Posted on 06/24/2019 7:46:41 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin
[Affluence—not willpower—seems to be what’s behind some kids’ capacity to delay gratification.]
The marshmallow test is one of the most famous pieces of social-science research: Put a marshmallow in front of a child, tell her that she can have a second one if she can go 15 minutes without eating the first one, and then leave the room. Whether she’s patient enough to double her payout is supposedly indicative of a willpower that will pay dividends down the line, at school and eventually at work. Passing the test is, to many, a promising signal of future success.
But a new study has cast the whole concept into doubt. The researchers—NYU’s Tyler Watts and UC Irvine’s Greg Duncan and Hoanan Quan—restaged the classic marshmallow test, which was developed by the Stanford psychologist Walter Mischel in the 1960s. Mischel and his colleagues administered the test and then tracked how children went on to fare later in life. They described the results in a 1990 study, which suggested that delayed gratification had huge benefits, including on such measures as standardized test scores.
Watts and his colleagues were skeptical of that finding. The original results were based on studies that included fewer than 90 children—all enrolled in a preschool on Stanford’s campus. In restaging the experiment, Watts and his colleagues thus adjusted the experimental design in important ways: The researchers used a sample that was much larger—more than 900 children—and also more representative of the general population in terms of race, ethnicity, and parents’ education. The researchers also, when analyzing their test’s results, controlled for certain factors—such as the income of a child’s household—that might explain children’s ability to delay gratification and their long-term success.
Ultimately, the new study finds limited support for the idea that being able to delay gratification leads to better outcomes. Instead, it suggests that the capacity to hold out for a second marshmallow is shaped in large part by a child’s social and economic background—and, in turn, that that background, not the ability to delay gratification, is what’s behind kids’ long-term success.
The marshmallow test isn’t the only experimental study that has recently failed to hold up under closer scrutiny. Some scholars and journalists have gone so far to suggest that psychology is in the midst of a “replication crisis.” In the case of this new study, specifically, the failure to confirm old assumptions pointed to an important truth: that circumstances matter more in shaping children’s lives than Mischel and his colleagues seemed to appreciate.
This new paper found that among kids whose mothers had a college degree, those who waited for a second marshmallow did no better in the long run—in terms of standardized test scores and mothers’ reports of their children’s behavior—than those who dug right in. Similarly, among kids whose mothers did not have college degrees, those who waited did no better than those who gave in to temptation, once other factors like household income and the child’s home environment at age 3 (evaluated according to a standard research measure that notes, for instance, the number of books that researchers observed in the home and how responsive mothers were to their children in the researchers’ presence) were taken into account. For those kids, self-control alone couldn’t overcome economic and social disadvantages.
The failed replication of the marshmallow test does more than just debunk the earlier notion; it suggests other possible explanations for why poorer kids would be less motivated to wait for that second marshmallow. For them, daily life holds fewer guarantees: There might be food in the pantry today, but there might not be tomorrow, so there is a risk that comes with waiting. And even if their parents promise to buy more of a certain food, sometimes that promise gets broken out of financial necessity.
Meanwhile, for kids who come from households headed by parents who are better educated and earn more money, it’s typically easier to delay gratification: Experience tends to tell them that adults have the resources and financial stability to keep the pantry well stocked. And even if these children don’t delay gratification, they can trust that things will all work out in the end—that even if they don’t get the second marshmallow, they can probably count on their parents to take them out for ice cream instead.
There’s plenty of other research that sheds further light on the class dimension of the marshmallow test. The Harvard economist Sendhil Mullainathan and the Princeton behavioral scientist Eldar Shafir wrote a book in 2013, Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means So Much, that detailed how poverty can lead people to opt for short-term rather than long-term rewards; the state of not having enough can change the way people think about what’s available now. In other words, a second marshmallow seems irrelevant when a child has reason to believe that the first one might vanish.
Some more-qualitative sociological research also can provide insight here. For example, Ranita Ray, a sociologist at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, recently wrote a book describing how many teenagers growing up in poverty work long hours in poorly paid jobs to support themselves and their families. Yet, despite sometimes not being able to afford food, the teens still splurge on payday, buying things like McDonald’s or new clothes or hair dye. Similarly, in my own research with Brea Perry, a sociologist (and colleague of mine) at Indiana University, we found that low-income parents are more likely than more-affluent parents to give in to their kids’ requests for sweet treats.
These findings point to the idea that poorer parents try to indulge their kids when they can, while more-affluent parents tend to make their kids wait for bigger rewards. Hair dye and sweet treats might seem frivolous, but purchases like these are often the only indulgences poor families can afford. And for poor children, indulging in a small bit of joy today can make life feel more bearable, especially when there’s no guarantee of more joy tomorrow.
What if you set your marshmallow on fire?
A kid might also think, “one marshmallow is plenty.” And I confess, when I was a certain age, I might just have been contrary enough to eat the one immediately and tell them, “I don’t want the second one.”
Researchers attempted to confirm the results of the study by conducting a “spam test” and a “brussel sprout test”. 100% delayed gratification.
This new result isn’t in contradiction to the original test; it affirms it. It shows why poverty is passed down, despite government programs to increase social motility.
The similarity of the kids’ socioeconomic background in the first test was actually useful; it reduced the socioeconomic of the parenting without presuming causality.
What drives the marshmallow test? The emotional security of the pay-off. Poor kids lack that security, and act in ways that perpetuate poverty.
And Hershey’s special dark chocolate does not qualify.
Awwww...dang it.
although they don’t come out and say it, white privilege mostly
We’re poor and have a whole bag of marshmallows sitting on the shelf. If one of the kids wants a few for dessert, they’ll ask.
You’re only as rich as you feel.
Has no-one ever noted the similarity between this test and the forgiven sin of Charlie Bucket in the chocolate factory?
Satisfied? test ... incentive of just one more marshmallow isn't enough to stifle taking the offered snack. One is enough for now, but I'd wait fifteen minutes for a bag of them to take home and share.
Researchers can read whatever they want into the results. I wonder if the resaercheres were offered a second grant, if they'd hold off conducting this study.
It means the researchers missed the lede.
The first study was correct.
What they just uncovered is that rich people are generally rich because they are smarter and think long term and pass that those traits in to their children.
But being biased liberals they cannot fathom that basic fact, so they declare the test faulty and biased.
I remember that bit from the book.
However, he is talking about radically deprived people.
The poor of the inner city have internal deprivations and external abuses, but not the stringint deprevation of that era.
As usual, trying to blame nameless, faceless, socioeconomics, rather than parents and individuals.
If children are not taught right vs. wrong, they will not be able to make good life decisions.
Isn’t Pocket owned by Mozilla...?
Yes, where are the controls? The variables? Holes can be poked through both sets of tests, and not just these, but most others, as you made mention.
The urban poor today are different than the poor in the Depression.
The first, most obvious point, is that you mention a father.
The second was a general lack of dependence on the government—you depended on family and neighbors who shared a similar circumstance.
Times change and social standards change.
Plus, like all studies that are grand in scope and scale, your experience is going to be different.
I thought a Marshmallow test would be about who can toast one a perfect brown color vs. those who turn it into a flaming charcoal mess.
The very basis of this should be questioned. For example, with many foods, I can eat “just one.” All I want is one. If a marshmallow was that food, it wouldn’t say anything about delayed gratification, because there would be no delayed gratification.
I love raspberry turnovers. But one is my limit, no matter how good it tastes.
A second issue is, I’m not particularly fond of marshmallows. Don’t hate them, but would never eat one by itself. Not interested. Again, no delayed gratification.
Good thinking..!! :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.