In a study led by Walter Mischel, professor of psychology at Stanford University, children’s ability to delay gratification was tested. So what were the results of this experiment with just one marshmallow? What was revealed when the results of this and a similar experiment were compared? We have covered them all in this article.
Researchers conditionally awards When presented, he wondered if they would delay gratification instead of immediately reaping the reward.
In 1970, this experiment with preschool children wanted to measure the level or lack of cognitive ability of children to delay pleasure. Then come this try Let’s look at the details together.
At the first stage, the experiment was started with a participant group consisting of 56 children. To get the kids used to the experiment, the researchers first played some games with them.
Distributing the children into five groups from A to E, the researchers took each of them to separate rooms. Children in groups A, B and C. a marshmallow given.
What happened next was interesting. The children were told that the experts would leave the rooms for a while and then return. It was stated that if they waited for them, they would be given another marshmallow in front of them. But psychologists can teach children if they want to. that they can eat the candy right away also expressed. However, those who ate immediately did not have the right to a second nap.
The waiting time was 15 minutes. So what happened after this time passed?
Children in groups A, B and C, who show sufficient patience, two marshmallows could eat. Children who did not wait and gave up did not get a second nap as stated at the beginning. Children in groups D and E were not served anything. After the 15-minute period, all children were allowed to play with the toys. Then, while the children were playing with the toys, they were asked to think of fun things. This could be things like singing and thinking about different types of games.
After observing for a while, experts some children deemed it appropriate to exclude it from the experiment. Because some did not understand the directions of the experts, that is, they did not follow the instructions. Therefore, it was decided that it was appropriate to continue the study with 50 children.
Then the very surprising second part of the experiment was started.
It was stated that experts will leave the room, as in the beginning, for 50 children. Then the children were told whether they ring the bell or not. 15 minutes After waiting, they were told that they could play with the toys. Of course, it must be really hard for them to put small children in a room full of toys and say “you can play with them after this long”. On the other hand, the results revealed that the children who were included in the groups A, B and C and waited for two sweets for 15 minutes were more patient than the other groups.
In another stage of the experiment, the children were divided into three groups and they were again offered marshmallows. However, during this waiting period, each group was asked to think differently.
Group A was told to think about fun things, group B about sad things, and group C to think of sweet food soon. The logic was still the same. If they waited for 15 minutes without calling the experts, the number of rewards they would get increased, if they did not wait, they could not earn anything extra. As a result in group A It was seen that the children waited longer than the other groups.
Mischel and his team aim to leave the instant pleasure of children for later; He suggested that they can learn by ignoring the source of pleasure or by thinking about positive things independent of the topic. According to experts, this type of delay is already postponing the feeling of obtaining instant satisfaction. to cognitive activities was attached. In other words, it was necessary to adopt the philosophy of “either you will avoid the object of desire or suppress the desire for it”.
In other experiments on this, children who internalize the idea of gaining longer-term gains without feeling a moment of pleasure were found to be patient. they have succeeded detected.
In another study led by psychologist Tyler Watts, a group of 900 children was examined.
Each of these children had a different ethnic origin, socioeconomic status and parental structure. In this study, children socioeconomic status, The relationship with the behavior of delaying gratification was investigated.
The results were quite striking. You ask why? Because experts said that positive results cannot always be obtained from delayed gratification behavior. So, we can say that this was the opposite of what Mischel et al. Watts’ team said they could wait to receive a second marshmallow prize. social and economic defined it as a situation determined by its infrastructure.
Simply put, we can say that the importance of the family factor in children’s behavior cannot be ignored. For example, in the study, it was seen that children who were not financially well off were more impatient waiting for a second nap. According to experts, this was due to poor children’s lives being more precarious than rich children’s. That is, someone who is not in good condition, “If I find food today I will eat it, if I can’t find food tomorrow I will starve” He was thought to be acting in logic.
In short, we can say that waiting is a risk for those with a low socioeconomic level. You ask why? Because the parents of these kids might never get them candy. In other words, academics stated that it is not the right attitude to say that these children have low self-control skills. The children of well-educated and well-off families delay gratification more easily seen. However, the researchers attributed this easy situation to them precisely to these economic and status reasons.
Because that marshmallow wasn’t the food these kids needed, their parents had the opportunity to buy them any other snacks they wanted. In other similar studies, children of poor parents parents who are according to their children It was seen that they had more cravings for this type of snack.
In the end, the different perspectives offered by the two studies show that: According to the first study, children who delay instant gratification in order to receive a reward may be considered to be more successful in adulthood than those who cannot wait for the reward. Or we can say that for children who can wait for a second nap, their self-control skills are higher and they manage to not be influenced by external factors. Which is essentially in this experiment, for more pleasure. short-term pleasure We can also state that the message that the postponement will be positive is wanted to be given.
However, when we look at the second research, it can be seen that the inferences of the previous research are insufficient. Because when comparing children, we should not evaluate them only by their child identities, this id We can understand it very well when we consider the social factors such as the family that builds it, socioeconomic status, ethnicity and education level.
That is, delayed or not postponed in childhood. that pleasure will always bring gain to the person in the future. Unfortunately, making a generalization in this direction may not be valid for every individual. In fact, through such experiments, we see the importance of thinking that different dynamics can also be involved when generalizing about a subject.