I appreciate when we go back and challenge our assumptions in psychology. I've felt too many of our research studies have been treated as revealing clear truth about humanity, when the truth I...
In a rural village on Mexico’s Yucatán Peninsula, cultural developmental psychologist Suzanne Gaskins placed pillowy marshmallows in front of a half-dozen Yucatec Maya children and gave them a simple choice: eat the treat now, or wait and get two.
Gaskins, a professor emerita at Northeastern Illinois University, has studied independent, autonomous and capable children from this Indigenous community for nearly 50 years. She predicted they would hold out, sitting in their seats waiting for the second treat while she left the room.
Instead, two children ate the marshmallows. Four walked out of the room.
Following up with the children, Gaskins learned that those who walked away weren’t trying to avoid temptation to eat the marshmallow. They simply saw no good reason to sit in a room by themselves, doing nothing.
Other studies began to poke holes in hallmark findings. Yuko Munakata, a developmental psychologist at the University of California at Davis, conducted a variation on the Marshmallow Test that showed that children’s ability to wait for a treat wasn’t like a muscle that was strong or weak, but changed markedly depending on the context. Japanese children, culturally accustomed to waiting for food, were able to hold out for a food reward, but not for a present. American schoolchildren, on the other hand, used to waiting to unwrap gifts under a Christmas tree or at a birthday party, were able to wait for a gift, but not food.
I appreciate when we go back and challenge our assumptions in psychology. I've felt too many of our research studies have been treated as revealing clear truth about humanity, when the truth I think they reveal is how blind we are to our assumptions. Anyway I thought this was particularly interesting.
I don’t understand the reasoning of the kids who left the room, at least the way the article describes it. If they didn’t stick around they wouldn’t get any marshmallows. Why not take one and then...
I don’t understand the reasoning of the kids who left the room, at least the way the article describes it. If they didn’t stick around they wouldn’t get any marshmallows. Why not take one and then leave?
Probably because they were told not to. Or because they thought they might still get them later. Their culture doesn't have as much "do what the adult says because they said so even if it makes no...
Probably because they were told not to. Or because they thought they might still get them later. Their culture doesn't have as much "do what the adult says because they said so even if it makes no sense*" or as much "sitting and waiting with nothing to do is boring but expected". The fact that multiple kids made the same call suggests it's not a one off.
*So "you can't have this now" might make sense but "sit here and do nothing" might not.
The article says they could choose to have one marshmallow right away, though. If they didn't want to wait, why didn't they just take it? But maybe my understanding of the kids' culture or the...
Probably because they were told not to.
The article says they could choose to have one marshmallow right away, though. If they didn't want to wait, why didn't they just take it? But maybe my understanding of the kids' culture or the experimental protocol is lacking.
Yeah sorry I got wrapped up into things and didn't think that point through. It might also be that marshmallows aren't super motivating! Or they thought they could come back. But yeah I think the...
Yeah sorry I got wrapped up into things and didn't think that point through.
It might also be that marshmallows aren't super motivating! Or they thought they could come back. But yeah I think the cultural difference is the point. I'd have to read more on that specific experiment to get a better sense.
Could be. Even as a kid I wasn’t wild about them. I would way rather have had a piece of chocolate or something like that. I got curious and did a little looking into the history of these...
It might also be that marshmallows aren't super motivating!
Could be. Even as a kid I wasn’t wild about them. I would way rather have had a piece of chocolate or something like that.
I got curious and did a little looking into the history of these experiments, and I have to say that the protocols described seemed to be very convoluted, to the point where I would expect a small child to have a hard time following them.
The experimenters would ask the child whether they liked pretzels or marshmallows better, and then told the child that they could have the one they preferred least now, or the one they preferred most later if they waited.
On top of that, if the child chose to wait then the adult would leave the room, but the child could ring a bell if they got tired of waiting, and the adult would return. If they did that then they would get the less desired treat. It just seemed like too much for a little kid to keep straight.
Particularly if you're not used to long verbal instructions vs having a task demonstrated. I wonder what the curriculum was at the school they got subjects from, and whether that made a...
Particularly if you're not used to long verbal instructions vs having a task demonstrated.
I wonder what the curriculum was at the school they got subjects from, and whether that made a difference. But that said, kids can typically grasp the instructions given. If they didn't, they'd have been screened out. (Which again makes you wonder what is being tested for)
I can't read the article, but one criticism I've heard against the study is that children that were able to wait often had access to more food/candy at home, which is linked to parents that were...
I can't read the article, but one criticism I've heard against the study is that children that were able to wait often had access to more food/candy at home, which is linked to parents that were better off. Parents with more resources is a pretty good indicator of success.
That is one area that absolutely shows some bias in results too. And it could mean that kids with less childhood food security also have less executive function but I'm not sure if they tried...
That is one area that absolutely shows some bias in results too. And it could mean that kids with less childhood food security also have less executive function but I'm not sure if they tried those other tests as well (using presents instead of food)
Yeah, I really question how much a treat, any treat, is a good measure for anything (edit: motivations, executive functioning, patience etc) if the child has easy access to treats on a normal...
Yeah, I really question how much a treat, any treat, is a good measure for anything (edit: motivations, executive functioning, patience etc) if the child has easy access to treats on a normal basis.
My kid's response when we read about this study: " I don't like marshmallows." Also, after discussion, they told me they can go indefinitely without the promised whatever from the researcher if there are annoying hoops or it is perceived there's a trick - with the understanding I would nearly certainly buy them a remedial/comparable thing afterwards if child feels uncomfortable taking the treat from the researcher.
Which, to be fair, is why any child that says "oh this is Marshmallow test, you're trying to trick me" is probably screened out of the study 😅 But yeah the original test wasn't actually even about...
Which, to be fair, is why any child that says "oh this is Marshmallow test, you're trying to trick me" is probably screened out of the study 😅
But yeah the original test wasn't actually even about marshmallows (and the reward varies or has options in other versions), which I suspect are inconsistent as a reward.
Yeah lol the kid will likely be screen out of most things. Reminds me of a Discworld quote
Yeah lol the kid will likely be screen out of most things. Reminds me of a Discworld quote
His age was indeterminate. But in cynicism and general world weariness, which is a sort of carbon dating of the personality, he was about seven thousand years old.
I'd even call it an expectation of listening to authority in this specific way. It wouldn't be weird to teach kids to say the opposites (as a way to teach them) in my culture, but it is weird in...
I'd even call it an expectation of listening to authority in this specific way. It wouldn't be weird to teach kids to say the opposites (as a way to teach them) in my culture, but it is weird in some cultures to say an intentional untruth. I think American majority culture expects the authority to make the "lie" into a "game" for example.
I appreciate when we go back and challenge our assumptions in psychology. I've felt too many of our research studies have been treated as revealing clear truth about humanity, when the truth I think they reveal is how blind we are to our assumptions. Anyway I thought this was particularly interesting.
I don’t understand the reasoning of the kids who left the room, at least the way the article describes it. If they didn’t stick around they wouldn’t get any marshmallows. Why not take one and then leave?
Probably because they were told not to. Or because they thought they might still get them later. Their culture doesn't have as much "do what the adult says because they said so even if it makes no sense*" or as much "sitting and waiting with nothing to do is boring but expected". The fact that multiple kids made the same call suggests it's not a one off.
*So "you can't have this now" might make sense but "sit here and do nothing" might not.
The article says they could choose to have one marshmallow right away, though. If they didn't want to wait, why didn't they just take it? But maybe my understanding of the kids' culture or the experimental protocol is lacking.
Yeah sorry I got wrapped up into things and didn't think that point through.
It might also be that marshmallows aren't super motivating! Or they thought they could come back. But yeah I think the cultural difference is the point. I'd have to read more on that specific experiment to get a better sense.
Could be. Even as a kid I wasn’t wild about them. I would way rather have had a piece of chocolate or something like that.
I got curious and did a little looking into the history of these experiments, and I have to say that the protocols described seemed to be very convoluted, to the point where I would expect a small child to have a hard time following them.
The experimenters would ask the child whether they liked pretzels or marshmallows better, and then told the child that they could have the one they preferred least now, or the one they preferred most later if they waited.
On top of that, if the child chose to wait then the adult would leave the room, but the child could ring a bell if they got tired of waiting, and the adult would return. If they did that then they would get the less desired treat. It just seemed like too much for a little kid to keep straight.
Particularly if you're not used to long verbal instructions vs having a task demonstrated.
I wonder what the curriculum was at the school they got subjects from, and whether that made a difference. But that said, kids can typically grasp the instructions given. If they didn't, they'd have been screened out. (Which again makes you wonder what is being tested for)
I can't read the article, but one criticism I've heard against the study is that children that were able to wait often had access to more food/candy at home, which is linked to parents that were better off. Parents with more resources is a pretty good indicator of success.
This is an archive link.
Thanks!
That is one area that absolutely shows some bias in results too. And it could mean that kids with less childhood food security also have less executive function but I'm not sure if they tried those other tests as well (using presents instead of food)
Yeah, I really question how much a treat, any treat, is a good measure for anything (edit: motivations, executive functioning, patience etc) if the child has easy access to treats on a normal basis.
My kid's response when we read about this study: " I don't like marshmallows." Also, after discussion, they told me they can go indefinitely without the promised whatever from the researcher if there are annoying hoops or it is perceived there's a trick - with the understanding I would nearly certainly buy them a remedial/comparable thing afterwards if child feels uncomfortable taking the treat from the researcher.
Which, to be fair, is why any child that says "oh this is Marshmallow test, you're trying to trick me" is probably screened out of the study 😅
But yeah the original test wasn't actually even about marshmallows (and the reward varies or has options in other versions), which I suspect are inconsistent as a reward.
Yeah lol the kid will likely be screen out of most things. Reminds me of a Discworld quote
I love that!
I'd even call it an expectation of listening to authority in this specific way. It wouldn't be weird to teach kids to say the opposites (as a way to teach them) in my culture, but it is weird in some cultures to say an intentional untruth. I think American majority culture expects the authority to make the "lie" into a "game" for example.