Self-Control Questions

Over at the New Yorker website, I've answered a few questions from readers about the marshmallow task:

Do you think the future results of success would be different for a sample of kids born in the twenty-first century considering the decades of behavioral, economical changes in the society?
Hassan Patwary
San Jose, Calif.

I think it would be hard to replicate the marshmallow task now, if only because it's gotten much tougher to feed hundreds of preschoolers sugary snacks in the name of science. There are allergies, peculiar diets, and all sorts of food issues. So you'd have to find something else that little kids want to wait for, be it plastic figurines or poker chips.

My guess, though, is that you wouldn't get different results with twenty-first-century children. (The scientists agree.) I think the challenge of self-control is a perdurable feature of human nature and isn't particularly influenced by the toys of the age, be it Legos or Nintendo. Parenting fads come and go, but waiting is hard work. It always has been and always will.

However, if there were observable differences between the performance of kids in 1968 and 2009, I'd probably blame boredom. One thing that struck me while watching the videos of the four-year-olds is that the experiment was really tedious. These little kids were asked to sit in a bare room with nothing to do but stare at a marshmallow. Part of what the scientists were measuring, then, was how children reacted to the state of being bored. Could they come up with inventive ways of entertaining themselves? Were they able to lose track of time in a daydream, or start an interesting conversation with an imaginary friend?

I've got no good evidence for this, but I sometimes wonder if little kids today are less able to tolerate the absence of stimulation. After all, why suffer through boredom when there's a television with three hundred channels and a computer with an endless supply of arcade games? There's just so much possible entertainment, so why not be entertained?

The problem, though, is that self-stimulation skills are learned through practice--it's not easy inventing a pretend playmate--and if the child is used to turning on the television when bored then maybe he'll find it harder to delay gratification when there's no TV. But that's just rampant speculation.


More like this

Let's begin with this recent experiment by neuroscientists at Rutgers, which demonstrated that general intelligence (at least in rodents) is mediated by improvements in selective attention. Here's the abstract: In both humans and mice, the efficacy of working memory capacity and its related process…
In a recent NY Times Magazine, Mark Bittman (aka the Minimalist) waxes enthusiastic on the potential of online grocery shopping: That's why, to focus on things that could happen in our lifetimes, we should take a look at improving online grocery shopping. The one time I tried shopping online I was…
Ross Douthat reflects on the recent news that teenage birthrates inched upward during the Bush era, after more than a decade of decline: The new numbers, declared the president of Planned Parenthood, make it "crystal clear that abstinence-only sex education for teenagers does not work." In reality…
For the most part, self-control is seen as an individual trait, a measure of personal discipline. If you lack self-control, then it's your own fault, a character flaw built into the brain. However, according to a new study by Michelle vanDellen, a psychologist at the University of Georgia, self-…

Being of an age when we didn't have TV growing up, I can speak a bit to you comment about finding it hard to self-stimulate. We played like crazy and pretended that stuff was...just about anything. I have 11 grandkids and I notice that when they are under 2 years old, they do the same thing, but when they grow older and start to see TV and video games, they stop playing by themselves. It's really sad, and frankly I believe that the net result will be less creativity. I suppose in another 20 years, we will know the answer. I doubt that I will be around to see it, but there you are.

Always glad to see your writing showing up in places like the New Yorker. You're performing a valuable public service out there in this current wasteland of hyperbolic science reporting.

I wonder what the relationship is between the capacity for tolerating boredom (enjoying stillness?), and, conversely, adeptly navigating and parsing multiple mutually impinging streams of information. What stylistic trade-offs are we making, and why is it so damned tempting to crank the tv while we're simultaneously trying to read a blog and check our email? Do we naturally tend toward information rich environments, or is it something about these specific sources of temptation?

Self play may be genetically programmed? TV & Computer are accessible to my 4year-old, yet he gets bored with both,& resorts to self play eventually.

Anecdotal data is dubious, especially when self-reported by parents about their own kids, but we disconnected our TV when my son was a baby. We watched the occasional video on the VCR, but fairly limited, never had a game console. My son is 17 now and never acts bored. The thing about parenting, you never get to try it both ways, which is why twin studies are so valuable.

I guess it would be hard to replicated the marshmallow study these days. You would probably have to arrange for the parents to bring their own treats which would make it a little harder to get a truly random sample.

Several questions come to mind:

How will personality differences--e.g., introvert/extrovert, curious/passive, etc.--enter into the results?

What will the future "global" culture require for "success" and how will people respond?

In the fifties (I was a HS grad in '56) parents--mine and my friends--had completed their formal education by their mid twenties. My generation could continue their education, as many did, into middle age and beyond. How will the current generation pursue knowledge?

Thanks for the query.

"How will personality differences--e.g., introvert/extrovert, curious/passive, etc.--enter into the results?"

Did you read the article?

Mischel was critical of psychology's reliance on personality traits back in the 60's when he was consulting for the Peace Corps.

Volunteers were tested for standard personality traits, and Mischel compared the results with ratings of how well the volunteers performed in the field. He found no correlation; the time-consuming tests predicted nothing. At this point, Mischel realized that the problem wasnât the testsâit was their premise. Psychologists had spent decades searching for traits that exist independently of circumstance, but what if personality canât be separated from context?

I saw nothing in the article to indicate that he changed his mind on that.

Personally, I'd like to hear more about Mischel's criticism of personality trait based psychology. It makes a lot of sense to me. When taken to the extreme, personality trait based psych starts to reminds me altogether too much of horoscopes. Trying to separate personality from situation does seem like an oversimplification.
Again, quoting Mischel from the article:

âIn general, trying to separate nature and nurture makes about as much sense as trying to separate personality and situation,â he says. âThe two influences are completely interrelated.â

Back in the late 70's / early 80's, the principal of my Catholic grade school, Sister Andrea Rodgers O.S.B., was always encouraging us to play a "game" with ourselves. "Whenever you're thirsty," she would say, "see how long you can make yourself wait before getting a glass of water and then, when you've got your glass, see how long you can wait before taking a drink."

We just thought she was bonkers.

By Rocketman (not verified) on 26 May 2009 #permalink

I just performed this test on my kids today (two four year old girls adopted from China a few years ago). The results were surprising.

I really wasn't sure how they'd respond because few 4 year olds are pillars of self control and restraint. But they did amazingly well. In fact, when the test was over, they weren't sure it was really okay to eat the treats! Any other time, they'd have plowed them into their mouth with both hands!

Curious people can check our our blog here:


I'd actually be very curious to see the results of the exact same test when compared between adults, teenagers, and preschoolers. I'm no scientist (yet), but I'd probably predict that as the person got older, they'd hesitate either much more: "Why is this person giving me a marshmallow? Obviously, they want me to wait... Or do they want me to think they want me to wait? Should I eat it? Oh screw it, it'll go straight to my hips... Alright, but just one.." or much less: "Well, I don't need two marshmallows, I can have as many as I want when I get home."

The only forseeable issue is a bunch of jerky teens trying to mess with the results. Which would be interesting to monitor, also, but would be a totally different test. Any other predictions?

I enjoyed your New Yorker article. I am sure that this is repeatable evidence, and is contemporary as well. The only thing about these kinds of studies, and I believe you point this out nicely, is that defining success is a difficult, and completely subjective thing to do. I fall into this trap all of the time, which can make me miserable. Perhaps the poor SAT scores etc, are actually an indication of impulsive creativity, which has a risk factor, but also a deeply satisfying reward potential built in.

please pardon my english, it is not the best...

Frogger is my favorite target dissemble, and I was only wondering if anyone here liked to challenge frogger.

In action you want a minor information on the play, read this:

The deception of Frogger brings backwards memories for people in their forties. The game was such a deathless it was rhythmical on an occurrence of Seinfeld. Who could overlook George Costanza wheeling the Frogger across the thoroughfare trying to conserve his high business, inspiring in and outside of traffic just like Frogger himself, exclusive to fool the line of work smashed up on a Mac truck. Instant Frogger has transform into a favorite of people of all ages again thanks to the iPhone.

Developed by Konami Digital Diversion, who are also known for the sake of games like Shushed Hill and Pro Evolution Soccer, Frogger is a meeting produced in 1981 that many cardinal started playing in the arcade and then in their homes. It has remained standard and you will-power find Frogger games on several websites throughout the internet smooth today.The Frogger iPhone app means you can instant bet wherever you go.

The encounter was at universal to be called "Highway Crossing Frog" but Sega didn't feel like this superiority upheld the temperament of the meet and decided to switch the name to Frogger. Again the entitle of this trick has moderately much become a household name. There is not many people you run into that can candidly reply they entertain not in a million years heard of Frogger.

Frogger as an iPhone effort is a brilliant suggestion and obviously a lyrical popular one. Frogger ranks as the army 8 most downloaded app in the iPhone app store. There from been varied reviewers who stated that the eminence of the iPhone app was notable and gameplay compares to the original. While the graphics have all the hallmarks to be improved some reviewers still appearance of to crave the conceivability of being qualified to change the game screen to the 1980's retro look of the primordial Frogger.

From the 1980's until now, Frogger seems to have stood the analysis of time again in the video game spectacle industry. From the arcade to the playstation, and second from the computer to the iPhone who ever memories that a slight green frog jumping in and visible of shipping would quiet be conventional a quarter of a century later. Contemporarily thanks to the Apple iPhone you can ad lib this classic arcade game wherever you are and wherever you go.

Comprehend a more in-depth assessment of the Frogger iPhone app here. Looking for more word on the a- iPhone apps or to pore over more reviews of iPhone apps visit AppCraver today. AppCraver is dedicated to iPhone apps, rumour, reviews and interviews with iPhone attentiveness stick-to-it-iveness developers.

By TotaOvact (not verified) on 17 Jan 2010 #permalink

Welcome. I think that yes it is. This blog is so interesting that you spend most of his reading of his time. Waiting for the next entries. Yours.

"I've got no good evidence for this, but I sometimes wonder if little kids today are less able to tolerate the absence of stimulation. "
I agree with that 100%

Anytime I research a topic I have no clue what i may find. I'm so thrilled to have discovered your complete blogging as it flawlessly details the questions I have in mind and also the unmentioned issues which i would've checked for later on.

While I make this happen point online. I aim to get this kind of facebook thing in here and I can not seem to find it. Where in the world must i find this specific twitting factor in below so we could acquire changes? Or why don't you consider Nourishes can easily anyone tell me this kind of?

The bottom line is simple. If the PAC 10 wants to expand and actually bring in revenue to the conference, it should be looking at BYU way ahead of Utah, not the other way around.

Who can ever forget the birthday he spent in the original Ontario studios (RIP). in his birthday suit while doing his on-air shift I can but wont relate a few other stories as wellBut out of respect to Don, I wont here!

Excellent goods from you, man. Self-Control Questions : The Frontal Cortex I have understand your stuff previous to and you're just extremely magnificent. I really like what you've acquired here, really like what you are stating and the way in which you say it. You make it enjoyable and you still care for to keep it smart. I can not wait to read much more from you. This is really a wonderful Self-Control Questions : The Frontal Cortex informations.