Stanford marshmallow experiment

Last updated

The Stanford marshmallow experiment was a study on delayed gratification in 1970 led by psychologist Walter Mischel, a professor at Stanford University. [1] In this study, a child was offered a choice between one small but immediate reward, or two small rewards if they waited for a period of time. During this time, the researcher left the child in a room with a single marshmallow for about 15 minutes and then returned. If they did not eat the marshmallow, the reward was either another marshmallow or pretzel stick, depending on the child's preference. In follow-up studies, the researchers found that children who were able to wait longer for the preferred rewards tended to have better life outcomes, as measured by SAT scores, [2] educational attainment, [3] body mass index (BMI), [4] and other life measures. [5] A replication attempt with a sample from a more diverse population, over 10 times larger than the original study, showed only half the effect of the original study. The replication suggested that economic background, rather than willpower, explained the other half. [6] [7] The predictive power of the marshmallow test was challenged in a 2020 study. [8] [9]

Contents

Original Stanford experiment

The first experiment in delayed gratification was conducted by Walter Mischel and Ebbe B. Ebbesen at Stanford University in 1970. [10] The purpose of the study was to understand when the control of delayed gratification, the ability to wait to obtain something that one wants, develops in children. Most of the research conducted during that time was done with delayed rewards in areas such as time perspective and the delay of rewards, [11] resistance to temptation, [12] and psychological disturbances. [13] Not many studies had been conducted in the area of human social behavior. The authors hypothesized that an increased salience of a reward would in turn increase the amount of time children would be able to delay gratification (or wait). Since the rewards were presented in front of them, children were reminded of why they were waiting. The attention on the reward (that was right in front of them) was supposed to make them wait longer (for the larger reward).

The children were led into a room, empty of distractions, where a treat of their choice (either two animal cookies or five pretzel sticks) were placed on a table. [1] The researchers let the children know they could eat the treat, but if they waited 15 minutes without giving in to the temptation, they would be rewarded with a second treat. [1] Mischel and Ebbesen observed, "(some children) covered their eyes with their hands, rested their heads on their arms, and found other similar techniques for averting their eyes from the reward objects. Many seemed to try to reduce the frustration of delay of reward by generating their own diversions: they talked to themselves, sang, invented games with their hands and feet, and even tried to fall asleep while waiting - as one successfully did." [1]

Participants

There were 32 children who were used as participants in this experiment consisting of 16 boys and 16 girls. The participants attended the Bing Nursery School of Stanford University. The children ranged in age from three years and six months, to five years and eight months. The median age was four years and six months. Three subjects were disqualified from the experiment because they were unable to understand the instructions and choices given by the experimenters.

Detailed procedure

The procedures were conducted by two experimenters. There was an opaque cake tin presented on a table in the experimental room. Under the cake tin, there were five pretzels and two animal cookies. There were two chairs in front of the table; on one chair was an empty cardboard box. Near the chair with the empty cardboard box, there were four battery operated toys on the floor. The experimenter pointed out the four toys before the child could play with the toys. The experimenter asked the child to sit in the chair and then demonstrated each toy briefly, and in a friendly manner said they would play with the toys later on. Then the experimenter placed each toy in the cardboard box and out of sight of the child. The experimenter explained to the child that he needed to leave the room, and if the child ate the pretzel, the experimenter would return to the room. These instructions were repeated until the child seemed to understand them completely. The experimenter left the room and waited for the child to eat the pretzel – they repeated this procedure four times.

Then the experimenter returned to the experimental room and opened the cake tin to reveal two sets of rewards (in the form of edibles): five pretzels and two animal crackers. The experimenter asked the child which of the two they preferred. Once the child chose, the experimenter explained that the child could either continue to wait for the more preferred reward until the experimenter returned, or the child could stop waiting by bringing back the experimenter. If the child stopped waiting then the child would receive the less preferred reward and forgo the more preferred one.

Depending on the condition and the child's choice of preferred reward, the experimenter picked up the cake tin and along with it either nothing, one of the rewards, or both. The experimenter returned either as soon as the child signaled him to do so or after 15 minutes. [10]

Results

The results indicated the exact opposite of what was originally predicted. Instead of the rewards serving as a cue to attend to possible delayed rewards, the rewards themselves served to increase the children's frustration and ultimately decreased the delay of gratification. The results seemed to indicate that not thinking about a reward enhances the ability to delay gratification, rather than focusing attention on the future reward. [1]

Stanford marshmallow experiment

Purpose

The following study, conducted by Mischel, Ebbesen, and Zeiss (1972), is generally recognized as the Stanford marshmallow experiment due to its use of marshmallows as a preferred reward item. [14] Building on information obtained in previous research regarding self-control, Mischel et al hypothesized that any activity that distracts a participant from the reward they are anticipating will increase the time of delay gratification. It was expected that overt activities, internal cognitions, and fantasies would help in this self-distraction. Through such distraction it was also hypothesized that the subject would be able to take the frustrative nature of the situation and convert it into one psychologically less aversive. To test their expectations, the researchers contrived three settings under which to test participants; an overt activity, a covert activity, or no activity at all.

They predicted that under the overt and covert activities that delay of gratification should increase, while under the no activity setting it would decrease. To assess the children's ability to understand the instructions they were given, the experiment asked them three comprehension questions; "Can you tell me, which do you get to eat if you wait for me to come back by myself?", "But if you want to, how can you make me come back?", and "If you ring the bell and bring me back, then which do you get?" Three distinct experiments were conducted under multiple differing conditions.

Experiment 1 participants

The participants consisted of 50 children (25 boys and 25 girls) from the Bing Nursery School at Stanford University. They ranged in age from 3 years 6 months to 5 years 6 months. The mean age was 4 years 6 months. Six subjects were eliminated because they failed to comprehend the instructions given by the experimenters.

Experiment 1 procedures

The procedures were conducted by one male and one female experimenter. During the test conditions the male experimenter conducted his session with 3 male and 2 female participants, while the female experimenter conducted her session with 3 female and 2 male participants. The small room where the tests were conducted contained a table equipped with a barrier between the experimenter and the child. On the table, behind the small barrier, was a slinky toy along with an opaque cake tin that held a small marshmallow and pretzel stick. Next to the table equipped with the barrier there was another table that contained a box of battery- and hand-operated toys, which were visible to the child. Against one wall of the small room there was a chair, another table, and a desk bell.

In experiment 1 the children were tested under the conditions of (1) waiting for delayed reward with an external distractor (toy), (2) waiting for delayed reward with an internal distractor (ideation), (3) waiting for a delayed reward (no distractor), (4) external distractor (toy) without delay-of-reward waiting contingency, and (5) internal distractor (ideation) without delay of reward contingency.

Experiment 2 participants

The participants consisted of 32 children from the Bing Nursery School of Stanford University. They ranged in age from 3 years 9 months to 5 years 3 months. The mean age was 4 years and 9 months. Six of the subjects were eliminated from the study because they failed to comprehend the instructions or because they ate one of the reward objects while waiting for the experimenter.

Experiment 2 procedures

Experiment 2 focused on how the substantive content of cognitions can affect subsequent delay behavior. The conditions in Experiment 2 were the same as in Experiment 1, with the exception that after the three comprehension questions were asked of the children the experimenter suggested ideas to think about while they were waiting. These suggestions are referred to as "think food rewards" instructions in the study. They were intended to induce in the subject various types of ideation during the delay-of-gratification period.

Experiment 3 participants

The participants consisted of 16 children (11 boys and 5 girls). They ranged in age from 3 years 5 months to 5 years 6 months. The mean age was 4 years 6 months.

Experiment 3 procedures

In experiment 3 all of the conditions and procedures were the same as in experiment 1 and experiment 2, except that the reward items were not visible to the children while they waited. In the previous experiments both of the reward objects were directly available to the children while they waited in the delay period. To achieve this change in condition the children were told that the food items needed to be kept fresh. The marshmallow and pretzel stick were then placed under the opaque cake tin and put under the table out of sight of the child. In this experiment the same "think food rewards" were given to the children as in experiment 2.

Overall results

The three separate experiments demonstrate a number of significant findings. The effective delay of gratification depends heavily on the cognitive avoidance or suppression of the reward objects while waiting for them to be delivered. Additionally, when the children thought about the absent rewards, it was just as difficult to delay gratification as when the reward items were directly in front of them. Conversely, when the children in the experiment waited for the reward and it was not visibly present, they were able to wait longer and attain the preferred reward. The Stanford marshmallow experiment is important because it demonstrated that effective delay is not achieved by merely thinking about something other than what we want, but rather, it depends on suppressive and avoidance mechanisms that reduce frustration.

The frustration of waiting for a desired reward is demonstrated nicely by the authors when describing the behavior of the children. "They made up quiet songs...hid their head in their arms, pounded the floor with their feet, fiddled playfully and teasingly with the signal bell, verbalized the contingency...prayed to the ceiling, and so on. In one dramatically effective self-distraction technique, after obviously experiencing much agitation, a little girl rested her head, sat limply, relaxed herself, and proceeded to fall sound asleep."

Follow-up studies

In follow-up studies, Mischel found unexpected correlations between the results of the marshmallow experiment and the success of the children many years later. [5] The first follow-up study, in 1988, showed that "preschool children who delayed gratification longer in the self-imposed delay paradigm, were described more than 10 years later by their parents as adolescents who were significantly more competent." [15]

A second follow-up study, in 1990, showed that the ability to delay gratification also correlated with higher SAT scores. [5]

A 2006 paper to which Mischel contributed reports a similar experiment, this time relating ability to delay in order to receive a cookie (at age 4) and reaction time on a go/no go task. [16]

A 2011 brain imaging study of a sample from the original Stanford participants when they reached mid-life showed key differences between those with high delay times and those with low delay times in two areas: the prefrontal cortex (more active in high delayers) and the ventral striatum, (more active in low delayers) when they were trying to control their responses to alluring temptations. [17]

A 2012 study at the University of Rochester (with a smaller N= 28) altered the experiment by dividing children into two groups: one group was given a broken promise before the marshmallow test was conducted (the unreliable tester group), and the second group had a fulfilled promise before their marshmallow test (the reliable tester group). The reliable tester group waited up to four times longer (12 min) than the unreliable tester group for the second marshmallow to appear. [18] [19] The authors argue that this calls into question the original interpretation of self-control as the critical factor in children's performance, since self-control should predict ability to wait, not strategic waiting when it makes sense. Prior to the marshmallow experiment at Stanford, Walter Mischel had shown that the child's belief that the promised delayed rewards would actually be delivered is an important determinant of the choice to delay, but his later experiments did not take this factor into account or control for individual variation in beliefs about reliability when reporting correlations with life successes. [20] [21] [22] [23]

In the studies Mischel and his colleagues conducted at Stanford University, [1] [10] in order to establish trust that the experimenter would return, at the beginning of the "marshmallow test" children first engaged in a game in which they summoned the experimenter back by ringing a bell; the actual waiting portion of the experiment did not start until after the children clearly understood that the experimenter would keep the promise. Participants of the original studies at the Bing School at Stanford University appeared to have no doubt that they would receive a reward after waiting and chose to wait for the more desirable reward. However, Mischel's earlier studies showed there are many other situations in which children cannot be certain that they would receive the delayed outcome. [20] [21] [22] [23] In such situations, waiting for delayed rewards may not be an adaptive response.

Watts, Duncan and Quan's 2018 conceptual replication [24] yielded mostly statistically insignificant correlations with behavioral problems but a significant correlation with achievement tests at age 15. These effects were lower than in the original experiment and reduced further when controlling for early cognitive ability and behavior, family background, and home environment.

A 2020 study at University of California showed that "reputation management" plays a significant role in the experiment. [25]

In findings presented in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B in 2021, Marine Biological Laboratory, researchers described cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) that were able to pass an adapted version of the marshmallow test. Cephalopods engage in "future-oriented foraging" and the nine-month-old cuttlefish in the experiments were able to tolerate delays of 50 to 130 seconds, comparable to the performances of chimpanzees and crows. Individuals that had better self-control also demonstrated greater cognition in learning tests. [26] [27]

A 2022 paper published in Psychological Science found that cultural differences can affect the marshmallow test. The study assessed Japanese and American children, with each child given a marshmallow or an unwrapped gift with a delay before they could obtain a second. Results showed the Japanese group waited longer for another marshmallow, while the American group excelled on unwrapped gifts. The authors argued this was due to how cultures contrast. In Japan, people gift more often around the year without a wait versus in the United States where people hold back opening presents on specific occasions like in birthdays. Additionally, parents of the Japanese participants reported having their children wait longer for meals compared to their American counterparts. [28] [29]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bobo doll experiment</span> Psychology experiment

The Bobo doll experiment is the collective name for a series of experiments performed by psychologist Albert Bandura to test his social learning theory. Between 1961 and 1963, he studied children's behaviour after watching an adult model act aggressively towards a Bobo doll. The most notable variation of the experiment measured the children's behavior after seeing the adult model rewarded, punished, or experience no consequence for physically abusing the Bobo doll.

In economics, hyperbolic discounting is a time-inconsistent model of delay discounting. It is one of the cornerstones of behavioral economics and its brain-basis is actively being studied by neuroeconomics researchers.

Egocentrism is the inability to differentiate between self and other. More specifically, it is the inability to accurately assume or understand any perspective other than one's own. Egocentrism is found across the life span: in infancy, early childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Although egocentric behaviors are less prominent in adulthood, the existence of some forms of egocentrism in adulthood indicates that overcoming egocentrism may be a lifelong development that never achieves completion. Adults appear to be less egocentric than children because they are faster to correct from an initially egocentric perspective than children, not because they are less likely to initially adopt an egocentric perspective.

Self-control is an aspect of inhibitory control, one of the core executive functions. Executive functions are cognitive processes that are necessary for regulating one's behavior in order to achieve specific goals. Defined more independently, self-control is the ability to regulate one's emotions, thoughts, and behavior in the face of temptations and impulses. Thought to be like a muscle, acts of self-control expend a limited resource. In the short term, overuse of self-control leads to the depletion of that resource. However, in the long term, the use of self-control can strengthen and improve the ability to control oneself over time.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gratification</span> Pleasurable emotional reaction of happiness in response to a fulfillment of a desire or goal

Gratification is the pleasurable emotional reaction of happiness in response to a fulfillment of a desire or goal. It is also identified as a response stemming from the fulfillment of social needs such as affiliation, socializing, social approval, and mutual recognition.

Delayed gratification, or deferred gratification (opposite of instant or immediate gratification), is the resistance to the temptation of an immediate pleasure in the hope of obtaining a valuable and long-lasting reward in the long-term. In other words, delayed gratification describes the process that the subject undergoes when the subject resists the temptation of an immediate reward in preference for a later reward that is more favorable. Generally, delayed gratification is associated with resisting a smaller but more immediate reward in order to receive a larger or more enduring reward later. A growing body of literature has linked the ability to delay gratification to a host of other positive outcomes, including academic success, physical health, psychological health, and social competence.

Motivation crowding theory is the theory from psychology and microeconomics suggesting that providing extrinsic incentives for certain kinds of behavior—such as promising monetary rewards for accomplishing some task—can sometimes undermine intrinsic motivation for performing that behavior. The result of lowered motivation, in contrast with the predictions of neoclassical economics, can be an overall decrease in the total performance.

Walter Mischel was an Austrian-born American psychologist specializing in personality theory and social psychology. He was the Robert Johnston Niven Professor of Humane Letters in the Department of Psychology at Columbia University. A Review of General Psychology survey, published in 2002, ranked Mischel as the 25th most cited psychologist of the 20th century.

The negativity bias, also known as the negativity effect, is a cognitive bias that, even when positive or neutral things of equal intensity occur, things of a more negative nature have a greater effect on one's psychological state and processes than neutral or positive things. In other words, something very positive will generally have less of an impact on a person's behavior and cognition than something equally emotional but negative. The negativity bias has been investigated within many different domains, including the formation of impressions and general evaluations; attention, learning, and memory; and decision-making and risk considerations.

Hot cognition is a hypothesis on motivated reasoning in which a person's thinking is influenced by their emotional state. Put simply, hot cognition is cognition coloured by emotion. Hot cognition contrasts with cold cognition, which implies cognitive processing of information that is independent of emotional involvement. Hot cognition is proposed to be associated with cognitive and physiological arousal, in which a person is more responsive to environmental factors. As it is automatic, rapid and led by emotion, hot cognition may consequently cause biased decision making. Hot cognition may arise, with varying degrees of strength, in politics, religion, and other sociopolitical contexts because of moral issues, which are inevitably tied to emotion. Hot cognition was initially proposed in 1963 by Robert P. Abelson. The idea became popular in the 1960s and the 1970s.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Impulsivity</span> Tendency to act on a whim without considering consequences

In psychology, impulsivity is a tendency to act on a whim, displaying behavior characterized by little or no forethought, reflection, or consideration of the consequences. Impulsive actions are typically "poorly conceived, prematurely expressed, unduly risky, or inappropriate to the situation that often result in undesirable consequences," which imperil long-term goals and strategies for success. Impulsivity can be classified as a multifactorial construct. A functional variety of impulsivity has also been suggested, which involves action without much forethought in appropriate situations that can and does result in desirable consequences. "When such actions have positive outcomes, they tend not to be seen as signs of impulsivity, but as indicators of boldness, quickness, spontaneity, courageousness, or unconventionality." Thus, the construct of impulsivity includes at least two independent components: first, acting without an appropriate amount of deliberation, which may or may not be functional; and second, choosing short-term gains over long-term ones.

George W. Ainslie is an American psychiatrist, psychologist and behavioral economist. He is chief Psychiatrist at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Coatesville, Pennsylvania and Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Temple University School of Medicine.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wediko Children's Services</span> American organization for children

Wediko Children's Services is a non-profit organization that provides therapeutic and educational services to children with serious emotional and behavioral problems and their families. It was founded in 1934.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social experiment</span> Psychological or sociological research

A social experiment is a method of psychological or sociological research that observes people's reactions to certain situations or events. The experiment depends on a particular social approach where the main source of information is the participants' point of view and knowledge. To carry out a social experiment, specialists usually split participants into two groups — active participants and respondents. Throughout the experiment, specialists monitor participants to identify the effects and differences resulting from the experiment. A conclusion is then created based on the results. Intentional communities are generally considered social experiments.

Yuichi Shoda is a Japanese-born psychologist and academic who contributed to the development of the cognitive-affective personality system theory of personality.

In the psychology of self, the future self concerns the processes and consequences associated with thinking about oneself in the future. People think about their future selves similarly to how they think about other people. The extent to which people feel psychologically connected to their future self influences how well they treat their future self. When people feel connected to their future self, they are more likely to save for retirement, make healthy decisions, and avoid ethical transgressions. Interventions that increase feelings of connectedness with future selves can improve future-oriented decision making across these domains.

Present bias is the tendency to settle for a smaller present reward rather than wait for a larger future reward, in a trade-off situation. It describes the trend of overvaluing immediate rewards, while putting less worth in long-term consequences. The present bias can be used as a measure for self-control, which is a trait related to the prediction of secure life outcomes.

Antonette M. Zeiss is an American clinical psychologist. Zeiss was chief consultant for mental health services at the Central Office of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs – the first woman and the first psychologist and nonphysician to hold this position. In 2013 she received the APA Award for Lifetime Contributions to Psychology from the American Psychological Association (APA).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">BJ Casey</span> American psychology professor

BJ Casey is an American cognitive neuroscientist and expert on adolescent brain development and self control. She is the Christina L. Williams Professor of Neuroscience at Barnard College of Columbia University where she directs the Fundamentals of the Adolescent Brain (FAB) Lab and is an Affiliated Professor of the Justice Collaboratory at Yale Law School, Yale University.

Ozlem Nefise Ayduk is an American social psychologist at U.C. Berkeley researching close relationships, emotion regulation, and the development of self-regulation in children. She is a fellow at the Society of Experimental Social Psychology and the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. She has contributed content to several psychology handbooks, dictionaries, and encyclopedias.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mischel, Walter; Ebbesen, Ebbe B. (1970). "Attention in delay of gratification". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 16 (2): 329–337. doi:10.1037/h0029815. S2CID   53464175.
  2. ↑ Mischel, W; Shoda, Y; Rodriguez, M. (26 May 1989). "Delay of gratification in children". Science. 244 (4907): 933–938. Bibcode:1989Sci...244..933M. doi:10.1126/science.2658056. PMID   2658056. S2CID   37847196.
  3. ↑ Ayduk, Ozlem N.; Mendoza-Denton, Rodolfo; Mischel, Walter; Downey, Geraldine; Peake, Philip K.; Rodriguez, Monica L. (2000). "Regulating the interpersonal self: Strategic self-regulation for coping with rejection sensitivity". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 79 (5): 776–792. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.334.5423 . doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.776. PMID   11079241. S2CID   6345213.
  4. ↑ Schlam, Tanya R.; Wilson, Nicole L.; Shoda, Yuichi; Mischel, Walter; Ayduk, Ozlem (2013). "Preschoolers' delay of gratification predicts their body mass 30 years later". The Journal of Pediatrics . 162 (1): 90–93. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.06.049. PMC   3504645 . PMID   22906511.
  5. 1 2 3 Shoda, Yuichi; Mischel, Walter; Peake, Philip K. (1990). "Predicting adolescent cognitive and self-regulatory competencies from preschool delay of gratification: Identifying diagnostic conditions". Developmental Psychology. 26 (6): 978–986. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.26.6.978.
  6. ↑ Calarco, Jessica McCrory (2018-06-01). "Why Rich Kids Are So Good at the Marshmallow Test". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 2018-10-02. Retrieved 2018-10-03.
  7. ↑ Jason, Collins (31 May 2018). "The marshmallow test held up OK – Jason Collins blog". The marshmallow test held up OK. Archived from the original on 30 April 2019. Retrieved 28 July 2019.
  8. ↑ Benjamin, Daniel J.; Laibson, David; Mischel, Walter; Peake, Philip K.; Shoda, Yuichi; Wellsjo, Alexandra Steiny; Wilson, Nicole L. (November 2020). "Predicting mid-life capital formation with pre-school delay of gratification and life-course measures of self-regulation". Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 179: 743–756. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2019.08.016. PMC   7792663 . PMID   33424063.
  9. ↑ "New Study Disavows Marshmallow Test's Predictive Powers". 24 February 2021.
  10. 1 2 3 Mischel, Walter; Ebbesen, Ebbe B. (1970). "Attention in delay of gratification". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 16 (2): 329–337. doi:10.1037/h0029815. S2CID   53464175.
  11. ↑ Klineberg, Stephen L. (1968). "Future time perspective and the preference for delayed reward". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 8 (3, Pt.1): 253–257. doi:10.1037/h0025581. PMID   5645229.
  12. ↑ Mischel, Walter; Gilligan, Carol (1964). "Delay of gratification, motivation for the prohibited gratification, and responses to temptation". The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 69 (4): 411–417. doi:10.1037/h0048918. hdl: 2027.42/146992 . PMID   14213305.
  13. ↑ Shybut, John (1968). "Delay of gratification and severity of psychological disturbances among hospitalized psychiatric patients". Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 32 (4): 462–468. doi:10.1037/h0026106. PMID   5666148.
  14. ↑ Mischel, Walter; Ebbesen, Ebbe B.; Raskoff Zeiss, Antonette (1972). "Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 21 (2): 204–218. doi:10.1037/h0032198. PMID   5010404.
  15. ↑ Mischel, Walter; Shoda, Yuichi; Peake, Philip K. (1988). "The nature of adolescent competencies predicted by preschool delay of gratification". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 54 (4): 687–696. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.687. PMID   3367285.
  16. ↑ Eigsti, Inge-Marie; Zayas, Vivian; Mischel, Walter; Shoda, Yuichi; Ayduk, Ozlem; Dadlani, Mamta B.; Davidson, Matthew C.; Aber, J. Lawrence; Casey, B.J. (June 2006). "Predicting Cognitive Control From Preschool to Late Adolescence and Young Adulthood". Psychological Science. 17 (6): 478–484. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01732.x. PMID   16771797. S2CID   4508299.
  17. ↑ Casey, B. J.; Somerville, Leah H.; Gotlib, Ian H.; Ayduk, Ozlem; Franklin, Nicholas T.; Askren, Mary K.; Jonides, John; Berman, Marc G.; Wilson, Nicole L.; Teslovich, Theresa; Glover, Gary; Zayas, Vivian; Mischel, Walter; Shoda, Yuichi (2011). "Behavioral and neural correlates of delay of gratification 40 years later". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108 (36): 14998–15003. Bibcode:2011PNAS..10814998C. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1108561108 . PMC   3169162 . PMID   21876169. For a lay summary, see Weill Cornell Medical College (2011). "Marshmallow test points to biological basis for delayed gratification". sciencedaily.com.
  18. ↑ "Marshmallow Test Revisited". University of Rochester . October 11, 2012. Archived from the original on October 17, 2012. Retrieved October 17, 2012.
  19. ↑ Kidd, Celeste; Palmeri, Holly; Aslin, Richard N. (January 2013). "Rational snacking: Young children's decision-making on the marshmallow task is moderated by beliefs about environmental reliability". Cognition. 126 (1): 109–114. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.08.004. PMC   3730121 . PMID   23063236.
  20. 1 2 Mischel, Walter (July 1961). "Father-absence and delay of gratification". The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 63 (1): 116–124. doi:10.1037/h0046877. PMID   14474528.
  21. 1 2 Mischel, Walter (1966). "Theory and research on the antecedents of self-imposed delay of reward". In B. A. Maher (ed.). Progress in Experimental Personality Research. New York: Academic Press. pp. 85–131. OCLC   101985028.
  22. 1 2 Mischel, Walter; Staub, Ervin (1965). "Effects of expectancy on working and waiting for larger rewards". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 2 (5): 625–633. doi:10.1037/h0022677. PMID   5838761.
  23. 1 2 Mischel, Walter; Grusec, Joan (1967). "Waiting for rewards and punishments: Effects of time and probability on choice". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 5 (1): 24–31. doi:10.1037/h0024180. PMID   6031227.
  24. ↑ Watts, Tyler W.; Duncan, Greg J.; Quan, Haonan (2018). "Revisiting the Marshmallow Test: A Conceptual Replication Investigating Links Between Early Delay of Gratification and Later Outcomes". Psychological Science. 29 (7): 1159–1177. doi:10.1177/0956797618761661. PMC   6050075 . PMID   29799765.
  25. ↑ Inga Kiderra (September 9, 2020). "The marshmallow test revisited". Medical Express.
  26. ↑ Ouellette, Jennifer (March 3, 2021). "Cuttlefish can pass the marshmallow test". Ars Technica.
  27. ↑ Schnell, Alexandra K.; Boeckle, Markus; Rivera, Micaela; Clayton, Nicola S.; Hanlon, Roger T. (10 March 2021). "Cuttlefish exert self-control in a delay of gratification task". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 288 (1946): 20203161. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2020.3161 . PMC   7935110 . PMID   33653135.
  28. ↑ Munakata, Yuko (July 14, 2023). "How Culture Affects the 'Marshmallow Test'". Scientific American.
  29. ↑ Yanaoka, Kaichi; Michaelson, Laura E.; Guild, Ryan Mori; Dostart, Grace; Yonehiro, Jade; Saito, Satoru; Munakata, Yuko (22 June 2022). "Cultures Crossing: The Power of Habit in Delaying Gratification". Psychological Science. 33 (7): 1172–1181. doi:10.1177/09567976221074650. hdl: 2433/275595 . PMID   35749259.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.