Revisiting the Marshmallow Test

[monk222]

_ _ _

[R]esearchers from the University of Rochester divided a group of 28 children in half and primed them to feel like they were in “reliable” or “unreliable” situations. They presented the children with closed jars of crayons, and told them if they could wait to open the jar until the adult came back, they would get a new, bigger set of art supplies to draw with instead. For children in the reliable group, the adult returned with the promised new supplies; for the unreliable group the adult came back, apologized for not having the new supplies, and suggested that the child draw with the original crayons. The researchers then ran a second, similar scenario using stickers.

Then came the marshmallow test. Again, each child was in a chair at a table alone with a marshmallow and told that if he or she could wait, there would be a second marshmallow when the adult returned. Children in the reliable environment waited on average four times longer than children in the unreliable environment (12 minutes as opposed to 3) and twice as long as children in the original test, who waited an average of about 6 minutes.

[The conclusion:]

“Delaying gratification is only the rational choice if the child believes a second marshmallow is likely to be delivered after a reasonably short delay,” [study author Celeste Kidd] said. Self control isn’t so important, it seems, if you don’t think there’s anything worth controlling yourself for.

-- Sully's Dish