Talk:Delayed gratification

instant gratification

Why doesn't instant gratification have it's own article? It's not the same thing as deferred gratification. I know the term has been floating around for longer than the emotional intelligence books have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.32.86 (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to create one. It's the opposite, not the same thing. I guess it is less interesting because most gratification is instant, so one assumes gratification is instant by default unless otherwise specified. I suspect the phrase 'instant gratification' may only have been originated after 'delayed/deferred gratification' ? Of course this is mere speculation, so I leave it to others to do the research and confirm it !

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Impulse Control the Same as Deferred Gratification?

Impulse control redirects here. Are they really the same? DCDuring 02:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

'See also' links to Impulse control disorder. They are related, but the disorder is the extreme opposite. I think the redirect is good, taking people via a general discussion before a specific extreme state.--195.137.93.171 (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it would be a very good idea to have an article about Impulse control, but we don't have one - and unfortunately I cannot write it. Lova Falk talk 13:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Alternative Arguments?

This information seems rather poorly reasoned. Are there no other studies to present here?

Why would someone who experienced random punishment in response to working towards long term goals be equally as able to delay gratification?

IE someone whose parent's downplayed their every accomplishment, who lost a great deal of savings due to some unfortunate event, or who were punished in other ways. It seems likely that such kids would subconsciously reason that short term gratification was a sure thing compared to uncertain longterm gratification, thus they would be intuitively directed to focus on current gratification.

Also people who received such random punishment would obviously be more likely to be considered irritable. mimo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.109.85.220 (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be relevant to the current article. See Learned helplessness ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Link to the Survey is a waste of time

I went to the link currently #4 in the refs and took this long ass survey which I expected to come back with some useful info, but it very much didn't. Hope this saves somebody else some time. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I took the survey and found the questions to be mildly interesting. I waited 20 minutes before submitting it though. --Stéphane Charette (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going to take the Delaying Gratification Inventory but it said it was going to take 15 minutes to complete so I said "Fuck that." EVCM (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Link now gone, but do you ever think that you have unwittingly been taking part in someone else's experiment ? If the survey was a joke rooted in deep self-referential irony, then "well trolled" to the joker !

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Taking it further

It would be interesting to see a similar test done where the children are offered one marshmallow and promised the other marshmallow after 20 minutes. After the 20 minutes the children who did not take the first one are denied both marshmallows thus breaking the promise and see how the children relate to delayed gratification and broken promises as they grow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.38.49.130 (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The marshmallow experiment is but one of a huge pool of research on how animals - including university graduate students :) - do not use exponential discounting to make trade offs between near term and long term rewards. The work article's references to Anisle is a good place to anchor a search for more info if your interested. Bhyde (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Marshmallow Test results

I do not have documentation of these claims, but heard from a very reliable source that in the Marshmallow Experiment, the key conclusion that was reached in finding a deferred gratification gene was not the amount of time the subject 4-year-old waited before (if at all) giving into temptation, but the use of coping mechanisms in deferring gratification versus children who simply endured the time. E.G. a child who "closed their eyes", "clapped their hands", "sang songs", ect. to avoid thinking about the Marshmallow and only lasted 5 minutes still might score higher than a child who sat and stared at the Marshmallow for 20 minutes "torturing themselves" with the prospect of eating the Marshmallow. This is important because it is considered "unteachable in children of that age" and thus genetically inherent. If anyone can research this and add it in coherently with the appropriate attribution, it would help clarify the intent of the experiment. Thanks. --24.167.92.4 (talk) 23:48, 4

April 2009 (UTC)

In spite of the title of the New Yorker article the actual strategies for solving this problem are mentioned only briefly; but yes those techniques are mentioned there. The Ansile book on Willpower includes an attempt to catalog and organize all the know techniques; along with how they all have unfortunate side effects. Bhyde (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it really genetic?

I have a problem with people saying they think something is genetic when they haven't identified an actual gene for it? It's plausible that this is simply learned behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.32.86 (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm unaware of any studies on man or animal that the extent of hyperbolic discounting or their skill at tempering has a genetic component. Suggesting that risks drags in a lot of stereotyping and racism baggage. But, the good news is that the current version doesn't suggest that. Bhyde (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If a behavior is only observed in humans, and not always there, I think researchers are justified in looking for markers on the human genome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.70.168 (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Learned Delayed Gratification ?

I would say the concept is only important if it can be applied. Has anyone tried teaching children to be patient in practice?

The Stanford marshmallow experiment reminds me of videos of dogs that have been trained to sit patiently with a treat balanced on their nose. I could find them, but don't fancy wading through hundreds of 'dog torture' videos right now ! The one I am thinking of ends by tricking the dog with a 'pretend treat' that didn't exist !

Not sure if that disproves "animals do not defer gratification" - that statement needs [citation needed] ! I guess you would have to fight the dog for the treat if it disobeyed by not waiting ?

In fact the use of the word 'unable' in the article is an unwarranted assumption. It ignores the attitude "I could have waited, but I choose one now rather than two later" !

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed! "Research also indicates that animals do not defer gratification, but instead apply hyperbolic discounting" ...humans apply 'hyperbolic discounting' too! 'defer gratifitication' is what happens when through hyperbolic discounting, you find that waiting is better. This needs to be changed. 74.212.173.162 (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your assertation with the word unable, are there any recent reliable sources that can be found to clear this up? Beefcake6412 (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis

I added more reliable sources and included more information in the psychoanalysis section. I also added more to the research section to include other studies than just the Stanford Marshmallow Experiment. The article can still use some work if others want to look for other studies dealing with delayed gratification. (Markhundley41 (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC))

APSWI group

I, username: Coopercog, am representing the APSWI group that is editing the page. We have reviewed the previous submission suggestion and have made numerous changes and rearrangements to our suggested additions below. We have also taken care to retain all information currently on the page. We will be submitting our new page on 10/31/12. Please let me know once we have uploaded if there are any changes or problems that we need to fix. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coopercog (talk • contribs) 19:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The APSWI group has revised the article based on feedback from TheSpecialUser and would like for it to be reassessed for good article status. We made the following revisions: added a lead that summarizes the article, added citations, reformatted citations and included links, and edited grammar and spelling. Thank you! Andreamascitelli

This is the work that the APSWI group did for this page, we would like the editor to look at it and suggest any changes for us to make.

Introduction

Delayed gratification is the ability to resist the temptation for an immediate reward, and to instead wait for a later reward. Generally, delayed gratification is associated with resisting a smaller but more immediate reward in order to receive a larger or more enduring reward later.[1] A person’s ability to delay gratification relates to other similar self-regulation skills, such as patience, impulse control, decision-making, self-control and willpower.

1. Psychological Perspectives

1.1 Clinical Perspective:

Freudian drives/impulses

Sigmund Freud viewed the struggle to delay gratification as a person’s efforts to overcome the instinctive, libidinal drive of the id. According to classic psychoanalytic theory, the id wants physical pleasure, and it wants it now. The ego, operating under the “reality principle,” serves to moderate the id’s desire for instant gratification. A person plagued by intrapsychic conflict – whose ego cannot adequately regulate the battle between the id and the superego – experiences psychological distress, often in the form of anxiety or “neurosis.”[2]

Contemporary clinical psychology perspectives on delayed gratification

Self-control has been called the “master virtue,[3]” suggesting that the ability to delay gratification plays a critical role in a person’s overall psychological adjustment. People who possess higher levels of self-regulation (which includes delayed gratification) report more happiness, higher self-esteem, and more productive ways of responding to anger and other provocations.[4] Early delay ability has been shown to protect against the development of a variety of emotional vulnerabilities later in life, such as aggression and features of borderline personality disorder.[5] Meanwhile, many maladaptive coping skills that characterize mental illness are examples of difficulty delaying gratification. The tendency to choose short-term rewards at the expense of longer-term benefits permeates many forms of psychopathology.

Externalizing disorders (i.e., acting-out disorders) show a clearer link to delayed gratification, since they more directly involve deficits in impulse control. For example, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and aggressive behavior are associated with difficulty delaying gratification in children and adolescents,[5],[6] as are substance abuse, gambling, and other addictive behaviors in adolescents and adults.[5] In a recent study, teenagers and young adults with stronger abilities to delay gratification were less likely to drink alcohol, or to smoke cigarettes or marijuana[7]. Interestingly, one recent study found that the contrast in delayed gratification between children with and without ADHD was no longer significant after statistically controlling for IQ[8]. This may stem from the high correlation between intelligence and delayed gratification [9], and suggests that the tie between delayed gratification and ADHD could benefit from more investigation.

Delayed gratification also plays a role in internalizing disorders like anxiety and depression[10]. A hallmark behavior in anxiety is avoidance of feared or anxiety-provoking situations. By seeking the immediate relief that comes with avoidance, a person is succumbing to the pull of instant gratification over the larger reward that could come with tolerating anxiety in the present and eventually overcoming the fear. Procrastination is clear example; a person avoids a dreaded task by engaging in a more enjoyable immediate activity instead. Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a more jarring case of this anxiety-related struggle to delay gratification; someone with OCD feels unable to resist compulsions that quell the torture of his or her obsessions. Similarly, a depressed person who has difficulty pushing him or herself to spend time with loved ones and engage in previously enjoyed activities is (deliberately or not) prioritizing short-term comfort and is demonstrating an inability to delay gratification. There is evidence that individuals who deliberately self-injure (i.e., cut themselves) are less able to tolerate emotional distress but are more able to tolerate physical pain.[11] Thus they injure themselves because they cannot delay gratification and need a way to end emotional pain quickly.

A growing body of research suggests that self-control is akin to a muscle that can be strengthened through practice.[2] In other words, self-control abilities are malleable[12], a fact that can be a source of hope for those who struggle with this skill. In psychotherapy, treatment for impulse-control issues often involves teaching individuals to realize the downsides of acting on immediate urges and in turn to practice delaying gratification. In anxiety disorders, this process occurs through exposure to a feared situation—which is very uncomfortable at first, but eventually becomes tolerable and even trains a person’s mind and body that these situations are less threatening than originally feared.[1] Exposure is only effective if an individual can delay gratification and resist the urge to escape the situation early on. To shed insight on the tradeoff between short- and long-term gains, therapists might help individuals construct a pro-con list of a certain behavior, with four sections for each list: short-term pros, short-term cons, long-term pros and long-term cons.[13] For maladaptive coping behaviors such as self-injury, substance use or avoidance, there are generally no long-term pros. Meanwhile, abstinence from acting on a harmful urge (i.e., delayed gratification) generally results in long-term benefits. This realization can be a powerful impetus for change.

In the moment of attempting to delay gratification, certain distress tolerance strategies can be helpful. One well-supported theory of self-regulation, called the Cognitive-Affective Processing System (CAPS), suggests that delaying gratification results from an ability to use “cool” regulatory strategies (i.e., calm, controlled and cognitive strategies) over “hot regulatory strategies (i.e., emotional, impulsive, automatic reactions), when faced with provocation.[14] The use of cool strategies can translate to more control over behavior. For example, pre-adolescent boys with behavioral problems showed a reduction in verbal and physical aggression when they used “cool” strategies, such as looking away or distracting themselves.[7] Effective “cool” strategies involve distraction and restructuring the perception of the tempting stimulus to make it seem less appealing. The most effective type of distraction seems to be imagining another desirable reward.[15]

1.2 Developmental Perspective:

At birth, infants are unable to wait for their wants and needs to be met and exhibit a defining lack of impulse control. As humans age and develop, they retain the ability to be impulsive but also gain control over their immediate desires and are increasingly able to prolong gratification. [16] Developmental psychologists study the progression of impulse control and delay of gratification over the lifespan, including cognitive, socio-emotional, environmental and biological processes at play. A developmental perspective also explores individual differences and the factors affecting the development of self-control, as well as the power of one’s ability to delay gratification to predict later development. Deficiencies in the development of impulse control are another focus of study, and are closely related to attention deficits and behavior problems.

Factors affecting the ability to delay gratification:

Cognitive. Directing a child’s attention directly to the reward decreases the delay of gratification, whereas focusing his/her attention to distracting (“fun”) thoughts increases the delay to reward. Removing the reward from sight also increases delay, and therefore children who successfully distract themselves or abstain from looking at the reward demonstrate better self-control. Conversely, when children attend frequently to symbolic representations of the reward, such as pictures, their delay of gratification is longer than without the symbolic reminders [5][16]. This suggests that when children cognitively represent what they are waiting for as a real reward by focusing on the reward’s arousing, “hot” qualities (taste, smell, sound, feel, etc) their self-control and delay of gratification decreases, while directing attention to a symbol of the reward by focusing on its abstract, “cool” qualities (shape, color, number, etc), can enhance self-control and increase the delay. Optimal self-control and the longest delay to gratification can be achieved by directing attention to a competing item, especially the arousing, “hot” qualities of a competing item [16]. For example, delays are increased when thinking about the taste and smell of popcorn while waiting to eat candy. This illustrates an individual’s ability to manipulate his/her cognitive representation of external stimuli for goal-directed purposes.

Biological. A small, non-significant gender effect has been found indicating that a base-rate of 10% more females are able to delay rewards than males, which is the typical percentage of difference found between the sexes on measures such as personality or social behavior [17][18]. This effect may be related to the slight gender differences found in delay discounting (i.e., minimizing the value of a delayed reward) and higher levels of impulsivity and inattention in boys[19]. Further studies are needed to analyze if this minute difference begins at a certain age such as puberty, or if it has a stable magnitude throughout the lifespan. Some researchers suggest this gender effect may correspond with a mother’s tendency to sacrifice her wants and needs in order to meet those of her child more frequently than a father does [18]. Preschoolers’ performance on delayed gratification tasks also correlates with their adolescent performance on tasks designed to measure similar constructs and processing, which parallels the corresponding development of willpower and the fronto-striatal circuit (neural pathways that connect the frontal lobe to other brain regions) [20].

Socio-Emotional. The more positive emotions and behavior that a 12-24 month old toddler displays when coping with separation from a parent, the better s/he is 3.5 years later at using “cooling” strategies in order to delay gratification. This suggests that the emotional skills and processes required for coping with social and interpersonal frustrations are similar to those utilized for coping with the aggravation of goal-directed delay of gratification. Maternal attachment also influences the development of a child’s ability to delay gratification. An interaction has been found between a mother’s level of control and how close a child stays to the mother while exploring the environment. Children who have controlling mothers and explore their environment at a far distance from her are also able to employ more cooling strategies and delay rewards longer. Similarly, children who stay close to their non-controlling mothers also use cooler strategies and demonstrate longer delays. This suggests that some children of controlling mothers have better learned how to distract themselves from or effectively avoid intrusive stimuli, although additional effects on their emotional competency are speculated but unknown [21]. A greater capacity to delay gratification by using effective attentional strategies is also seen in preschoolers whose mothers had been responsive and supportive during particularly stressful times of self-regulation when the child was a toddler, indicating that maternal responsiveness during highly demanding times is crucial for the development of self-regulation and self-control [22].

Environmental. Delaying gratification varies depending on if the delay contingency is self-imposed or externally imposed by another person, institution or circumstance. In situations where the delay until gratification also requires engaging in some other work or task, having the reward present (and easily accessible) creates a negative frustration — almost a tease — rather than providing motivation. Still, the work/task can generate an effective distraction from the reward and enable the person to wait for a longer delay. However, if the work is interesting and has some reinforcing quality inherent to it, then the delayed reward will reduce productivity since it becomes a distraction to the work rather than a motivation [23].

Progression over the lifespan.

Four-year-old children display the least effective strategies for self-imposed delay of gratification, such as looking at the reward and thinking about its arousing features. By 5 years old, most children are able to demonstrate better self-control by recognizing the counter-productivity of focusing on the reward. Five-year-old toddlers often choose instead to actively distract themselves or even use self-instructions to remind themselves of the contingency that waiting produces a reward of a greater value. Between 8 and 13 years old, children develop the cognitive ability to differentiate and employ abstract versus arousing thoughts in order to distract their minds from the reward and thereby increase the delay [16]. Once delaying strategies are developed, the capacity to resist temptation is relatively stable throughout adulthood [24]. Declines in self-regulation and impulse control in old age predict corresponding declines in reward-delaying strategies.

Predictive power of individual differences in delaying gratification on later development

Positive outcomes. The early development of self-control is related to the prevention of developmental and mental health problems such as a lack of resilience, conduct disorders, low social responsibility, symptoms of borderline personality disorder, addictive and antisocial behaviors[5][16]. Higher delay ability has also been shown to prevent divorce and separation, anxious reactions to rejection and crack/cocaine use [24]. Delay of gratification at preschool age significantly predicts patterns of higher academic and social competence, more self-assuredness, higher self-worth, less bullying and a better ability to cope with frustrations in adolescence [5][16]. Children’s preference to delay rewards predicts higher intelligence including higher SAT scores, greater ability to resist temptations including drug abuse, more social responsibility, and striving for higher achievements [16]. Physical wellbeing and a healthy body weight can also be predicted by childhood ability to direct attention and delay rewards[5].

Negative outcomes. Older children who display less ability to delay gratification also demonstrate attention and behavior problems including impulsivity, aggressiveness, and hyperactivity [16]. Additionally, early cognitive functioning and externalizing problems are powerful predictors of problems controlling and regulating impulses later in life and poor performance on delay of gratification tasks is correlated with adolescent Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) diagnosis [19].

1.3 Behavioral Perspective:

Behaviorists focus on the acquisition and teaching of delayed gratification, and have developed therapeutic techniques for increasing ability to delay. Behavior analysts (therapists) assume that behavior is determined by past consequences [25] and their work involves the strategic use of incremental reinforcement to shape behaviors.[26] It is important to note that for a behavior modification regimen to succeed, the reward must have some value to the participant. Without a reward that is meaningful, providing delayed or immediate gratification serves little purpose, as the reward is not a strong reinforcer of the desired behavior.

Behavior theorists see delaying gratification as an adaptive skill.[26] It has been shown that delayed gratification promotes positive social behavior, such as sharing and positive peer interactions.[26] Behavior analysts teach children to behave in a certain way now so that they will earn a reward later; this is the hallmark of delayed gratification. For example, students who learn to delay gratification are better able to complete their assigned activities.[26] If someone undertakes an activity with the promise of a delayed reward after, the task’s completion becomes more likely.

The conflict between instant and delayed gratification surfaces for many people in daily life. In a 2011 study, researchers tested to see if people would willingly choose between instant and delayed gratification by offering them a set amount of (hypothetical) money that they could receive presently, or telling them they could wait a month for more money. Results suggested that willingness to delay gratification depended on the amount of money being offered, but also showed wide individual variation in the threshold of later reward that was motivating enough to forgo the immediate reward [27].

The duration of time until an eventual reward also affects participants’ choice of immediate or delayed gratification.[25] A 2001 study demonstrated that if a reward will not be granted for an extensive amount of time, such as 180-300 months (15-25 years), the monetary amount of the reward is inconsequential; instead, the bulk of the participants choose the immediate reward, even if their delayed reward would be quite large. Delayed gratification has its limits, and a delay can only be so long before it is judged to be not worth the effort it takes to wait.

Societal Influences

It is difficult to teach delayed gratification when children grow up expecting a large, instant reward for their years of schooling.[28] Societal impacts and current media trends have had the effect of teaching people to expect instant gratification. The idea of waiting for a good job, earned through working from the bottom up, frequently upsets and frustrates emerging adults in today’s society.[28] This desire for immediate gratification is not only found in workplaces, but also in interpersonal relationships. Current studies show that 45% of marriages will end in divorce.[29] Without the ability to delay gratification people are more apt to end relationships rather than work on them. Our society today makes it increasingly easy to receive instant gratification. Americans, on a whole, are trained to expect instant gratification. Instead of waiting to cook a full meal, people reach for frozen entreés that can be created in 2 minutes in the microwave. Cell phones with email and texting capabilities are another example of instant gratification, as people don’t have to wait to communicate with others, or read an email. Instead it is always available to them.[30]

1.4 Perspectives from Decision-Making Theory

The way that a person frames a situation heavily influences a decision’s outcome.[31] A person thinking intently about the object causing temptation or using “hot” processing will be more likely to go for the immediate reward. However, using “cool” processing, which is either thinking about abstract parts of the reward or not thinking about the reward at all, will enable longer delay of gratification. If the delayed reward is the same stimulus but in larger quantity than the instant reward (such as receiving two marshmallows for waiting instead of one now), then “hot” processing about the reward will make it harder to defer gratification[32]. This is because people are heavily loss-averse. People tend to value a commodity more when it is considered to be something that can be lost or given up than when it is evaluated as a potential gain [31]. In this context, thinking about the reward will only remind the person that they have to forgo something. Different framing of a situation requires cognitive control and is difficult [31].

1.5 Neurological, Genetic and Evolutionary Perspectives

Neurological

Deferring gratification is the same as controlling the impulse for immediate gratification, thus it requires cognitive control. The ventral striatum, located in the midbrain, is the part of the limbic system that is pleasure-seeking (i.e., the “id”). The limbic system will always react to the potential for instant pleasure. To override this instinct, the prefrontal cortex, which is also associated with reasoning and rational thought, must be active. The prefrontal cortex is also the part of the brain that determines on what one is focusing, which will enable a better framing that allows for delayed gratification. This frontal-striatal pathway not only explains deferred gratification but also addiction. During adolescence and early adulthood, the prefrontal cortex develops and matures to become more complicated and connected with the rest of the brain [33]. Older children and adults find the deferment-of-gratification tasks easier than do young children for this reason. The relative ability to defer gratification remains stable throughout development. Children who can better control impulses grow up to be adults with the same ability[32]. Training is possible. Changing behavior actually changes the brain. Neurons that fire together wire together, so the frontal-striatal pathway that controls deferred gratification will strengthen when used[34]. Practicing deferred gratification then is quite beneficial to cognitive abilities throughout life[32].

Genetics and Evolution

It is likely that there is a strong genetic component to deferred gratification, though no direct link has been established. Since many complex genetic interactions are necessary for neurons to perform the simplest tasks, it is hard to isolate one gene to study this behavior[32]. Evolutionary theory can argue for and against the selection of the deferred gratification trait. On one hand, people who seek high-calorie food immediately may be more likely to survive and pass on their genes[35]. At the same time, people who can store food and defer eating are more likely to survive during harsh conditions, and thus deferred gratification may also incur an evolutionary advantage[35].

2. Research on Delayed Gratification

2.1 The Marshmallow Test

The seminal research on delayed gratification – the now-famous “marshmallow test” – was conducted by Walter Mischel in the 1960s and 1970s at Stanford University. Mischel and his colleagues were interested in strategies that preschool children used to resist temptation. They presented four-year-olds with a marshmallow and told the children that they had two options: (1) ring a bell at any point to summon the experimenter and eat the marshmallow, or (2) wait until the experimenter returned about 15 minutes later), and earn two marshmallows. The message was: “small reward now, bigger reward later.” Some children broke down and ate the marshmallow, whereas others were able to delay gratification and earn the coveted two marshmallows. In follow-up experiments, Mischel found that children were able to wait longer if they used certain distraction techniques (covering their eyes, hiding under the desk, singing songs[New Yorker], or imagining pretzels instead of the marshmallow in front of them), or if they changed the way they thought about the marshmallow (focusing on its similarity to a cotton ball, rather than on its gooey, delectable taste).[12],[13]

The children who waited longer, when re-evaluated as teenagers and adults, demonstrated a striking array of advantages over their peers. As teenagers, they had higher SAT scores and were rated as their parents as more mature, better able to cope with stress, more likely to plan ahead, and more likely to use reason.[1] As adults, the high delayers were less likely to be overweight, have drug problems, or get divorced.[27] Each of these outcomes requires some ability to forgo short-term reward in favor of a higher payoff in the future. The ability to delay gratification also appeared to be a buffer against rejection sensitivity (the tendency to be anxious when anticipating interpersonal rejection). In a 20-year follow-up, individuals with vulnerability to high rejection sensitivity who had shown strong delay of gratification abilities as preschoolers had higher self-esteem and self-worth and more adaptive coping skills, in comparison to the individuals who had high rejection sensitivity and low delay of gratification as four-year-olds.[1],[13] These compelling longitudinal findings converge with other studies showing a similar pattern: The ability to resist temptation early in life translates to persistent benefits across settings.

Forty years after the first marshmallow test studies, neuroimaging data has shed light on the neural correlates of delayed gratification. A team led by B. J. Casey, of Cornell University, recruited 59 of the original participants – who are now in their mid-40s – and gave them a delayed gratification task. Instead of resisting marshmallows, these adults were instructed to suppress responses to images of happy faces, but not to neutral or fearful faces. High delayers were more successful at controlling their impulses in response to these emotional cues (i.e., not pressing the button in response to happy faces), suggesting that the high delayers continued to show better ability to dampen or resist impulses. Casey and colleagues also scanned the brains of 26 participants using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) as they completed the task. The researchers hypothesized that high delayers would be more likely to use “cool” regulation strategies to control their responses, which would manifest as activation of the right prefrontal cortex, whereas low delayers would use “hot” strategies, which would activate the ventral striatum, an area also linked to addiction. Indeed, results showed this differential brain activity.[24],[36] This mirrors other fMRI research of delayed gratification conducted by Noah Shamosh and Jeremy Gray, of Yale University, which demonstrated that individuals who chose larger delayed rewards over smaller immediate rewards (in hypothetical situations) showed greater brain activation in the anterior prefrontal cortex. [9]

2.2 Applications to ADHD

Children with ADHD generally demonstrate greater impulsivity by being influenced by reward immediacy and quality more than by the frequency of reward and effort to obtain it, when compared to children without an ADHD diagnosis. However, researchers have empirically shown that these impulsive behavior patterns can be changed through the implementation of a simple self-control training procedure in which reinforcer immediacy competes with the frequency, quantity or saliency of the reward, and the delay is gradually increased [37][38][39]. One study demonstrated that any verbal activity while waiting for reinforcement increases delay to gratification in participants with ADHD [37]. In another study, 3 children diagnosed with ADHD and demonstrating impulsivity were trained to prefer reward rate and saliency more than immediacy through manipulation of the quality of the reinforcers and by systematically increasing the delay with a changing-criterion design. Post-assessment of the children illustrated that self-control can transfer to untrained dimensions of reinforcement; such as an increase in quality over immediacy preference due to direct training resulting in an increase in quantity over immediacy preference [38].

2.3 Applications in Classroom Settings

In a Year 3 elementary classroom in South Wales a teacher was having difficulty keeping three girls on task during designated private study times. The teacher reached for aid from behavior analysts, and a delayed gratification behavior modification plan was put into place. The study gave limits on the amounts of questions the children could ask, and if they did not exceed the limit, they were given tokens for rewards. The token exchange for rewards is an example of delayed gratification, by way of cool processing. Instead of having the girls focus on attention-seeking behaviors that distracted the teacher and the students, the teacher had them focus on how many questions they had, and if they needed to ask for help from the teacher. They also focused on gaining tokens rather than focusing on the final reward, which increased their delays. By giving the children this goal and the promise of positive reinforcement for good behavior, the girls dropped their rate of question-asking and attention-seeking. [40]

2.4 Weight Loss and Deferred Gratification

The ability to defer gratification in all parts of life has been shown to predict BMI in middle age. Preschoolers were tested on their ability to delay gratification with marshmallows. Thirty years later, the same participants were sent two self-report questionnaires one year apart to ascertain their height and weight. These measures calculated BMI for all participants. The preschoolers who better deferred gratification had lower BMI 30 years later. Preschoolers who were worse at delaying gratification had higher BMI. Each minute a preschooler was able to defer gratification meant a .2% reduction in BMI 30 years later. [41]

[1] Carducci, B. J. (2009). The psychology of personality: Viewpoints, research, and applications. John Wiley and Sons, p. 443.

[2] Barlow, D. H. & Durand, V. M. (2011). Abnormal Psychology, An Integrative Approach, 6th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

[3] Baumeister, R. F. & Exline, J. J. (2001). Virtue, personality, and social relations: Self-control as the moral muscle. Journal of Personality, 67 (6), 1165-1194.

[4] Doerr, C. E. & Baumeister, R. F. (2010). Self-regulatory strength and psychological adjustment: Implications of the limited resource model of Self-Regulation. In J. E. Maddux & J.P. Tangney (Eds.) Social Psychological Foundations of Clinical Psychology. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 71-83.

[5] Mischel, W. Ayduk, O., Berman, M. G., Casey, B. J., Gotlib, I. G., Jonides, J. et al (2011). ‘Willpower over the lifespan: decomposing self-regulation. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 6 (2), 252-256.

[6] Krueger, R. F., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., White, J., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1996). Delay of gratification, psychopathology, and personality: Is Low Self-Control Specific to Externalizing Problems? Journal of Personality, 64(1), 107-129.

[7] Romer, D., Duckworth, A. L., Sznitman, S. & Park, S. (2010). Can adolescents learn self-control? Delay of gratification in the development of control over risk-taking. Prevention Science, 11 (3), 319-330.

[8] Wilson, V. B., Mitchell, S. H., Musser, E. D., Schmitt, C. F., & Nigg, J. T. (2011). Delay discounting of reward in ADHD: Application in young children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52 (3), 256-264.

[9] “Why delayed gratification is smart.” (Sept. 9, 2008) Phys.org. Available at http://phys.org/news140173735.html.

[10] “Temporal discounting.” Psychopedia. Available at: http://www.psych-it.com.au/Psychlopedia/article.asp?id=427.

[11] Gratz, K. L., Hepworth, C., Tull, M. T., Paulson, A., Clarke, C., Remington, B., & Lejeuz, C. W. (2011). An experimental manipulation of emotional willingness and physical pain tolerance in deliberate self-harm: the moderating role of interpersonal distress. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 52, 63-74.

[12] Brooks, D. (2006). Marshmallows and public policy. The New York Times, Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/opinion/07brooks.html?_r=0

[13] Linehan, M. M. (1993). Skills training manual for treating borderline personality disorder. New York: The Guilford Press.

[14] Kross, E. , Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (2010). Enabling Self-Control: A Cognitive Affective Processing Systems (CAPS) Approach to Problematic Behavior. In J. E. Maddux & J.P. Tangney (Eds.) Social Psychological Foundations of Clinical Psychology. New York: Guilford Press. pp. 375 to 394.

[15] Karasu, S. R. (2012). Lead us not into temptation: The neuroscience behind the marshmallow test. Psychology Today. Available at: www.psychologytoday.com/print/91307.

[16] Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (1992). Delay of gratification in children. Loewenstein, G., & Elster, J. (Eds.). Choice over time (pp. 147-164). New York, NY, US: Russell Sage Foundation.

[17] Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. (2006). Self-discipline gives girls the edge: Gender in self-discipline, grades and achievement test scores. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 198-208.

[18] Silverman, I. W. (2003). Meta-analysis of gender differences in delayed gratification. Sex Roles, 49(9-10), 451-463.

[19] Campbell, S. B., & von Stauffenberg, C. (2009). Delay and inhibition as early predictors of ADHD symptoms in third grade. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 1-15.

[20] Eigsti, I-M., Zayas, V., Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., Ayduk, O., Dadlani, M. B., Davidson, M. M, Aber, J. L., & Casey, B .J. (2006). Delay of gratification task in preschool has predictive power for performance on go/no-go (cognitive control) tasks in adolescence. Psychological Sciences, 17(6), 478-484.

[21] Sethi, A., Mischel, W., Aber, J. L., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (2000). The role of strategic attention deployment in development of self-regulation: Predicting prechoolers’ delay of gratification from mother-toddler interactions. Developmental Psychology, 36(6), 767-777.

[22] Rodriguez, M. L., Ayduk, O., Aber, J. L., Mischel, W., Sethi, A., & Shoda, Y. (2005). A contextual approach to the development of self-regulatory competencies: The role of maternal unresponsivity and toddler’s negative affect in stressful situations. Social Development, 14(1), 136-157.

[23] Peake, P. K., Hebl, M., & Mischel, W. (2002). Strategic attention deployment for delay of gratification in working and waiting situations. Developmental Psychology, 38(2), 313-326.

[24] Casey, B. J., Somerville, L. H., Gotlib, I. H., Ayduk, O., Franklin, N. T., Askren, M. K., Jonides, J., Berman, M. G., Wilson, N. L., Teslovich, T., Glover, G., Zavas, V., Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (2011). Behavioral and neural correlates of delay of gratification 40 years later. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,108(36), 14998-15003. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1108561108

[25] Critchfield, Thomas S., Kollins, Scott H. (2001). Temporal discounting: basic research and the analysis of socially important behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 34, 101-122.

[26] McComas, Jennifer J., Rehfeldt, Ruth Anne, Stromer, Robert. (2000) Designing interventions that include delayed reinforcement: implications of recent laboratory research. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 33, 359-371.

[27] Begley, S. & Chatzky, J. (2011). The new science behind your spending addiction. The Daily Beast. October 30, 2011. Available at: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/10/30/the-new-science-behind-your-spending-addiction.htm

[28] Gasman, Marybeth. (2011). Teaching Today’s Students About Delayed Gratification. The Chronicle. http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/teaching-todays-students-about-delayed-gratification/31045

[29] Truscott, Claire. (2008). Nearly half of marriages doomed for divorce, study finds. The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/mar/27/britishidentity.divorce

[30] Alsop, Ronald J. (2011) Gotta have it, right now. Notre Dame Magazine. http://magazine.nd.edu/news/27926/

[31] Khaneman D. (2003) A Perspective on Judgment and Choice Mapping Bounded Rationality. American Psychologist, 58, 9, 697-720.

[32] Lehrer, J. (2009). Don’t!: The Secret of Self Control. The New Yorker. May 18, 2009.

[33] Fair D. et al. (2007). Development of distinct control networks through segregation and integration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States. 104, 33, 13507-13512.

[34] Wilson, G. (2010). Your Brain on Porn Series: Porn Addiction. http://yourbrainonporn.com/your-brain-on-porn-series

[35]van den Bos, R., de Ridder, D.(2006) Evolved to satisfy our immediate needs: Self-control and the rewarding properties of food. Appetite, 47, 24-29.

[36] Cohen, P. (2011). Thinking cap: Delayed gratification. The New York Times, Arts Beat: The Culture at Large. Available at: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/thinking-cap-delaying-gratification/

[37] Binder, L. M., Dixon, M. R., & Ghezzi, P. M. (2000). A procedure to teach self-control to children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 233-237.

[38] Neef, N. A., Bicard, D. F., & Endo, S. (2001). Assessment of impulsivity and the development of self-control in students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 397-408.

[39] Neef, N.A., Marckel, J., Ferreri, S. J., Bicard, D. F., Endo, S., Aman, M. G., Miller, K. M., Jung, S., Nist, L., & Armstrong, N. (2005). Behavioral assessment of impulsivity: A comparison of children with and without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 23-37

[40] Austin, Jennifer L., Bevan, Deborah. (2011). Using differential reinforcement of low rates to reduce children’s requests for teacher attention. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 44, 451-461.

[41] Schlam, T.R., Wilson, N. L., Shoda Y., Mischel, W., Ayduk, O. (2012). Preschoolers’ Delay of Gratification Predicts their Body Mass 30 Years Later. Journal of Pediatrics. 6, 49, 1-4.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Deferred gratification/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheSpecialUser (talk · contribs) 10:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Giving the issues in few minutes. Thanks! TheSpecialUser ^TSU 10:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I fear that a lot of work should be done on the article in order to get this upto GA standards and I'm extremely sorry that this'll be a quick fail. Here are the primary reasons for the failure:

• There is no lead. Per WP:LEAD, it should be a summary of the article and everything in the lead should be covered in details in the article. Right now there is no lead
• Ref issues - there are plenty of them but all of them are not well formatted and 90%+ of them are not readable. They will require ISBN or any link so that the material cited could be verified.
• I cite few grammatical errors in the prose as well as copyediting is required from someone who is expert in the topic
• Despite of 80+ refs, many facts remain unsourced in the article. If you are aiming for GA, each and every fact should cite at least one ref to reliable source using well formatted citation.

I appreciate the efforts but unfortunately, this article is not near to GA status; these issues cannot be addressed easily. Once addressed the concerns above, anyone can re-nominate it. Thank you. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 10:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Deferred gratification/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CabbageX (talk · contribs) 21:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Initiated review on 7/12/2012. CabbageX (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lead section represents a good overview of the article. The language is objective, and hedges where necessary.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The references used in this article represent a comprehensive overview of the topic, and are mostly from peer-reviewed publications. However, the Psychoanalytic drives and impulses requires references to support the statements.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This article appears to provide a broad view of the topic, with necessary amount of detail.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The tone is neutral, and in some sections, both sides of an argument are represented fairly.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The second image does not have a copyright tag.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The previous reviewer failed the nomination for lack of a lead section, issues with references, and problems with the writing. This submission has mostly fixed those problems. The submission is on hold, pending a second opinion from the original reviewer, and an improvement for the two issues mentioned above.

CabbageX (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Start new topics at the bottom of the page.

Please read WP:TOPPOST: "Start new topics at the bottom of the page: If you put a post at the top of the page, it is confusing and can easily be overlooked. The latest topic should be the one at the bottom of the page. Then the next post will go underneath yours and so on. This makes it easy to see the chronological order of posts." Thank you. Lova Falk talk 20:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

APSWI Response to Latest Review

The APSWI group is has made further revisions to the article based on feedback from CabbageX and would be very grateful for further review. We made the following changes: (1) addressed copyright issues with the second photo, and (2) added citations/references in the Psychoanalytic Drives and Impulses section. Thank you for your feedback! Aperloe (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Move?

Deferred gratification → Delayed gratification –

• This is the more common name. I doubt this move is controversial. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• Here's some evidence for those who are interested: [1] [2] -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Proposed form is more common in a general Google search, Scholar, and Books. I'm not sure I had heard the current form until now, though its meaning is clear enough. --BDD (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose To me, "delayed" means you do the thing which gives you gratification immediately, but don't receive that gratification until some time later. That is, "deferred" implies that it's intentionally delayed, while the word "delay" alone does not. StuRat (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)