child experiment with marshmallow

Stanford Marshmallow Test Experiment

Angel E. Navidad

Philosophy Expert

B.A. Philosophy, Harvard University

Angel Navidad is an undergraduate at Harvard University, concentrating in Philosophy. He will graduate in May of 2025, and thereon pursue graduate study in history, or enter the civil service.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

On This Page:

Take-home Messages

• The marshmallow test is an experimental design that measures a child’s ability to delay gratification. The child is given the option of waiting a bit to get their favorite treat, or if not waiting for it, receiving a less-desired treat. The minutes or seconds a child waits measures their ability to delay gratification.
• The original marshmallow test showed that preschoolers’ delay times were significantly affected by the experimental conditions, like the physical presence/absence of expected treats.
• The original test sample was not representative of preschooler population, thereby limiting the study’s predictive ability. (Preschool participants were all recruited from Stanford University’s Bing Nursery School, which was then largely patronized by children of Stanford faculty and alumni.)
• A 2018 study on a large, representative sample of preschoolers sought to replicate the statistically significant correlations between early-age delay times and later-age life outcomes, like SAT scores, which had been previously found using data from the original marshmallow test. The replication study found only weak statistically significant correlations, which disappeared after controlling for socio-economic factors.
• However, the 2018 study did find statistically significant differences between early-age delay times and later-age life outcomes between children from high-SES families and children from low-SES families, implying that socio-economic factors play a more significant role than early-age self-control in important life outcomes.

In a 1970 paper, Walter Mischel, a professor of psychology at Stanford University, and his graduate student, Ebbe Ebbesen, had found that preschoolers waiting 15 minutes to receive their preferred treat (a pretzel or a marshmallow) waited much less time when either treat was within sight than when neither treat was in view.

Children with treats present waited 3.09 ± 5.59 minutes; children with neither treat present waited 8.90 ± 5.26 minutes.

The study suggested that gratification delays in children involved suppressing rather than enhancing attention to expected rewards. For instance, some children who waited with both treats in sight would stare at a mirror, cover their eyes, or talk to themselves, rather than fixate on the pretzel or marshmallow.

Mischel, Ebbesen, and Antonette Zeiss, a visiting faculty member at the time, set out to investigate whether attending to rewards cognitively made it more difficult for children to delay gratification.

The Stanford Marshmallow Experiments

Mischel, Ebbesen and Zeiss (1972) designed three experiments to investigate, respectively, the effect of overt activities, cognitive activities, and the lack of either, in the preschoolers’ gratification delay times.

Experiment 1

Fifty-six children from the Bing Nursery School at Stanford University were recruited. To build rapport with the preschoolers, two experimenters spent a few days playing with them at the nursery.

Children were randomly assigned to one of five groups (A – E).

The children were individually escorted to a room where the test would take place. Each child was taught to ring a bell to signal for the experimenter to return to the room if they ever stepped out.

Treat vs. No Treats Condition

Children in groups A, B, and C were shown two treats (a marshmallow and a pretzel) and asked to choose their favorite.

They were then told that the experimenter would soon have to leave for a while but that they’d get their preferred treat if they waited for the experimenter to come back without signaling for them to do so.

They were also explicitly allowed to signal for the experimenter to come back at any point in time but told that if they did, they’d only get the treat they hadn’t chosen as their favorite. Both treats were left in plain view in the room.

Children in groups D and E were given no such choice or instructions.

Children in groups A, B, or C who waited the full 15 minutes were allowed to eat their favored treat. Those in groups A, B, or C who didn’t wait 15 minutes were allowed to have only their non-favored treat.

Children in groups D and E weren’t given treats. All children got to play with toys with the experiments after waiting the full 15 minutes or after signaling.

Distraction vs. No Entertainment Condition

Children in groups A and D were given a slinky and were told they had permission to play with it.

Children in groups B and E were asked to “think of anything that’s fun to think of” and were told that some fun things to think of included singing songs and playing with toys.

Each child’s comprehension of the instructions was tested. Six children didn’t seem to comprehend and were excluded from the test. The remaining 50 children were included.

All 50 were told that whether or not they rang the bell, the experimenter would return, and when he did, they would play with toys.

Waiting time was scored from the moment the experimenter shut the door. The experimenter returned either as soon as the child signaled or after 15 minutes if the child did not signal.

The results suggested that children were much more willing to wait longer when they were offered a reward for waiting (groups A, B, C) than when they weren’t (groups D, E)

The results also showed that children waited much longer when they were given tasks that distracted or entertained them during their waiting period (playing with a slinky for group A, thinking of fun things for group B) than when they weren’t distracted (group C).

Experiment 2

This test differed from the first only in the following ways :

• Thirty-eight children were recruited, with six lost due to incomplete comprehension of instructions.
• Thirty-two children were randomly assigned to three groups (A, B, C).
• All children were given a choice of treats, and told they could wait without signalling to have their favourite treat, or simply signal to have the other treat but forfeit their favoured one.
• In all cases, both treats were left in plain view.
• Children in group A were asked to think of fun things, as before.
• Those in group B were asked to think of sad things, and likewise given examples of such things.
• Those in group C were asked to think of the treats.

The results suggested that children who were given distracting tasks that were also fun (thinking of fun things for group A) waited much longer for their treats than children who were given tasks that either didn’t distract them from the treats (group C, asked to think of the treats) or didn’t entertain them (group B, asked to think of sad things).

Experiment 3

• Sixteen children were recruited, and none excluded.
• Children were randomly assigned to three groups (A, B, C),
• In all cases, both treats were obscured from the children with a tin cake cover (which children were told would keep the treats fresh).
• Children in group A were asked to think about the treats.
• Those in group B were asked to think of fun things, as before.
• Those in group C were given no task at all.

The results suggested that when treats were obscured (by a cake tin, in this case), children who were given no distracting or fun task (group C) waited just as long for their treats as those who were given a distracting and fun task (group B, asked to think of fun things).

On the other hand, when the children were given a task that didn’t distract them from the treats (group A, asked to think of the treats), having the treats obscured did not increase their delay time as opposed to having them unobscured (as in the second test).

Final Conclusions

The studies convinced Mischel, Ebbesen, and Zeiss that children’s successful delay of gratification significantly depended on their cognitive avoidance or suppression of the expected treats during the waiting period, e.g., by not having the treats within sight or by thinking of fun things.

Children, they reasoned, could wait a relatively long time if they –

Believed they really would get their favoured treat if they waited (eg by trusting the experimenter, by having the treats remain in the room, whether obscured or in plain view). Shifted their attention away from the treats. Occupied themselves with non-frustrating or pleasant internal or external stimuli (eg thinking of fun things, playing with toys).

Critical Evaluation

• Sample size determination was not disclosed.
• The study population (Stanford’s Bind Nursery School) was not characterized and so may differ in relevant respects from the general human population or even the general preschooler population. (In fact, the school was mostly attended by middle-class children of faculty and alumni of Stanford.)
• The findings might also not extend to voluntary delay of gratification (where the option of having either treat immediately is available, in addition to the studied option of having only the non-favored treat immediately).

Longitudinal Studies Using Stanford Data

Delayed gratification and sat scores.

In 1990, Yuichi Shoda, a graduate student at Columbia University, Walter Mischel, now a professor at Columbia University, and Philip Peake, a graduate student at Smith College, examined the relationship between preschoolers’ delay of gratification and their later SAT scores.

Six-hundred and fifty-three preschoolers at the Bing School at Stanford University participated at least once in a series of gratification delay studies between 1968 and 1974.

Four hundred and four of their parents received follow-up questionnaires. One hundred and eighty-five responded. Ninety-four parents supplied their children’s SAT scores.

Children were divided into four groups depending on whether a cognitive activity (e.g., thinking of fun things) had been suggested before the delay period or not and on whether the expected treats had remained within sight throughout the delay period or not.

The difference in the mean waiting time of the children of parents who responded and that of the children of parents who didn’t respond was not statistically significant (p = 0.09, n = 653).

Preschoolers’ delay times correlated positively and significantly with their later SAT scores when no cognitive task had been suggested and the expected treats had remained in plain sight.

Other correlations were not significant.

Limitations

Shoda, Mischel, and Peake (1990) urged caution in extrapolating their findings since their samples were uncomfortably small.

Delayed Gratification and Positive Functioning

In a 2000 paper, Ozlem Ayduk, at the time a postdoctoral researcher at Columbia, and colleagues, explored the role that preschoolers’ ability to delay gratification played in their later self-worth, self-esteem, and ability to cope with stress.

Five-hundred and fifty preschoolers’ ability to delay gratification in Prof. Mischel’s Stanford studies between 1968 and 1974 was scored.

Each preschooler’s delay score was taken as the difference between the mean delay time of the experimental group the child had been assigned to and the child’s individual score in that group.

Between 1993 and 1995, 444 parents of the original preschoolers were mailed with questionnaires for themselves and their now adult-aged children. A hundred and eighty-seven parents and 152 children returned them.

The questionnaires measured, through nine-point Likert-scale items, the children’s self-worth, self-esteem, and ability to cope with stress. The scores on these items were standardized to derive a positive functioning composite.

The positive functioning composite, derived either from self-ratings or parental ratings, was found to correlate positively with delay of gratification scores.

Preschoolers who were better able to delay gratification were more likely to exhibit higher self-worth, higher self-esteem, and a greater ability to cope with stress during adulthood than preschoolers who were less able to delay gratification.

Delayed Gratification and Body Mass Index

In a 2013 paper, Tanya Schlam, a doctoral student at the University of Wisconsin, and colleagues, explored a possible association between preschoolers’ ability to delay gratification and their later Body Mass Index.

Prof. Mischel’s data were again used. Of 653 preschoolers who participated in his studies as preschoolers, the researchers sent mailers to all those for whom they had valid addresses (n = 306) in December 2002 / January 2003 and again in May 2004.

Of these, 146 individuals responded with their weight and height. Individual delay scores were derived as in the 2000 Study.

Preschoolers’ ability to delay gratification accounted for a significant portion of the variance seen in the sample (p < 0.01, n = 146).

Specifically, each additional minute a preschooler delayed gratification predicted a 0.2-point reduction in BMI in adulthood.

Marshmallow Test Replication Study

In a 2018 paper, Tyler Watts, an assistant professor and postdoctoral researcher at New York University, and Greg Duncan and Haonan Quan, both doctoral students at UC, Irvine, set out to replicate longitudinal studies based on Prof. Mischel’s data.

Data on 918 individuals from a longitudinal, multi-center study on children by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (an institute in the NIH) were used for the study.

The sample was split into two groups –

• Data on children of mothers who had not completed university college by the time their child was one month old (n = 552);
• Data on children of mothers who had completed university college by that time (n = 366).

The first group (children of mothers without degrees) was more comparable to a nationally representative sample (from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey—Kindergarten by the National Center for Education Statistics). Even so, Hispanic children were underrepresented in the sample.

A variant of the marshmallow test was administered to children when they were 4.5 years old. An interviewer presented each child with treats based on the child’s own preferences.

Children were then told they would play the following game with the interviewer –

• The interviewer would leave the child alone with the treat;
• If the child waited 7 minutes, the interviewer would return, and the child would then be able to eat the treat plus an additional portion as a reward for waiting;
• If the child did not want to wait, they could ring a bell to signal the interviewer to return early, and the child would then be able to eat the treat without an additional portion.

Delay of gratification was recorded as the number of minutes the child waited.

Academic achievement was measured at grade 1 and age 15. Measures included mathematical problem solving, word recognition and vocabulary (only in grade 1), and textual passage comprehension (only at age 15). Scores were normalized to have a mean of 100 ± 15 points.

Behavioral functioning was measured at age 4.5, grade 1, and age 15. Mothers were asked to score their child’s depressive and anti-social behaviors on 3-point Likert-scale items.

For intra-group regression analyses, the following socio-economic variables, measured at or before age 4.5, were controlled for –

• Demographic characteristics like gender, race, birth weight, mother’s age at child’s birth, mother’s level of education, family income, mother’s score in a measure-of-intelligence test;
• Cognitive functioning characteristics like sensory-perceptual abilities, memory, problem-solving, verbal communication skills; and
• Home environment characteristics are known to support positive cognitive, emotional, and behavioral functioning (the HOME Inventory by Caldwell & Bradley, 1984).

• Watts, Duncan, and Quan (2018) did find statistically significant correlations between early-stage ability to delay gratification and later-stage academic achievement, but the association was weaker than that found by researchers using Prof. Mischel’s data.
• In addition, the significance of these bivariate associations disappeared after controlling for socio-economic and cognitive variables.
• There were no statistically significant associations, even without controlling for confounding variables , between early gratification delay and later behavioral functioning at age 15.

Conclusions

These results further complicated the relationship between early delay ability and later life outcomes.

Prof. Mischel’s findings, from a small, non-representative cohort of mostly middle-class preschoolers at Stanford’s Bing Nursery School, were not replicated in a larger, more representative sample of preschool-aged children.

Increasing Delayed Gratification

The following factor has been found to increase a child’s gratification delay time –

Trust in rewarders:

Children who trust that they will be rewarded for waiting are significantly more likely to wait than those who don’t. Kidd, Palmeri, and Aslin, 2013, replicating Prof. Mischel’s marshmallow study, tested 28 four-year-olds twice.

In the first test, half of the children didn’t receive the treat they’d been promised. In the second test, the children who’d been tricked before were significantly less likely to delay gratification than those who hadn’t been tricked.

The following factors may increase an adult’s gratification delay time –

Knowledge of time-to-reward:

Individuals who know how long they must wait for an expected reward are more likely to continue waiting for said reward than those who don’t.

McGuire and Kable (2012) tested 40 adult participants. One group was given known reward times, while the other was not. The first group was significantly more likely to delay gratification.

Probability of the expected reward materializing:

When the individuals delaying their gratification are the same ones creating their reward.

For example, for someone going on a diet to achieve a desired weight, those who set realistic rewards are more likely to continue waiting for their reward than those who set unrealistic or improbable rewards.

Gelinas et al. (2013) studied the association between unrealistic weight loss expectations and weight gain before a weight-loss surgery in 219 adult participants.

The correlation coefficient r = 0.377 was statistically significant at p < 0.008 for male (n = 53) but not female (n = 166) participants.)

What is the marshmallow test?

The Marshmallow Test is a psychological experiment conducted by Walter Mischel in the 1960s. In this study, a child was offered a choice between one small reward (like a marshmallow) immediately or two small rewards if they waited for a short period, usually 15 minutes, during which the tester left the room.

What does the marshmallow test measure?

The marshmallow test measures a child’s ability to delay gratification by offering them a choice to eat a marshmallow immediately or wait for a reward for an additional marshmallow after a short period.

It assesses self-control, impulse control, and the capacity to delay instant gratification, which is connected to future success and self-regulation skills.

Ayduk, O., Mendoza-Denton, R., Mischel, W., Downey, G., Peake, P. K., & Rodriguez, M. (2000). Regulating the interpersonal self: strategic self-regulation for coping with rejection sensitivity . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (5), 776.

Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1984). The HOME Inventory and family demographics. Developmental psychology, 20 (2), 315.

Gelinas, B. L., Delparte, C. A., Hart, R., & Wright, K. D. (2013). Unrealistic weight loss goals and expectations among bariatric surgery candidates: the impact on pre-and postsurgical weight outcomes. Bariatric Surgical Patient Care, 8 (1), 12-17.

Kidd, C., Palmeri, H., & Aslin, R. N. (2013). Rational snacking: Young children’s decision-making on the marshmallow task is moderated by beliefs about environmental reliability . Cognition, 126 (1), 109-114.

McGuire, J. T., & Kable, J. W. (2012). Decision makers calibrate behavioral persistence on the basis of time-interval experience . Cognition, 124 (2), 216-226.

Mischel, W., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1970). Attention in delay of gratification . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16 (2), 329.

Mischel, W., Ebbesen, E. B., & Raskoff Zeiss, A. (1972). Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification . Journal of personality and social psychology, 21 (2), 204.

Schlam, T. R., Wilson, N. L., Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Ayduk, O. (2013). Preschoolers” delay of gratification predicts their body mass 30 years later . The Journal of pediatrics, 162 (1), 90-93.

Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Peake, P. K. (1990). Predicting adolescent cognitive and self-regulatory competencies from preschool delay of gratification: Identifying diagnostic conditions . Developmental psychology, 26 (6), 978.

Watts, T. W., Duncan, G. J., & Quan, H. (2018). Revisiting the marshmallow test: A conceptual replication investigating links between early delay of gratification and later outcomes . Psychological science, 29 (7), 1159-1177.

Keep Learning

• Cohort Effects in Children’s Delay of Gratification
• Predicting adolescent cognitive and self-regulatory competencies from preschool delay of gratification: Identifying diagnostic conditions
• Delay of Gratification as Reputation Management

• Science, Tech, Math ›
• Social Sciences ›
• Psychology ›

The Marshmallow Test: Delayed Gratification in Children

• Archaeology

• Ph.D., Psychology, Fielding Graduate University
• M.A., Psychology, Fielding Graduate University
• B.A., Film Studies, Cornell University

The marshmallow test, which was created by psychologist Walter Mischel, is one of the most famous psychological experiments ever conducted. The test lets young children decide between an immediate reward, or, if they delay gratification, a larger reward. Studies by Mischel and colleagues found that children’s ability to delay gratification when they were young was correlated with positive future outcomes. More recent research has shed further light on these findings and provided a more nuanced understanding of the future benefits of self-control in childhood.

Key Takeaways: The Marshmallow Test

• The marshmallow test was created by Walter Mischel. He and his colleagues used it to test young children’s ability to delay gratification.
• In the test, a child is presented with the opportunity to receive an immediate reward or to wait to receive a better reward.
• A relationship was found between children’s ability to delay gratification during the marshmallow test and their academic achievement as adolescents.
• More recent research has added nuance to these findings showing that environmental factors, such as the reliability of the environment, play a role in whether or not children delay gratification.
• Contrary to expectations, children’s ability to delay gratification during the marshmallow test has increased over time.

The Original Marshmallow Test

The original version of the marshmallow test used in studies by Mischel and colleagues consisted of a simple scenario. A child was brought into a room and presented with a reward, usually a marshmallow or some other desirable treat. The child was told that the researcher had to leave the room but if they could wait until the researcher returned, the child would get two marshmallows instead of just the one they were presented with. If they couldn’t wait, they wouldn’t get the more desirable reward. The researcher would then leave the room for a specific amount of time (typically 15 minutes but sometimes as long as 20 minutes) or until the child could no longer resist eating the single marshmallow in front of them.

Over six years in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Mischel and colleagues repeated the marshmallow test with hundreds of children who attended the preschool on the Stanford University campus. The children were between 3 and 5 years old when they participated in the experiments. Variations on the marshmallow test used by the researchers included different ways to help the children delay gratification, such as obscuring the treat in front of the child or giving the child instructions to think about something else in order to get their mind off the treat they were waiting for.

Years later, Mischel and colleagues followed up with some of their original marshmallow test participants. They discovered something surprising. Those individuals who were able to delay gratification during the marshmallow test as young children rated significantly higher on cognitive ability and the ability to cope with stress and frustration in adolescence. They also earned higher SAT scores.

These results led many to conclude that the ability to pass the marshmallow test and delay gratification was the key to a successful future. However, Mischel and his colleagues were always more cautious about their findings . They suggested that the link between delayed gratification in the marshmallow test and future academic success might weaken if a larger number of participants were studied. They also observed that factors like the child’s home environment could be more influential on future achievement than their research could show.

Recent Findings

The relationship Mischel and colleagues found between delayed gratification in childhood and future academic achievement garnered a great deal of attention. As a result, the marshmallow test became one of the most well-known psychological experiments in history. Yet, recent studies have used the basic paradigm of the marshmallow test to determine how Mischel’s findings hold up in different circumstances.

Delayed Gratification and Environmental Reliability

In 2013, Celeste Kidd, Holly Palmeri, and Richard Aslin published a study that added a new wrinkle to the idea that delayed gratification was the result of a child’s level of self-control. In the study, each child was primed to believe the environment was either reliable or unreliable. In both conditions, before doing the marshmallow test, the child participant was given an art project to do. In the unreliable condition, the child was provided with a set of used crayons and told that if they waited, the researcher would get them a bigger, newer set. The researcher would leave and return empty-handed after two and a half minutes. The researcher would then repeat this sequence of events with a set of stickers. The children in the reliable condition experienced the same set up, but in this case the researcher came back with the promised art supplies.

The children were then given the marshmallow test. Researchers found that those in the unreliable condition waited only about three minutes on average to eat the marshmallow, while those in the reliable condition managed to wait for an average of 12 minutes—substantially longer. The findings suggest that children’s ability to delay gratification isn’t solely the result of self-control. It’s also a rational response to what they know about the stability of their environment.

Thus, the results show that nature and nurture play a role in the marshmallow test. A child’s capacity for self-control combined with their knowledge of their environment leads to their decision about whether or not to delay gratification.

Marshmallow Test Replication Study

In 2018, another group of researchers, Tyler Watts, Greg Duncan, and Haonan Quan, performed a conceptual replication of the marshmallow test. The study wasn’t a direct replication because it didn’t recreate Mischel and his colleagues exact methods. The researchers still evaluated the relationship between delayed gratification in childhood and future success, but their approach was different. Watts and his colleagues utilized longitudinal data from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development, a diverse sample of over 900 children.

In particular, the researchers focused their analysis on children whose mothers hadn’t completed college when they were born—a subsample of the data that better represented the racial and economic composition of children in America (although Hispanics were still underrepresented). Each additional minute a child delayed gratification predicted small gains in academic achievement in adolescence, but the increases were much smaller than those reported in Mischel’s studies. Plus, when factors like family background, early cognitive ability, and home environment were controlled for, the association virtually disappeared.

The results of the replication study have led many outlets reporting the news to claim that Mischel’s conclusions had been debunked. However, things aren’t quite so black and white. The new study demonstrated what psychologists already knew: that factors like affluence and poverty will impact one’s ability to delay gratification. The researchers themselves were measured in their interpretation of the results. Lead researcher Watts cautioned , “…these new findings should not be interpreted to suggest that gratification delay is completely unimportant, but rather that focusing only on teaching young children to delay gratification is unlikely to make much of a difference.” Instead, Watts suggested that interventions that focus on the broad cognitive and behavioral capabilities that help a child develop the ability to delay gratification would be more useful in the long term than interventions that only help a child learn to delay gratification.

Cohort Effects in Delayed Gratification

With mobile phones, streaming video, and on-demand everything today, it's a common belief that children's ability to delay gratification is deteriorating. In order to investigate this hypothesis, a group of researchers, including Mischel, conducted an analysis comparing American children who took the marshmallow test in the 1960s, 1980s, or 2000s. The children all came from similar socioeconomic backgrounds and were all 3 to 5 years old when they took the test.

Contrary to popular expectations, children’s ability to delay gratification increased in each birth cohort. The children who took the test in the 2000s delayed gratification for an average of 2 minutes longer than the children who took the test in the 1960s and 1 minute longer than the children who took the test in the 1980s.

The researchers suggested that the results can be explained by increases in IQ scores over the past several decades, which is linked to changes in technology, the increase in globalization, and changes in the economy. They also noted that the use of digital technology has been associated with an increased ability to think abstractly, which could lead to better executive function skills, such as the self-control associated with delayed gratification. Increased preschool attendance could also help account for the results.

Nonetheless, the researchers cautioned that their study wasn’t conclusive. Future research with more diverse participants is needed to see if the findings hold up with different populations as well as what might be driving the results.

• American Psychology Association. "Can Kids Wait? Today's Youngsters May Be Able to Delay Gratification Longer Than Those of the 1960's." 25 June, 2018. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2018/06/delay-gratification
• Association for Psychological Science. "A New Approach to the Marshmallow Test Yields Complicated Findings." 5 June, 2018. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/obsonline/a-new-approach-to-the-marshmallow-test-yields-complex-findings.html
• Carlson, Stephanie M., Yuichi Shoda, Ozlem Ayduk, Lawrence Aber, Catherine Schaefer, Anita Sethi, Nicole Wilson, Philip K. Peake, and Walter Mischel. "Cohort Effects in Children's Delay of Gratification." Developmental Psychology , vol. 54, no. 8, 2018, pp. 1395-1407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000533
• Kidd, Celeste, Holly Palmeri, and Richard N. Aslin. "Rational Snacking: Young Children's Decision-Making on the Marshmallow Task is Moderated By Beliefs About Environmental Reliability." Cognition, vol. 126, no. 1, 2013, pp. 109-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.08.004
• New York University. "Professor Replicates Famous Marshmallow Test, Makes New Observations." ScienceDaily , 25 May, 2018.  https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180525095226.htm
• Shoda, Yuichi, Walter Mischel, and Philip K. Peake. "Predicting Adolescent Cognitive and Self-Regulatory Competencies from Preschool Delay of Gratification: Identifying Diagnostic Conditions." Developmental Psychology, vol. 26, no. 6, 1990, pp. 978-986. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.26.6.978
• University of Rochester. "The Marshmallow Study Revisited." 11 October, 2012. https://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=4622
• Watts, Tyler W., Greg J. Duncan, and Haonan Quan. "Revisiting the Marshmallow Test: A Conceptual Replication Investigating Links Between Early Delay of Gratification and Later Outcomes." Psychological Science, vol. 28, no. 7, 2018, pp. 1159-1177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618761661
• What Is Uses and Gratifications Theory? Definition and Examples
• Freud: Id, Ego, and Superego Explained
• Understanding the Big Five Personality Traits
• What Is Socioemotional Selectivity Theory?
• Implicit Bias: What It Means and How It Affects Behavior
• What Is Theory of Mind in Psychology?
• Prosopagnosia: What You Should Know About Face Blindness
• What Is Deindividuation in Psychology? Definition and Examples
• Definition and Examples of a Pathological Liar
• What Is the Zone of Proximal Development? Definition and Examples
• What Is the Premack Principle? Definition and Examples
• What Is Object Permanence?
• What Is Social Facilitation? Definition and Examples
• The Montessori Method and Sensitive Periods for Learning
• What Is Identity Diffusion? Definition and Examples
• Myers-Briggs Personality Types: Definitions and Examples

Effectiviology

The Stanford Marshmallow Experiment: How Self-Control Affects Success in Life

The  Stanford marshmallow experiment was a psychological study conducted in the late 1960s to early 1970s , in which children were placed in a room with some tasty snack, such as a marshmallow, and told that if they could wait for a short while before eating it then they will get an extra snack as a reward. Follow-up studies on the experiment found that children’s ability to exercise self-control in this situation, by waiting before eating the snack, was correlated with a large range of positive outcomes later in life, such as academic success and physical health.

This experiment received much attention in popular media, and was used to demonstrate the importance of self-control, a concept which was supported by other studies on the topic .

However, later studies criticized the Stanford marshmallow experiment for various issues with its methodology. Furthermore, the results of a large replication study cast doubt on the predictive abilities of the marshmallow test, especially when controlling for relevant background factors such as family background and home environment.

Nevertheless, despite these criticisms, the Stanford marshmallow experiment remains of interest, due to the notable influence it had on psychological research of self-control and on people’s perception of the topic.

As such, in the following article you will learn more about the Stanford marshmallow experiment and about related research on the importance of self-control, see the main criticisms of this study, and learn how you can use a few simple techniques in order to strengthen your own self-control when necessary.

The procedure and results of the Stanford marshmallow experiment

The initial data collection for the Stanford marshmallow experiment took place between 1968 and 1972, using toddlers and preschoolers around the age of 4, who attended Stanford University’s Bing Nursery School.

The main procedure for the experiment was as follows:

• First, a child was taken into a room and allowed to pick a snack that they would like to eat, such as a marshmallow, a pretzel, or a cookie.
• Then, the child was then told that the researcher has to leave the room for a few minutes, and that if they could wait until the researcher came back without eating the snack, then they would get another snack of their choice as a reward.

The children’s ability to delay gratification was measured by seeing whether they were able to wait until the researcher returned without eating the snack, and if not, then by seeing how long it took before they ate the snack or called the researcher back into the room.

Even though the experiment was short and simple, the researchers found that the children’s performance on this test at an early age predicted their long-term success in various ways. Specifically, kids who were able to wait longer before eating the snack were:

• More likely to be rated by their parents as academically and socially competent, verbally fluent, attentive, and rational, when they were older.
• Better able to deal with frustration and stress as adolescents.
• More likely to have  higher SAT scores as adolescents.
• Less likely to be overweight 30 years later.

Note : the main researcher associated with the Stanford marshmallow experiment is psychologist Walter Mischel, who, together with his colleagues, published the initial studies on the experiment in 1970 and 1972 , as well as the later follow-up studies. Two other notable researchers associated with this experiment are Ebbe B. Ebbesen, who was involved with the initial studies, and Yuichi Shoda, who was involved with the follow-up studies.

Other studies using the marshmallow test

Several studies used the marshmallow test in order to examine the factors that affect children’s performance on it.

For example, studies found that trust plays a significant role in children’s decision to wait on the marshmallow task. This was the case both when it came to specific trust in the person conducting the experiment , who promised the reward to the children if they could wait, as well as when it came to children’s generalized trust in unfamiliar people . Furthermore, similar results regarding the influence of social trust were also found in delayed-gratification tests conducted on adults.

In addition, one study found that children delayed gratification for longer if they believed that members of their ingroup , which is the social group that they identify as being a part of, also waited, while members of their outgroup did not, compared to if they believed that the opposite was true.

Finally, another study compared children’s performance on the marshmallow test when it came to three birth cohorts, from the late 1960s, 1980s, and 2000s, and found that, contrary to people’s expectations, children’s ability to delay gratification has been increasing over time, a finding that has been replicated in other studies.

Other research on the importance of self-control

“People who have better control of their attention, emotions, and actions are better off almost any way you look at it. They are happier and healthier. Their relationships are more satisfying and last longer. They make more money and go further in their careers. They are better able to manage stress, deal with conflict, and overcome adversity. They even live longer. When pit against other virtues, willpower comes out on top. Self-control is a better predictor of academic success than intelligence… a stronger determinant of effective leadership than charisma…. and more important for marital bliss than empathy…” — Kelly McGonigal in “ The Willpower Instinct: How Self-Control Works, Why It Matters, and What You Can Do to Get More of It “

Other research on the topic of self-control, which used different methods than the Stanford marshmallow experiment, supports the idea that self-control, as measured early in life, is associated with a range of positive outcomes later on.

For example, one study found that childhood self-control predicts employment rates at adulthood, with individuals who are low in self-control being more likely to be unemployed.

Similarly, another study found that self-control at childhood predicts factors such as financial status, physical health, substance dependence, and criminal offending at adulthood, with higher levels of self-control leading to better outcomes. This remained the case even when the researchers controlled for background factors such as intelligence and familial socioeconomic status, though these factors did play a crucial role in children’s development. A later study replicated these findings, though its results emphasized, to a greater degree, the role that relevant background factors play in children’s development.

Furthermore, research on self-control found that this factor also plays an important role in predicting people’s success when measured directly during adulthood.

For example, a study conducted on people participating in a weight-loss program found that higher levels of self-control were associated with increased weight loss during the program, as a result of eating less and exercising more.

Similarly, a study conducted on university students showed that higher levels of self-control are correlated with “a higher grade point average, better adjustment (fewer reports of psychopathology, higher self-esteem), less binge eating and alcohol abuse, better relationships and interpersonal skills, secure attachment, and more optimal emotional responses”.

Overall, these studies, together with other studies on the topic, demonstrate that self-control measured both during childhood as well as at later stages of life , is associated with a range of positive outcomes, which suggests that it’s an important ability to have.

Related concepts and terms

The marshmallow experiment focused on people’s ability to delay gratification, a facet of self-control that’s sometimes referred to as “patience”. However, the experiment has been found to be a good predictor of self-control in general, meaning that it can be used to predict people’s ability to exercise control in other ways, such as by bringing themselves to do something that they feel anxious about.

In general, self-control is crucial to people’s ability to self-regulate their behavior in pursuit of their goals. This ability is also affected by their executive functions , which are the cognitive processes and abilities, such as task-switching and behavioral inhibition, that are used to control one’s behavior.

A notable, related concept in psychology is conscientiousness , which is the trait of being disciplined, achievement-oriented, organized, and focused, since this trait is one of the strongest predictors of people’s ability to delay gratification.

Note: the term ‘willpower’ is  sometimes used in place of the term ‘self-control’, though it’s also possible to view willpower as something that people use while they’re exercising self-control.

Criticism and replications of the Stanford marshmallow experiment

Though the Stanford marshmallow experiment gained much positive attention in the research community and the press, it has also been heavily criticized by various groups. The main criticisms of the Stanford marshmallow experiment include the following :

• The initial sample for the experiment was highly selective, as it consisted of children from the Stanford University community.
• The samples used in the longitudinal studies on the experiment were small and even more selective than the initial sample, since they contained only the children examined in the original experiment that the researchers were able to reach later.
• The analyses of the data didn’t always account for potential confounding factors, such as family socioeconomic status and general cognitive abilities.

In light of these criticisms, a large replication study was conducted to assess the validity of the findings from the Stanford marshmallow experiment. This replication examined how well preschooler’s ability to delay gratification on the marshmallow test predicted a variety of academic and behavioral outcomes at age 15.

The researchers considered their study to be “a conceptual, rather than traditional, replication of Mischel and Shoda’s seminal work”, since there were some notable differences between their replication and the original work on the topic. These differences included a larger sample, a focus on children born to mothers who had not completed college, and the use of a modified version of the original marshmallow experiment.

The replication did find that the ability to delay gratification at the age of 4 predicted increased achievement at the age of 15. However, the effect size of this association was only half as big as in the original studies, and was reduced by two thirds when the researchers controlled for relevant factors, such as family background, home environment, and early cognitive ability.

Furthermore, the researchers found that most of the achievement boost from the early ability to delay gratification came from the ability to wait for only 20 seconds. This calls into question the hypothesis proposed by the original researchers, that the relationship between the ability to delay gratification and later academic achievement is driven primarily by the ability to utilize relevant metacognitive strategies, since such strategies are unlikely to have played a significant role in children’s ability to wait only 20 seconds.

The findings of this replication were supported by another replication , which found that the ability to delay gratification at age 4.5 did  not predict children’s academic achievement at age 15, once relevant background variables were controlled for.

In addition, a  different replication of the original study , which followed the original protocol more closely but used a smaller sample, found that the ability to delay gratification at the age of 4 did  not predict children’s performance, more than a decade later, at a task requiring cognitive control. However, the children’s ability to direct their attention away from the rewarding stimuli was associated with increased efficiency at the task, in terms of being able to perform it at greater speed without reduced accuracy.

Moreover, a follow-up study on the original sample from the Stanford marshmallow experiment found that there is no significant relationship between people’s delay of gratification at preschool age and their economic outcomes in their late 40s. Nevertheless, the study did find that there is an association between more comprehensive measures of self-regulation at later ages and people’s economic outcomes in their 40s.

Finally, however, it’s important to note that some of the research criticizing the Stanford marshmallow experiment has also been criticized in itself. For example, the main replication on the topic has been criticized for various reasons , as evident, for instance, in a paper on the topic , which argues that “many of the variables in their models should not have been included as confounds because they likely captured factors that measure fundamental processes supporting delay of gratification”.

Overall, the criticisms and replications of the Stanford marshmallow experiment cast doubt on its validity. Nevertheless, given the large body of supporting evidence on the topic, research suggests that self-control does play an important role when it comes to success in life, both when measured during childhood as well as when measured during adulthood. This suggests that the main issues with the marshmallow experiment are its methodology, which is simple and appealing, but not sufficiently robust.

The cognitive mechanisms of self-control

Based on the findings of the Stanford marshmallow experiment, researchers suggest  that we engage two cognitive systems when faced with a situation that requires self-control:

• Hot system. The hot system is our impulsive, emotional system. Hot behaviors, which rely on this system, include things such as fixating on rewards (e.g. imagining what a marshmallow will taste like). These behaviors undermine our self-control, and make it more difficult for us to resist temptation.
• Cool system. The cool system is our rational, emotionally-neutral system. Cool  strategies, which rely on this system, include things such as successful self-distraction (e.g. playing a game which is unrelated to potential temptations). These strategies help us exercise self-control, and successfully delay gratification.

Based on these mechanisms, we can say that our self-control is affected by our ability to inhibit the occurrence of hot behaviors, by utilizing cool  strategies.

Lessons from the marshmallow experiment on exercising self-control

Though the marshmallow test is primarily known for illustrating the importance of self-control, it also provides several insights into how people can learn to better exercise their self-control.

For example,  one of the original studies on the Stanford marshmallow experiment describes several factors that affected the children’s ability to exercise self-control during the test:

• Children who were told to distract themselves by playing with a toy or by thinking about playing with one were able to delay gratification for longer.
• Children who were told to think about “fun things” were able to wait for significantly longer than those who were told to think “sad thoughts”.
• Children who were told to spend their time thinking about the rewards of the test generally struggled to delay gratification.

Furthermore, the studies on the topic also demonstrate how the children coped with temptation, even when they weren’t instructed how to do so by the researchers. As the first study on the topic states:

“One of the most striking delay strategies used by some subjects was exceedingly simple and effective. These children seemed to facilitate their waiting by converting the aversive waiting situation into a more pleasant nonwaiting one. They devised elaborate self-distraction techniques through which they spent their time psychologically doing something (almost anything) other than waiting. Instead of focusing prolonged attention on the objects for which they were waiting, they avoided looking at them. 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 child successfully did… These observations, while obviously inconclusive, suggest that diverting one’s attention away from the delayed reward (while maintaining behavior directed toward its ultimate attainment) may be a key step in bridging temporal delay of reward. That is, learning not to think about what one is awaiting may enhance delay of gratification, much more than does ideating about the outcomes.”

This means that, in order to help yourself exercise self-control in the face of temptation, you want to avoid obsessing about the potential reward that you’re tempted by or fixating on the difficulty of resisting it. Instead, as soon as you recognize yourself starting to fall into one of these negative thought patterns, you need to mentally “exit” it as quickly as possible.

You can do this by distracting yourself and taking part in unrelated positive experiences, such as reading a book, playing a game, or talking to a friend. The more positive the experience, and the more it can distract you from the potential reward, the more it will help you exercise restraint and self-control.

This may sound difficult to accomplish, but studies show that self-control training can be beneficial  in the long term , and that you can strengthen your self-control through the regular practice of small acts of self-control. As the main book on the topic states:

“…the ability to delay immediate gratification for the sake of future consequences is an acquirable cognitive skill.” — Walter Mischel in “ The Marshmallow Test: Why Self-Control Is the Engine of Success “

This is important, since it means that doing something such as reducing your snacking behavior can later help you exercise self-control in unrelated areas, such as pushing yourself at the gym or fighting against your procrastination tendencies when it comes to doing work.

Note : the book written about the marshmallow test discusses other techniques that you can use to improve your self-control, such as increasing your connection to your future self and creating if-then implementation plans .

Summary and conclusions

• The  Stanford marshmallow experiment was a psychological study conducted in the late 1960s to early 1970s, in which children were placed in a room with some tasty snack, such as a marshmallow, and told that if they could wait for a short while before eating it then they will get an extra snack as a reward.
• Follow-up studies on the experiment found that children’s ability to exercise self-control in this situation, by waiting before eating the snack, was correlated with a large range of positive outcomes later in life, such as academic success and physical health.
• The validity of the marshmallow experiment has been questioned by a number of studies, but also supported by related research on the topic, and overall, it appears that while the marshmallow test is flawed in some ways, self-control nevertheless plays an important role in people’s development.
• The researchers who conducted the Stanford marshmallow experiment suggested that the ability to delay gratification depends primarily on the ability to engage our cool , rational cognitive system, in order to inhibit our hot , impulsive system.
• Therefore, to improve your ability to exercise self-control, you can focus on using relevant cool strategies, such as distracting yourself from tempting rewards, in order to inhibit hot behaviors, such as obsessing about the difficulty of resisting a certain temptation.

If you found this concept interesting and you want to learn more about it, read the main book on the topic, which was written by the primary researcher involved with the study: “ The Marshmallow Test: Why Self-Control Is the Engine of Success “.

Other articles you may find interesting:

• The Empathy Gap: Why People Fail to Understand Different Perspectives
• Authority Bias: Lessons from the Milgram Obedience Experiment
• The Napoleon Technique: Postponing Things to Increase Productivity

• General Categories
• Mental Health
• IQ and Intelligence
• Bipolar Disorder

Marshmallow Experiment Psychology: Unraveling the Science of Delayed Gratification

A simple choice between one marshmallow now or two later has become a lens through which psychologists study the critical human capacity for delayed gratification. This seemingly innocent decision, faced by countless children in a groundbreaking experiment, has sparked decades of research and debate in the field of psychology. It’s a tale of temptation, willpower, and the intricate workings of the human mind.

Picture this: a child, alone in a room, staring at a fluffy white marshmallow. The researcher has just left, promising a second treat if the child can resist eating the first one for 15 minutes. What would you do? It’s a scenario that has captivated psychologists and the public alike, offering insights into the complexities of human behavior and decision-making.

The Marshmallow Experiment, as it’s now famously known, wasn’t just a quirky study about kids and sweets. It opened up a whole new world of understanding about self-control, cognitive development, and even life success. But before we dive into the gooey center of this psychological confection, let’s take a step back and look at how it all began.

The Birth of a Psychological Classic

In the late 1960s, psychologist Walter Mischel and his colleagues at Stanford University were cooking up something special in the field of developmental psychology experiments . They wanted to understand how children develop the ability to delay gratification and how this skill might impact their lives in the long run.

Mischel wasn’t the first to ponder such questions, but he had a knack for designing experiments that were both scientifically rigorous and irresistibly intriguing. The Marshmallow Experiment was born out of this perfect blend of curiosity and creativity.

The premise was deceptively simple: offer a child a choice between an immediate reward (one marshmallow) or a larger reward (two marshmallows) if they could wait for a short period. But as with many great scientific endeavors, the devil – and the delight – was in the details.

The Original Marshmallow Experiment: A Sweet Study in Self-Control

Let’s break down the nuts and bolts of this sugary study. Mischel and his team recruited children aged 3 to 5 years old from Stanford University’s Bing Nursery School. These little participants were about to become unwitting pioneers in the field of delay of gratification psychology .

The experimental procedure was a masterclass in simplicity and effectiveness. Each child was led into a distraction-free room, where they were presented with a treat of their choice – be it a marshmallow, cookie, or pretzel stick. The researcher then gave the child a proposition: they could eat the treat right away, or if they waited for the researcher to return (about 15 minutes), they would get two treats.

After explaining the rules, the researcher left the room, leaving the child alone with the tempting treat and their thoughts. What followed was a fascinating display of human nature in its rawest form.

Some children gobbled up the treat almost immediately, succumbing to the siren call of instant gratification psychology . Others tried various tactics to resist temptation – covering their eyes, singing to themselves, or even trying to nap. A few stoic souls managed to wait out the full 15 minutes, earning their double reward.

The initial findings were intriguing. On average, children were able to wait about 11 minutes before giving in to temptation. But the real magic of this experiment was yet to come.

Unraveling the Psychological Tapestry

The Marshmallow Experiment wasn’t just about counting how many kids could resist a sweet treat. It opened up a treasure trove of insights into the human psyche, particularly in the realm of self-control and delayed gratification.

At its core, the study tapped into a fundamental aspect of human behavior: the ability to forgo immediate pleasure for a greater future reward. This concept, known as delayed gratification, is a cornerstone of psychological research and has far-reaching implications for understanding human development and behavior.

The experiment shed light on the intricate workings of executive function in children. This set of cognitive processes, which includes working memory, flexible thinking, and self-control, plays a crucial role in how we navigate the world around us. The children who successfully delayed gratification demonstrated a higher level of executive function, suggesting a link between these cognitive skills and the ability to resist temptation.

But the Marshmallow Experiment wasn’t just about cold, hard cognitive processes. It also revealed fascinating insights into emotional regulation and impulse control. The strategies children used to avoid eating the marshmallow – from distraction techniques to reframing their thoughts – offered a window into the development of these crucial emotional skills.

The Long and Winding Road: Follow-Up Studies and Long-Term Impact

Here’s where things get really interesting. Mischel and his team didn’t just stop at observing children and marshmallows. They embarked on a series of follow-up studies that would span decades, tracking the original participants as they grew up and ventured into the world.

The results were nothing short of astonishing. Children who had demonstrated greater self-control in the original experiment tended to have higher SAT scores, lower body mass index (BMI), better social skills, and higher educational achievement. They were even less likely to use drugs.

These findings sent shockwaves through the psychological community. Could a simple test of willpower at age four really predict success in life? It seemed almost too good to be true – and as we’ll see later, it partly was.

The Marshmallow Experiment’s apparent predictive power extended beyond academics. Participants who had waited longer for the second marshmallow reported higher levels of life satisfaction and seemed to have more successful careers. It was as if that single act of childhood self-control had set them on a path to lifelong achievement.

But before we get carried away with the power of the marshmallow, it’s important to note that these long-term correlations, while fascinating, don’t tell the whole story. As with many weird psychology experiments , the Marshmallow Experiment had its limitations and critics.

Modern Interpretations: Replication and Reevaluation

In recent years, the Marshmallow Experiment has faced scrutiny and reevaluation. Attempts to replicate the study have yielded mixed results, sparking a broader conversation about the reliability and generalizability of psychological research.

One of the most significant challenges to the original findings came from a 2018 study that attempted to replicate the experiment with a much larger and more diverse sample. This study found that while there was still a correlation between delayed gratification and later outcomes, it was much smaller than originally reported. Moreover, much of the variation could be explained by factors such as family background, home environment, and socioeconomic status.

This revelation highlighted the importance of considering the broader context in which psychological experiments take place. The ability to delay gratification isn’t just a matter of individual willpower – it’s deeply influenced by a child’s environment and experiences.

Cultural variations in delayed gratification have also come under the microscope. Research has shown that the concept of delaying rewards for future gain isn’t universally valued across all cultures. Some societies place a higher premium on immediate reciprocity and sharing, challenging the notion that delayed gratification is always the optimal strategy.

Another fascinating aspect that has emerged from modern interpretations is the role of trust and environmental stability. Children who grow up in unpredictable environments may rationally choose immediate rewards because they can’t be sure the promised future reward will materialize. This insight has profound implications for understanding behavior in different socioeconomic contexts.

From Lab to Life: Practical Applications of Marshmallow Psychology

Despite the ongoing debates and reinterpretations, the Marshmallow Experiment has left an indelible mark on psychology and popular culture. Its principles have been applied in various fields, from education to personal development.

In the classroom, educators have developed strategies to help children improve their self-control and ability to delay gratification. These range from mindfulness exercises to games that practice waiting and planning. The goal isn’t to create a generation of marshmallow-resisters, but to equip children with valuable life skills.

Parenting techniques have also been influenced by the study’s findings. Many parenting books and programs now emphasize the importance of teaching children patience and self-regulation. However, it’s crucial to balance this with an understanding of each child’s individual needs and circumstances.

In the realm of therapy and personal development, the principles of delayed gratification have been incorporated into various interventions. Cognitive-behavioral approaches often include strategies for managing impulses and working towards long-term goals, echoing the lessons learned from those patient preschoolers.

The Marshmallow Experiment has even found its way into the world of goal-setting and productivity. Many self-help gurus and life coaches use the marshmallow analogy to encourage people to resist short-term temptations in favor of long-term success.

The Sweet Conclusion: Lessons from a Simple Treat

As we wrap up our journey through the world of marshmallows and psychology, it’s worth taking a moment to reflect on what we’ve learned. The Marshmallow Experiment, for all its simplicity, has provided a rich tapestry of insights into human behavior and development.

From its humble beginnings in a Stanford preschool to its status as a cultural touchstone, this study has captivated researchers and the public alike. It’s sparked debates, inspired further research, and challenged our understanding of self-control and success.

But perhaps the most valuable lesson from the Marshmallow Experiment is not about marshmallows at all. It’s about the complexity of human behavior and the danger of oversimplification. While the ability to delay gratification is undoubtedly important, it’s just one piece of the puzzle when it comes to understanding human psychology and predicting life outcomes.

As we look to the future, the field of delayed response psychology continues to evolve. Researchers are exploring new questions about self-control, decision-making, and the factors that shape our choices. The Marshmallow Experiment may have started the conversation, but it’s far from the final word.

In the end, the story of the Marshmallow Experiment reminds us of the enduring fascination of human behavior. From the Stanford Prison Experiment to the Milgram Experiment , psychology has a rich history of studies that challenge our assumptions and expand our understanding of what it means to be human.

So, the next time you’re faced with a marshmallow – or any temptation – remember: your choice might say something about you, but it doesn’t define you. After all, life is far more complex and wonderful than any single experiment can capture. And sometimes, maybe it’s okay to just enjoy the marshmallow.

References:

1. Mischel, W., Ebbesen, E. B., & Raskoff Zeiss, A. (1972). Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21(2), 204–218.

2. Casey, B. J., Somerville, L. H., Gotlib, I. H., Ayduk, O., Franklin, N. T., Askren, M. K., … & Shoda, Y. (2011). Behavioral and neural correlates of delay of gratification 40 years later. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(36), 14998-15003.

3. Watts, T. W., Duncan, G. J., & Quan, H. (2018). Revisiting the Marshmallow Test: A Conceptual Replication Investigating Links Between Early Delay of Gratification and Later Outcomes. Psychological Science, 29(7), 1159–1177.

4. Kidd, C., Palmeri, H., & Aslin, R. N. (2013). Rational snacking: Young children’s decision-making on the marshmallow task is moderated by beliefs about environmental reliability. Cognition, 126(1), 109-114.

5. Mischel, W. (2014). The Marshmallow Test: Mastering self-control. Little, Brown and Company.

6. Duckworth, A. L., Tsukayama, E., & Kirby, T. A. (2013). Is it really self-control? Examining the predictive power of the delay of gratification task. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(7), 843-855.

7. Michaelson, L. E., & Munakata, Y. (2020). Same data set, different conclusions: Preschool delay of gratification predicts later behavioral outcomes in a preregistered study. Psychological Science, 31(2), 193-201.

8. Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Peake, P. K. (1990). Predicting adolescent cognitive and self-regulatory competencies from preschool delay of gratification: Identifying diagnostic conditions. Developmental Psychology, 26(6), 978–986.

Was this article helpful?

Would you like to add any comments (optional), leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Post Comment

Related Resources

Natural Experiments in Psychology: Unveiling Real-World Insights

Dichotic Listening in Psychology: Unraveling Auditory Processing

Psychological Illusions: Exploring the Tricks Our Minds Play

Moderators in Psychology: Key Factors Influencing Relationships Between Variables

Nova Psychology: Exploring the Frontiers of Human Behavior and Mental…

Game Theory in Psychology: Unraveling Human Decision-Making

Greebles in Psychology: Exploring Visual Object Recognition and Expertise

Hypothesis in Psychology: Definition, Types, and Applications

Naturalistic Observation in Psychology: Definition, Examples, and Applications

Induction Psychology: Exploring the Power of Inductive Reasoning in Cognitive…