you haven't been following along, PASTE is a comprehensive framework for describing what humans find rewarding. As discussed in Access article, the PASTE framework was influenced by Gabe Zicherman's SAPS framework (Status, Access, Power, Stuff). PASTE's concept of Things, is derived from the concept of "stuff:"
Neither sensation nor experience, Things are essentially extrinsic rewards. They are often tangible, visualizable, and even physical.
Examples of Things
Things, Wanting, and Satiety
Things are often the most tangible kind of reward—whether it's a free T-shirt, a physical product, or even a digital collectible. But that tangibility also makes them especially vulnerable to satiety.
Satiety is when someone has had enough of a particular reward, making that reward lose its motivating power. If I offer you a free T-shirt for signing up for my newsletter, that might feel like a compelling incentive the first time. But if you've already gotten that same T-shirt—or even if you just have a whole drawer full of branded swag from other products—the appeal rapidly drops off. Satiety deflates the perceived value of the reward, and a reward someone once wanted can quickly become clutter.
Satiety isn't always binary—it's not just "I want it" or "I don't." It can happen in stages. A starving man will fight for a loaf of bread. Give him enough to survive, and that urgent, Primal need is satiated. But he might still crave something sweet—not out of need, but because desserts are appealing in their own right. Only once he's full, food will lose its allure altogether.
Most Thing rewards work this way. They're far better at driving wanting than liking—a psychological distinction that's been explored in research on how rewards affect the brain. Incentive salience (or wanting) is that magnetic pull toward something—what makes us crave and pursue it. Liking is the satisfaction we feel once we've obtained it. The catch is that wanting tends to be stronger and more persistent than liking. We want the free T-shirt more than we enjoy having it. And while wanting can renew itself—especially if there's novelty—liking tends to fade fast.
Because the liking of Thing rewards is often fleeting, they aren't particularly effective at driving repeat behaviors on their own. The receipt of the reward doesn't reinforce the action the same way intrinsic rewards or experiential rewards might. In fact, Thing rewards can sometimes backfire—especially when they replace a more intrinsic form of motivation. This is known as the overjustification effect, where introducing an external reward for something someone already enjoys can undermine their natural enjoyment of the activity once the reward is removed.
When designing products and systems, it's important to understand that Thing rewards tend to be expensive to implement. Physical Thing rewards have a unit cost that affects how they scale. At the same time, they have limited utility thanks to satiety and their extrinsic nature.This is another reason to use them sparingly and for one-time rewards more than building your whole system around them.
Monetary Rewards
Money, unlike most Thing rewards, is NOT typically subject to satiety. You never have completed an amount of money. You may hit a milestone, such as the amount you need to pay your bills this month or the cost of a Netflix subscription. But you won't be "done" acquiring money. Looking at the world's super rich, we see people with more money than can possibly be spent in their lifetime.
The amount of money is almost inconceivably large. As the numbers grow, we have trouble understanding them, which is why people aren't as horrified by the accumulation of wealth of our billionaires.
This is how much more wealth a hundred billionaire like Elon Musk has than most of us. (And while he hordes it, there is less for the rest us). Once someone reaches this amount of wealth, the money isn't really currency anymore—it's a high score. (And late-stage capitalism is the game where the only way to win is to keep playing.) It's a number that goes up and makes someone feel accomplished and like they are winning. This is one way it becomes immune to (or at least weakened by) satiety.
Virtual currencies (that can't be converted back to real money such as in a play-to-earn situation) work similarly. Once I've acquired enough wealth in a game that I can buy pretty much whatever I want in the limited economy and never worry about depleting my supply, the money still is nice to increase as a score (the liking hits even if the wanting isn't as strong here).
Most people will never really get to this point in real life, though, and therefore, the acquisition of money remains insatiable. There is always more to buy. A better life to give your family. A place you haven't visited. Etc. In short, money can be infinitely rewarding.
Things as Reward Components
Things also appear as aspects of rewards or reward systems that are more connected to other PASTE components. For example, a badge or achievement system is generally considered a Pride-based reward structure. The rewarding thing is completing the achievement and being recognized as having completed it.
The badge itself, which is given for the achievement, is a tangible Thing reward that is extrinsic to the sensations caused by the achievement itself.. In this case, the badge might be a real physical one, such as those employed by various scouting organizations. Or it could be a digital representation.
Thing rewards are often enhanced when combined with other PASTE Mechanics. Add Access exclusivity, underscore Competence, or make them sharable with Social components.
The Allure of Free
Sign up for our mailing list and get a free tote! This is a decent use of Thing components because signing up for a mailing list is a one-time behavior. Therefore, the value of the reward doesn't need to be maintained over time. The tote's cost is factored into the acquisition cost of new subscribers and balanced against their value.
But free is itself an interesting modifier that applies to Thing rewards: the very property of being "free" actually increases the perceived value of the item.
In one experiment on the psychology of rewards, behavioral economists Kristina Shampan'er and Dan Ariely offered participants a choice between two pieces of chocolate: a luxury Lindt truffle for 15 cents or a more basic Hershey's Kiss* for 1 cent. Most people chose the higher-quality truffle—a small splurge for a better treat.
But when the researchers dropped the price of both chocolates by one cent—making the Lindt 14 cents and the Hershey's Kiss completely free—suddenly, the majority of participants chose the free Kiss instead. The relative difference between the two chocolates was exactly the same, but the power of "free" completely shifted people's behavior.
What the experiment shows is that zero isn't just another price point—it's a psychological hot button. Free feels special. It overrides our usual cost-benefit calculations and makes a reward feel more valuable than it objectively is.
*I love Hershey's Kisses. No slight against them.
Conclusion
Extrinsic Thing rewards hold a special allure—especially when they're free. They tap into our brain's powerful wanting systems, driving action through anticipation more than satisfaction. But that same psychology makes them inherently fragile. Once the reward is obtained, satiety sets in, and the value quickly fades. Thing rewards have their place in shaping behavior—whether as upfront incentives, milestone bonuses, or collectible components—but they rarely create lasting motivation on their own. As with all rewards, they work best when paired with other forms of motivation—supporting, not replacing, the intrinsic joy of the experience itself.
Select Sources
More on PASTE
Heather Arbiter is a Game/Gamification Designer and Product Manager who developed the PASTE framework in 2018 as a comprehensive tool for describing all rewarding things. Since developing it, Heather has not encountered a rewarding experience that isn't described by one or more aspects of the PASTE framework.
At the time of this writing, Heather is available for consulting, contract, full- and/or part-time roles as a Product Manager or Game Designer with a focus on gamification, community, UCG, and engagement.
#FeatureFriday is a (generally) bi-weekly newsletter about the intersection of product, gamification, and behavior. This is the 36th edition of the series.