On page 140, David Shenk describes an experiment conducted by a Stanford psychologist that tested the self-discipline of 4-year olds and how it affected their future academic success. In the test, children were given the option to accept a single marshmallow right away, or wait an indefinite amount of time and receive two marshmallows. In the study, about equal numbers either: A) accepted the initial single marshmallow B) waited for a short while for the two marshmallows, but eventually settled for the single or C) waited a full fifteen minutes for two marshmallows. The study then tracked the SAT scores of the subjects fourteen years later. The group that was able to wait for two marshmallows scored an average of 210 points higher than the groups that could not wait.
How does this experiment support Shenk's main argument and how does it go against his main argument? If the same study were conducted again with the same subjects, how might their behavior differ? Use you knowledge of animal behavior and classical/operant conditioning. Also, how does the second part of the experiment (141), demonstrate Shenk's philosophy of of GxE?
Jonah May (jonah2020@aol.com)
The classic marshmallow test demonstrates the power of social behaviors and their alignment with intelligence. The study supports the GXE argument in that it shows that all of the kids who would have had temptations to eat the marshmallow responded different to the stimulus. The kids who were able to wait the whole length of time and get the additional marshmallow typically had parents who demonstrated and role modeled self-control. Therefore, the way each kid has interacted with his or her environment growing up thus far is integral to the performance in this test. Children who watch their parents or guardians exhibit self control, through operant conditioning, learned of the rewards the reap when they too practice self-control. Operant conditions, "also called trial-and-error learning" (1127) according to Tindall, is a common method of associative learning animals exhibit. If the same kids were brought in to do the same experiment, I predict the kids would react relatively similar knowing their natural tendencies and behavioral patterns.
ReplyDeleteThe marshmallow test is a wonderful method to evaluate delayed gratification in young children. The idea of delayed gratification is waiting in order to receive gratification for an action. In this case, all the participants had to do was wait, and they would be rewarded for not eating the marshmallow, however many of them could not. This correlates both to their ability to see into the future and their future goals, but also to resist temptation. For future perspective, this is an essential skill to succeed in life by maintaining goals throughout schooling and work. Resisting temptation and maintaining focus plays a part both in great achievement and in all around quality of life, trending towards greater success for those who are restrained and in control.
ReplyDeleteIn a similar study performed on monkeys, in which either Capuchin or Squirrel monkeys were given more food overtime if they refrained from eating food earlier on, Anderson noted that “both tufted capuchin monkeys and squirrel monkeys are capable of delay of gratification. Capuchins can at least match rhesus monkeys on delay maintenance” (Anderson, J. R., Kuroshima, H., & Fujita, K. (2010). Delay of Gratification in Capuchin Monkeys (Cebus apella) and Squirrel Monkeys (Saimiri sciureus). Journal Of Comparative Psychology, 124(2), 205-210. doi:10.1037/a0018240). These results illustrate that even mammals lower than humans in intelligence are capable of delaying gratification. This brings about the evolutionary significance of a delay in gratification. Clearly, being able to work toward a task without an immediate reward will pay off in the long run both for finding and acquiring food and for the reproductive survival of the species. This may explain why some monkeys are able to use tools while most other organisms and animals are not. Furthermore, in Anderson’s study, some monkeys never illustrated an ability to delay gratification despite consistent attempts. This illustrates that the GXE make-up of certain individuals may not be conducive to delaying gratification.
According to Shenk, “what emerges about the study of delayed gratification is that it is a skill set- and the skills can be acquired” (141). Following this model, it is possible that the reason that some of the students who performed well on the marshmallow test performed better in life is that they had a better environment both at a young age and as they grew to develop in. A certain conducive environment may have illustrated the importance of delayed gratification to the children at a young age through modeling. It is very likely that this is not the only skill set that these children acquired in their powerful environment, lending to better success down the line.
The significance of delayed gratification to evolution is clear through how essential the skill is to human survival. At the ideas core, humans delay gratification enduring nine months of sometimes terrible pregnancy so that they may one day have a child to love. Furthermore, the Marshmallow test can also be utilized as a method to understand individual differences among people. Though some people may not have been successful at the marshmallow test, they may have developed different skill sets, and thereby could outperform the SAT students in a different test, such as one of artistic ability or athletic stamina.
Overall, Shenk brings about a wonderful study in evaluating the marshmallow test. The implications in evolution, genetics, and development will likely continue to be unfurled. Furthermore, Anderson’s study in monkeys was a scientifically sound way to distinguish that humans are not the only animals to develop this ability, and that the ability is very significant for survival and reproduction.
Jacob Yomtoob (jakeyomtoob@gmail.com)