It’s been a while since I last wrote about the Pygmalion effect, the Galatea effect, and the Three Mountains Task, and I’ve been thinking about what other interesting research I had heard in the past that I could write about. It’s been due to my recent interest in positive psychology that I’ve come across another interesting test that demonstrates how self-control and grit work in young children (and in adults as well).
The Marshmallow Experiment was conducted by psychologist Walter Mischel in 1972. He specialised in personality theory and social psychology, both crucial precedents for Dr. Seligman’s positive psychology. This experiment is, in fact, a series of experiments, with the most famous being the Marshmallow Test.
The first experiment on delayed gratification—resistance to the temptation of immediate pleasure in the hope of obtaining a valuable and long-lasting reward—took place at Stanford University in 1970. It involved 32 children (16 boys and 16 girls) around 4 and a half years old. These children attended the Bing Nursery School at Stanford University.
The test was conducted by two adults. In the experimental room, there was a covered cake tin on a table. Underneath it were five pretzels and two animal cookies. Two chairs were placed in front of the table, with an empty cardboard box on one of them. Nearby, on the floor, there were four battery-operated toys. Before the child could play with the toys, the experimenter pointed them out and then asked the child to sit in a chair. The experimenter briefly demonstrated each toy, mentioning they would play with them later. The toys were then placed in the cardboard box, out of the child’s sight. The experimenter explained that they needed to leave the room, and if the child waited without eating a pretzel, they would return. This process was repeated four times.
Upon returning to the room, the experimenter opened the cake tin, revealing two sets of rewards: five pretzels and two animal crackers. The child was asked to choose between the two. Once the child made a choice, the experimenter explained that they could either wait for the chosen reward or bring the experimenter back to stop waiting. If the child stopped waiting, they would receive the less preferred reward and miss out on the more preferred one.
Based on the condition and the child’s choice, the experimenter picked up the cake tin along with either nothing, one of the rewards, or both. The experimenter returned either upon the child’s signal or after 15 minutes.
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.
THE MARSHMALLOW EXPERIMENT
Two years later (in 1972), Mischel, Ebbesen and Zeiss conducted the famous Stanford Marshmallow test. They used marshmallows as a reward item. The study aimed to explore self-control and whether certain activities could distract participants from anticipated rewards, thereby increasing the delay of gratification. The researchers hypothesised that overt activities (actions which are visible and can be seen directly), internal cognitions, and fantasies could serve as effective self-distraction, transforming the frustrating situation into a psychologically less aversive one. Three distinct settings were created for testing: overt activity, covert activity, and no activity.1
In Experiment 1, 50 children (25 boys and 25 girls), aged 3 years 6 months to 5 years 6 months, participated. Comprehension questions were asked to assess the children’s understanding of instructions. Experiment 2 involved 32 children, focusing on how the substantive content of cognitions could impact subsequent delay behaviour. The conditions in Experiment 2 mirrored those in Experiment 1, with the addition of “think food rewards” instructions given after comprehension questions. These instructions aimed to induce various types of ideation during the delay-of-gratification period.
Experiment 3 included 16 children (11 boys and 5 girls), aged 3 years 5 months to 5 years 6 months, and maintained the same conditions and procedures as Experiment 1 and Experiment 2. However, in this experiment, the reward items were not visible to the children while they waited. The children were told that the food items needed to be kept fresh, and the marshmallow and pretzel stick were placed under an opaque cake tin, out of sight.
The overall findings suggested that effective delay of gratification depended heavily on the cognitive avoidance or suppression of reward objects while waiting. When children thought about absent rewards, delaying gratification was as challenging as when the rewards were directly in front of them. Conversely, when the reward was not visibly present, children could wait longer and attain the preferred reward. The study’s significance lies in demonstrating that successful delay involves suppressive and avoidance mechanisms rather than merely thinking about something else. The observed behaviours underscore the frustration of waiting for a desired reward, emphasising the importance of these mechanisms.
SOURCES:
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment
Mischel, Walter; Ebbesen, Ebbe B. (1970). “Attention in delay of gratification”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 16 (2): 329–337.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6050075/
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/06/marshmallow-test/561779/
Mr Sanchez Tutoring 