Fri . 20 Sep 2020
TR | RU | UK | KK | BE |

Delayed gratification

delayed gratification, delayed gratification meaning
Delayed gratification, or deferred gratification, is the ability to resist the temptation for an immediate reward and 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 A growing body of literature has linked the ability to delay gratification to a host of other positive outcomes, including academic success, physical health, psychological health, and social competence

A person's ability to delay gratification relates to other similar skills such as patience, impulse control, self-control and willpower, all of which are involved in self-regulation Broadly, self-regulation encompasses a person's capacity to adapt the self as necessary to meet demands of the environment Delaying gratification is the reverse of delay discounting, which is "the preference for smaller immediate rewards over larger but delayed rewards" and refers to the "fact that the subjective value of reward decreases with increasing delay to its receipt" It is theorized that the ability to delay rewards is under the control of the cognitive-affective personality system CAPS

Several factors can affect a person's ability to delay gratification Cognitive strategies, such as the use of distracting or "cool" thoughts, can increase delay ability, as can neurological factors, such as strength of connections in the frontal-striatal pathway Behavioral researchers have focused on the contingencies that govern choices to delay reinforcement, and have studied how to manipulate those contingencies in order to lengthen delay Age plays a role too; children under 5 years old demonstrate a marked lack of delayed gratification ability and most commonly seek immediate gratification A very small difference between males and females suggest that females may be better at delaying rewards The ability to wait or seek immediate reinforcement is related to avoidance-related behaviors such as procrastination, and to other clinical diagnoses such as anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and depression

Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalytic theory, discussed the ego's role in balancing the immediate pleasure-driven desires of the id with the morality-driven choices of the superego Funder and Block expanded psychoanalytic research on the topic, and found that impulsivity, or a lack of ego-control, has a stronger effect on one's ability to delay rewards if a reward is more desirable Finally, environmental and social factors play a role; for example, delay is affected by the self-imposed or external nature of a reward contingency, by the degree of task engagement required during the delay, by early mother-child relationship characteristics, by a person's previous experiences with unreliable promises of rewards eg, in poverty, and by contemporary sociocultural expectations and paradigms Research on animals comprises another body of literature describing delayed gratification characteristics that are not as easily tested in human samples, such as ecological factors affecting the skill

Contents

  • 1 Background
    • 11 The cognitive-affective processing system
    • 12 The Stanford marshmallow experiment
  • 2 Factors affecting one's ability
    • 21 Cognitive/neurological factors
    • 22 Behavioral factors
      • 221 Individual thresholds for delay
      • 222 Duration of time delay
      • 223 Behavioral training
        • 2231 Applications in classroom settings
        • 2232 Applications to ADHD
    • 23 Across the lifespan
      • 231 Effects of age
      • 232 Effects of gender
    • 24 Clinical factors
      • 241 Contemporary clinical psychology perspectives
      • 242 Psychoanalytic drives and impulses
    • 25 Environmental/social factors
      • 251 Who's in control
      • 252 Task engagement
      • 253 Mother-child relationship
      • 254 Reliability of gratification
      • 255 Social/cultural influences
    • 26 Genetics and evolution
  • 3 Animal studies
    • 31 Delay discounting
    • 32 Ecological factors
  • 4 References

Background

The cognitive-affective processing system

One well-supported theory of self-regulation, called the Cognitive-affective personality system CAPS, suggests that delaying gratification results from an ability to use "cool" regulatory strategies ie, calm, controlled and cognitive strategies over "hot regulatory strategies ie, emotional, impulsive, automatic reactions, when faced with provocation In "hot" processing, a person thinks intently about the object causing temptation, and especially about its most appealing elements, and is subsequently less able to resist the immediate reward The use of cool strategies can translate to more control over behavior Effective "cool" strategies involve distraction and restructuring the perception of the tempting stimulus to make it seem less appealing For example, in one study of pre-adolescent boys with behavioral problems, the boys showed a reduction in verbal and physical aggression when they used "cool" strategies, such as looking away or distracting themselves The most effective type of distraction seems to be imagining another desirable reward, which takes attention away from the immediate temptations

The Stanford marshmallow experiment

The seminal research on delayed gratification – the now-famous "marshmallow experiment" – 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 "cool" distraction techniques covering their eyes, hiding under the desk, singing songs, 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

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, social competence, self-assuredness and self-worth, and were rated by their parents as more mature, better able to cope with stress, more likely to plan ahead, and more likely to use reason They were less likely to have conduct disorders or high levels of impulsivity, aggressiveness and hyperactivity As adults, the high delayers were less likely to have drug problems or other addictive behaviors, get divorced, or be overweight Each minute that a preschooler was able to delay gratification translated to a 2% reduction in Body Mass Index 30 years later

Each of these positive outcomes requires some ability to forgo short-term reward in favor of a higher payoff in the future The ability to delay gratification also appears to be a buffer against rejection sensitivity the tendency to be anxious when anticipating interpersonal rejection In a 20-year follow-up of the marshmallow experiment, 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 but low delay of gratification as four-year-olds 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 Those who had been high delayers as pre-schoolers were more successful at controlling their impulses in response to the emotional faces ie, 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 This mirrors other fMRI research of delayed gratification conducted by Noah Shamosh and Jeremy Gray, of Yale University, demonstrating that individuals who chose larger delayed rewards over smaller immediate rewards in hypothetical situations showed greater brain activation in the anterior prefrontal cortex

Factors affecting one's ability

Cognitive/neurological factors

The way that a person frames a situation heavily influences a decision's outcome Research on "hot" and "cool" strategies 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 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

Delaying gratification is the same as controlling the impulse for immediate gratification, which requires cognitive control The ventral striatum, located in the midbrain, is the part of the limbic system that is the reward center as well as a pleasure center 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 the focus of a person's attention, which enables a better framing that facilitates delayed gratification During adolescence and early adulthood, the prefrontal cortex develops and matures to become more complicated and connected with the rest of the brain Older children and adults find the deferment-of-gratification tasks easier than do young children for this reason However, the relative ability to defer gratification remains stable throughout development Children who can better control impulses grow up to be adults who also have better control Practicing deferred gratification is quite beneficial to cognitive abilities throughout life

Behavioral factors

Behaviorists focus on the acquisition and teaching of delayed gratification, and have developed therapeutic techniques for increasing ability to delay Behavior analysts capitalize on the effective principles of reinforcement when shaping behavior by making rewards contingent on the person's current behavior, which promotes learning a delay of gratification 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 It has been shown that learning to delay gratification promotes positive social behavior, such as sharing and positive peer interactions For example, students who learn to delay gratification are better able to complete their assigned activities To put it simply, if someone undertakes an activity with the promise of a delayed reward after, the task's completion becomes more likely

Behavioral researchers have found that a choice for instant versus delayed gratification is influenced by several factors including whether the reward is negative or positive reinforcement A past study by Solnick et al, focused on an experiment where the main concentrations were time added to both conditions and the preference of the participants with experiencing a loud noise for variable amounts of time: 15, 30, 60, and 90 seconds The buttons to turn off the noise were manipulated by one button turning off the noise for a short amount of time and the other turning the noise off for an extended time The participants were found to be more willing to turn off the noise immediately for 90 seconds rather than turning it off for the 120 seconds after a 60-second delay was issued Findings illustrate that participants chose not to delay their gratification for the relief of noise but rather instantly silence it for a shorter amount of time

Individual thresholds for delay

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 The subjective value of a reward can also stem from the way one describes the potential reward As prospect theory states, 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

Duration of time delay

The duration of time until an eventual reward also affects participants' choice of immediate or delayed gratification 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

Behavioral training

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 economy 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

Applications to ADHD

Compared to neurotypical children, those 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 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 One study demonstrated that any verbal activity while waiting for reinforcement increases delay to gratification in participants with ADHD 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

Across the lifespan

At birth, infants are unable to wait for their wants and needs to be met and exhibit a defining lack of impulse control With age, developing children are able to retain impulsivity but also gain control over their immediate desires and are increasingly able to prolong gratification Developmental psychologists study the progression of impulse control and delay of gratification over the lifespan, including deficiencies in development that are closely related to attention deficits and behavior problems

Effects of age

Children under five years old display the least effective strategies for delaying 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-olds 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 Once delaying strategies are developed, the capacity to resist temptation is relatively stable throughout adulthood Preschoolers' performance on delayed gratification tasks 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 Declines in self-regulation and impulse control in old age predict corresponding declines in reward-delaying strategies, specifically reduced temporal discounting due to a decrease in cooling strategies

Effects of gender

Throughout 33 studies on gender differences, a small significant effect r = 06 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 This effect may be related to the slight gender differences found in delay discounting ie, minimizing the value of a delayed reward and higher levels of impulsivity and inattention in boys Further studies are needed to analyze if this minute difference begins at a certain age eg, puberty or if it has a stable magnitude throughout the lifespan Some researchers suggest this gender difference 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

Clinical factors

Contemporary clinical psychology perspectives

Self-control has been called the "master virtue" by clinical and social psychologists, suggesting that the ability to delay gratification plays a critical role in a person's overall psychological adjustment People with better ability to delay gratification report higher wellbeing, self-esteem and openness to experience, as well as more productive ways of responding to anger and other provocations 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 Meanwhile, many maladaptive coping skills that characterize mental illness entail a difficulty delaying gratification The tendency to choose short-term rewards at the expense of longer-term benefits permeates many forms of psychopathology

Externalizing disorders Externalizing disorders ie, 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, as are substance abuse, gambling, and other addictive behaviors in adolescents and adults In a 2010 study, teenagers and young adults with stronger abilities to delay gratification were less likely to drink alcohol, or to smoke cigarettes or marijuana Interestingly, a 2011 study found that the contrast in delayed gratification between children with and without ADHD was no longer significant after statistically controlling for IQ in other words, ADHD was not associated with delayed gratification above and beyond the influence of IQ This may stem from the high correlation between intelligence and delayed gratification, and suggests that the tie between delayed gratification and ADHD could benefit from more investigation

Internalizing disorders Difficulty delaying gratification also plays a role in internalizing disorders like anxiety and depression 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 from overcoming the fear and anxiety that caused the avoidance Procrastination, which is often a reflection of anxiety, is a 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 is unable to resist compulsions that temporarily mitigate the torture of obsessive thoughts, even though these compulsions do not banish the obsessions in the long run One experiment, however, did not find any significant differences between samples with OCD and healthy controls in delayed gratification, while finding substantially improved delayed gratification among those with Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder Depression is also associated with lower capacity to delay gratification, though the direction of cause and effect is not clear A depressed person who has difficulty pushing him or herself to engage in previously enjoyed activities is deliberately or not prioritizing short-term comfort and is demonstrating an impaired ability to delay gratification There is evidence that individuals who engage in deliberate self-harm ie, cut themselves are less able to tolerate emotional distress but are more able to tolerate physical pain Thus it is argued that 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 In other words, self-control abilities are malleable, 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 Exposure therapy 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 also help individuals construct a pro-con list of a certain behavior, with sections for short-term and long-term outcomes 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 ie, delayed gratification generally results in long-term benefits This realization can be a powerful impetus for change

Psychoanalytic drives and 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, a person's psyche is composed of the id, ego and superego The id is driven by the pleasure principle: it 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 against the superego, which is guided by a person's internalized sense of morality According to psychoanalytic theory, a person with difficulty delaying gratification is plagued by intrapsychic conflict – the ego cannot adequately regulate the battle between the id and the superego – and experiences psychological distress, often in the form of anxiety or "neurosis"

Other psychoanalytic researchers describe a more nuanced, and less universally positive, view of delayed gratification David C Funder and Jack Block theorized that a person's tendency to delay, or not delay, gratification is just one element of a broader construct called ego control, defined as a person's ability to modulate or control impulses Ego control "ranges from ego undercontrol at one end to ego overcontrol at the other," according to Funder These tendencies are thought to be relatively stable in each individual, such that someone who tends toward undercontrol will "grab whatever rewards are immediately available even at the cost of long-term gain" and someone who tends toward overcontrol will "delay or even forgo pleasures even when they can be had without cost" By this view, delay of gratification may be adaptive in certain settings, but inappropriate or even costly in other settings

Funder and Block draw a distinction between the ego-control model, in which delayed gratification is seen as a general tendency to contain motivational impulses whether or not it is adaptive in a specific instance, and the ego-resiliency model supported by Mischel's research, in which delayed gratification is seen as a skill that arises only when it is adaptive To tease apart these models, Funder and Block explored the association between ego control, ego resiliency, IQ and delayed gratification in adolescents The adolescents had the choice between being paid $4 at each of six study sessions or delaying their payment until the last session, in which case they would also earn an addition $4 of "interest" The results supported both models of delayed gratification The teens' tendency to delay gratification was indeed associated with IQ and with ego resiliency eg, higher delayers were rated as more responsible, consistent, likable, sympathetic, generous; less hostile, moody, self-indulgent, rebellious, but was also independently associated with ego control eg, higher delayers were rated as "tends toward over-control of needs and impulses," "favors conservative values in a number of areas" The researchers noted that individual differences in ego control ie, overall impulsivity may play a larger role in delayed gratification when the incentives are larger and more motivating

Writing in 1998, Funder described delayed gratification as a "mixed bag" He concluded: "Participants who exhibited the most delay were not just 'better' at self-control, but in a sense they seemed unable to avoid it …Delayers are in general smart and well-adjusted, but they also tend to be somewhat overcontrolled and unnecessarily inhibited"

Environmental/social factors

Who's in control

Factors affecting one's ability to delay gratification depend on whether the delay contingency is self-imposed delay can be terminated at the will of the person waiting or externally imposed by another person, institution or circumstance When the contingency is self-imposed, the physical presence of the reward seems to aid in delaying gratification On the other hand, when the delay is externally imposed, children are not able to wait as long when the reward is present, suggesting greater frustration under these circumstances

Task engagement

Engaging in work or an assigned task can generate an effective distraction from a reward and enable a person to wait for a longer delay, as long as the reward is not being flaunted Having the reward present during work and easily accessible creates a negative frustration — akin to teasing — rather than providing motivation For example, a child who can see other children playing outside while finishing his/her homework will be less motivated to wait for his/her turn for recess Another factor work and task engagement adds to the delay of gratification is that if the work is interesting and has some reinforcing quality inherent to it, then attention to the reward will reduce work productivity since it becomes a distraction to the work rather than a motivation to finish it

Mother-child relationship

The more positive emotions and behavior that a 12- to 24-month-old toddler displays when coping with separation from a parent, the better s/he is 35 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 able to employ more cooling strategies and delay rewards longer Similarly, children who stay close to a non-controlling mothers also use more cool 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 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, self-control and emotional competency

Reliability of gratification

Researchers have investigated whether the reliability of the reward affects one's ability to delay gratification Reliability of the reward refers to how well the reward received matches what the person was expecting or promised in terms of quality and quantity For example, researchers told children that they would receive better art supplies if they waited After the children successfully waited for the reward, better supplies could not be "found" and so they had to use the crayons and stickers that were in poor shape Comparing these children to ones who received their promised rewards reliably revealed different results on subsequent Marshmallow tests measuring delayed gratification Children who had learned that the researcher's promise was unreliable quickly succumbed to eating the marshmallow, waiting only an average of 3 minutes Conversely, children who had learned that the researcher was reliable were able to wait an average of 12 minutes, with many of them waiting the full 15 minutes for the researcher to return in order to double the reward to two marshmallows

Social/cultural influences

It is difficult to teach delayed gratification when children grow up expecting a large, instant reward for their years of schooling 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 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 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 "We have devalued the time we spend alone just thinking, but it's that time for reflection that leads to the big ideasMultitasking is espoused and almost glorified in the United States, but it is dehumanizing us and making us less creative"

Genetics and evolution

Evolutionary theory can argue against the selection of the deferred gratification trait since there are both costs and risks associated with delaying gratification behavior One such cost is the basic opportunity cost associated with time spent waiting While waiting, individuals lose time that could be used to find other food Seeking high calorie food conveys a clear evolutionary advantage There are also two risks associated with being patient First, there is a risk that another animal might get to the food first, also known as an interruption risk Second, there is the risk that the chance to get the reward will be cut short, perhaps by a predator, also known as a termination risk These costs and risks create situations in which the fitness of the individual is threatened There are several examples that show how reward delay occurs in the real world For example, animals that eat fruit have the option of eating unripe fruit right away, or waiting, delaying gratification, until it becomes ripe The interruption risk plays a part here, because if the individual forgoes the unripe fruit, there is a chance that another individual may come along and get to it first Also, in extractive foraging, such as with nuts and shellfish, the outer shell creates a delay However, animals that can store food and defer eating are more likely to survive during harsh conditions, and thus delaying gratification may also incur an evolutionary advantage

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 For this same reason, multiple genes are likely responsible for deferred gratification Further research is necessary to discover the genetic corollaries to delayed gratification

Animal studies

Delayed gratification or deferred gratification is an animal behavior that can be linked to delay discounting, ecological factors, individual fitness, and neurobiological mechanisms Research for this behavior has been conducted with animals such as capuchin monkeys, tamarins, marmosets, rats, and pigeons

Delay discounting

When animals are faced with a choice to either wait for a reward, or receive a reward right away, the discounting of the reward is hyperbolic As the length of time of waiting for a reward increases, the reward is discounted at a gradual rate Empirical data have suggested that exponential discounting, rewards discounting at a constant rate per unit of waiting time, only occurs when there are random interruptions in foraging Discounting can also be related to the risk sensitivity of animals Rather than relating risk to delay, risk sensitivity acts as a function of delay discounting In a study conducted by Haden and Platt, macaque monkeys were given the choice of a medium reward that they knew they would receive, versus a more risky choice The riskier choice would reward the monkey with a large reward fifty percent of the time, and a small reward the other fifty percent The ultimate payoff was the same, but the monkeys preferred the riskier choice They speculated that the monkeys did not see their action as risky, but rather as a large, delayed reward They reasoned that the monkeys viewed the large reward as certain: if they did not get the large reward the first time around, they would eventually get it, but at a longer delay To test for this theory, they gave the same test while varying the time between the opportunities to choose a reward They found that as the interval increased, the number of times that the monkeys chose the more risky reward decreased While this occurred in macaque monkeys, the varying interval time did not affect pigeons' choices in another study This suggests that research looking into varying risk sensitivity of different species is needed When provided a choice between a small, short delay reward, and a large, long delay reward, there is an impulsive preference for the former Additionally, as the delay time for the small/short and large/long reward increases, there is a shift in preference toward the larger, delayed reward This evidence only supports hyperbolic discounting, not exponential

Ecological factors

Although predicting reward preference seems simple when using empirical models, there are a number of ecological factors that seem to affect the delayed gratification behavior of animals In real world situations, "discounting makes sense because of the inherent uncertainty of future payoffs"

One study looked at how reward discounting is context specific By differing the time and space between small and large rewards, they were able to test how these factors affected the decision making in tamarins and marmosets They showed that tamarins will travel longer distances for larger food rewards, but will not wait as long as marmosets Conversely, marmosets will wait longer, but will not travel as far They then concluded that this discounting behavior directly correlates to the normal feeding behavior of species The tamarins feed over large distances, looking for insects Capturing and eating insects requires a quick and impulsive decision and action The marmosets, on the other hand, eat tree sap, which takes more time to secrete, but does not require that the marmosets to cover large distances

The physiological similarities between humans and other animals, especially primates, have led to more comparative research between the two groups Future research with animal models then can expand our own understanding of how people make decisions about instant versus delayed gratification in the real world

References

  1. ^ a b c Carducci, Bernardo J 2009 "Basic Processes of Mischel's Cognitive-Affective Perspective: Delay of Gratification and Conditions of Behavioral Consistency" The Psychology of Personality: Viewpoints, Research, and Applications John Wiley and Sons pp 443–4 ISBN 978-1-4051-3635-8 
  2. ^ Doerr, Celeste E; Baumeister, Roy F 2011 "Self-Regulatory Strength and Psychological Adjustment: Implications of the Limited Resource Model of Self-Regulation" In Maddux, James E; Tangney, June Price Social Psychological Foundations of Clinical Psychology Guilford Press pp 71–83 ISBN 978-1-60623-689-5 
  3. ^ Anokhin, Andrey P; Golosheykin, Simon; Grant, Julia D; Heath, Andrew C 2010 "Heritability of Delay Discounting in Adolescence: A Longitudinal Twin Study" Behavior Genetics 41 2: 175–83 doi:101007/s10519-010-9384-7 PMC 3036802 PMID 20700643 
  4. ^ a b Kross, Ethan; Mischel, Walter; Shoda, Yichi 2011 "Enabling Self-Control" In Maddux, James E; Tangney, June Price Social Psychological Foundations of Clinical Psychology Guilford Press pp 375–94 ISBN 978-1-60623-689-5 
  5. ^ a b c Romer, Daniel; Duckworth, Angela L; Sznitman, Sharon; Park, Sunhee 2010 "Can Adolescents Learn Self-control Delay of Gratification in the Development of Control over Risk Taking" Prevention Science 11 3: 319–30 doi:101007/s11121-010-0171-8 PMC 2964271 PMID 20306298 
  6. ^ a b c Fair, Damien A; Dosenbach, Nico U F; Church, Jessica A; Cohen, Alexander L; Brahmbhatt, Shefali; Miezin, Francis M; Barch, Deanna M; Raichle, Marcus E; et al 2007 "Development of distinct control networks through segregation and integration" Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 33: 13507–12 Bibcode:2007PNAS10413507F doi:101073/pnas0705843104 JSTOR 25436514 PMC 1940033 PMID 17679691 
  7. ^ a b c d Mischel, Walter; Shoda, Yichi; Rodriguez, Monica L 1992 "Delay of Gratification in Children" In Lowenstein, George; Elster, Jon Choice Over Time Russell Sage Foundation pp 147–64 ISBN 978-0-87154-558-9 
  8. ^ a b Tobin, Renée M; Graziano, William G 2009 "Delay of Gratification: A Review of Fifty Years of Regulation Research" In Hoyle, Rick H Handbook of Personality and Self-Regulation John Wiley & Sons pp 47–63 ISBN 978-1-4443-1812-8 
  9. ^ a b c Moss, Simon October 11, 2011 "Temporal discounting" Psychopedia Retrieved May 29, 2013 
  10. ^ a b c d e f g Funder, David C; Block, Jack 1989 "The role of ego-control, ego-resiliency, and IQ in delay of gratification in adolescence" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57 6: 1041–50 doi:101037/0022-35145761041 PMID 2614657 
  11. ^ a b c d Miller, Dale T; Karniol, Rachel 1976 "The role of rewards in externally and self-imposed delay of gratification" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 33 5: 594–600 doi:101037/0022-3514335594 
  12. ^ a b Peake, Philip K; Hebl, Michelle; Mischel, Walter 2002 "Strategic attention deployment for delay of gratification in working and waiting situations" Developmental Psychology 38 2: 313–26 doi:101037/0012-1649382313 PMID 11881765 
  13. ^ a b c Sethi, Anita; Mischel, Walter; Aber, J Lawrence; Shoda, Yuichi; Rodriguez, Monica Larrea 2000 "The role of strategic attention deployment in development of self-regulation: Predicting preschoolers' delay of gratification from mother-toddler interactions" Developmental Psychology 36 6: 767–77 doi:101037/0012-1649366767 PMID 11081700 
  14. ^ a b Rodriguez, Monica L; Ayduk, Ozlem; Aber, J Lawrence; Mischel, Walter; Sethi, Anita; Shoda, Yuichi 2005 "A Contextual Approach to the Development of Self-regulatory Competencies: The Role of Maternal Unresponsivity and Toddlers' Negative Affect in Stressful Situations" Social Development 14: 136 doi:101111/j1467-9507200500294x 
  15. ^ a b c Huget, Jennifer LaRue October 15, 2012 "A new take on the marshmallow test" The Washington Post Retrieved May 29, 2013 
  16. ^ a b Stevens, Jeffrey R; Rosati, Alexandra G; Ross, Kathryn R; Hauser, Marc D 2005 "Will Travel for Food: Spatial Discounting in Two New World Monkeys" Current Biology 15 20: 1855–60 doi:101016/jcub200509016 PMID 16243033 
  17. ^ Karasu, Sylvia R March 26, 2012 "Lead Us Not Into Temptation: The Neuroscience Behind the Marshmallow Test" Psychology Today Retrieved May 29, 2013 
  18. ^ a b c d e f g Lehrer, Jonah May 18, 2009 "Don't!: The Secret of Self Control" The New Yorker 
  19. ^ a b Brooks, David May 7, 2006 "Marshmallows and Public Policy" The New York Times 
  20. ^ a b c Linehan, Marsha 1993 Skills Training Manual for Treating Borderline Personality Disorder Taylor & Francis ISBN 978-0-89862-034-4 
  21. ^ a b c d e Mischel, Walter; Ayduk, Ozlem; Berman, Marc G; Casey, B J; Gotlib, Ian H; Jonides, John; Kross, Ethan; Teslovich, Theresa; et al 2010 "'Willpower' over the life span: Decomposing self-regulation" Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 6 2: 252–6 doi:101093/scan/nsq081 PMC 3073393 PMID 20855294 
  22. ^ a b c Begley, Sharon; Chatzky, Jean Oct 30, 2011 "The New Science Behind Your Spending Addiction" The Daily Beast Newsweek Retrieved May 29, 2013 
  23. ^ Schlam, Tanya R; Wilson, Nicole L; Shoda, Yuichi; Mischel, Walter; Ayduk, Ozlem 2013 "Preschoolers' Delay of Gratification Predicts their Body Mass 30 Years Later" The Journal of Pediatrics 162 1: 90–3 doi:101016/jjpeds201206049 PMC 3504645 PMID 22906511 
  24. ^ a b c Casey, B J; Somerville, Leah H; Gotlib, Ian H; Ayduk, Ozlem; Franklin, Nicholas T; Askren, Mary K; Jonides, John; Berman, Marc G; et al 2011 "Behavioral and neural correlates of delay of gratification 40 years later" Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 36: 14998–5003 Bibcode:2011PNAS10814998C doi:101073/pnas1108561108 PMC 3169162 PMID 21876169 Lay summary – The New York Times September 20, 2011 
  25. ^ a b c Shamosh, Noah A; Deyoung, Colin G; Green, Adam E; Reis, Deidre L; Johnson, Matthew R; Conway, Andrew RA; Engle, Randall W; Braver, Todd S; Gray, Jeremy R 2008 "Individual Differences in Delay Discounting: Relation to Intelligence, Working Memory, and Anterior Prefrontal Cortex" Psychological Science 19 9: 904–11 doi:101111/j1467-9280200802175x PMID 18947356 Lay summary – Physorg Sep 9, 2008 
  26. ^ a b c d Kahneman, Daniel 2003 "A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality" American Psychologist 58 9: 697–720 doi:101037/0003-066X589697 PMID 14584987 
  27. ^ Gregorios-Pippas, L; Tobler, P N; Schultz, W 2009 "Short-Term Temporal Discounting of Reward Value in Human Ventral Striatum" Journal of Neurophysiology 101 3: 1507–23 doi:101152/jn907302008 PMC 2666398 PMID 19164109 
  28. ^ a b c d Haines, Duane E, ed 2006 Fundamental Neurosicence for Basic and Clinical Applications 4th ed ISBN 978-0-443-06751-8 
  29. ^ a b c Stromer, R; McComas, J J; Rehfeldt, R A 2000 "Designing interventions that include delayed reinforcement: Implications of recent laboratory research" Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 33 3: 359–71 doi:101901/jaba200033-359 PMC 1284263 PMID 11051582 
  30. ^ Solnick, Jay V; Kannenberg, Catherine H; Eckerman, David A; Waller, Marcus B 1980 "An experimental analysis of impulsivity and impulse control in humans" Learning and Motivation 11: 61–77 doi:101016/0023-96908090021-1 
  31. ^ Critchfield, T S; Kollins, S H 2001 "Temporal discounting: Basic research and the analysis of socially important behavior" Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 34 1: 101–22 doi:101901/jaba200134-101 PMC 1284292 PMID 11317983 
  32. ^ 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 3: 451–61 doi:101901/jaba201144-451 PMC 3177329 PMID 21941378 
  33. ^ 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 2: 233–7 doi:101901/jaba200033-233 PMC 1284241 PMID 10885530 
  34. ^ a b 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 4: 397–408 doi:101901/jaba200134-397 PMC 1284336 PMID 11800181 
  35. ^ a b Neef, Nancy A; Marckel, Julie; Ferreri, Summer J; Bicard, David F; Endo, Sayaka; Aman, Michael G; Miller, Kelly M; Jung, Sunhwa; et al 2005 Lerman, Dorothea, ed "Behavioral Assessment of Impulsivity: A Comparison of Children with and Without Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder" Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 38 1: 23–37 doi:101901/jaba2005146-02 PMC 1224407 PMID 15898472 
  36. ^ Kumst, S, & Scarf, D 2015 "Your wish is my command! The influence of symbolic modelling on preschool children's delay of gratification" PeerJ 3: e774 doi:107717/peerj774  CS1 maint: Uses authors parameter link
  37. ^ Eigsti, Inge-Marie; Zayas, Vivian; Mischel, Walter; Shoda, Yuichi; Ayduk, Ozlem; Dadlani, Mamta B; Davidson, Matthew C; Aber, J Lawrence; Casey, B J 2006 "Predicting Cognitive Control from Preschool to Late Adolescence and Young Adulthood" Psychological Science 17 6: 478–84 doi:101111/j1467-9280200601732x JSTOR 40064397 PMID 16771797 
  38. ^ a b Löckenhoff, Corinna E; O'Donoghue, Ted; Dunning, David 2011 "Age differences in temporal discounting: The role of dispositional affect and anticipated emotions" Psychology and Aging 26 2: 274–84 doi:101037/a0023280 PMID 21534688 
  39. ^ Duckworth, Angela Lee; Seligman, Martin E P 2006 "Self-discipline gives girls the edge: Gender in self-discipline, grades, and achievement test scores" Journal of Educational Psychology 98: 198–208 doi:101037/0022-0663981198 
  40. ^ a b Silverman, Irwin W 2003 "Gender Differences in Delay of Gratification: A Meta-Analysis" Sex Roles 49 9/10: 451–63 doi:101023/A:1025872421115 
  41. ^ Campbell, Susan B; Stauffenberg, Camilla 2008 "Delay and Inhibition as Early Predictors of ADHD Symptoms in Third Grade" Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 37 1: 1–15 doi:101007/s10802-008-9270-4 PMID 18787941 
  42. ^ a b Baumeister, Roy F; Juola Exline, Julie 1999 "Virtue, Personality, and Social Relations: Self-Control as the Moral Muscle" Journal of Personality 67 6: 1165–94 doi:101111/1467-649400086 PMID 10637991 
  43. ^ Krueger, Robert F; Caspi, Avshalom; Moffitt, Terrie E; White, Jennifer; Stouthamer-Loeber, Magda 1996 "Delay of Gratification, Psychopathology, and Personality: Is Low Self-Control Specific to Externaiizing Problems" Journal of Personality 64 1: 107–29 doi:101111/j1467-64941996tb00816x PMID 8656312 
  44. ^ Wilson, Vanessa B; Mitchell, Suzanne H; Musser, Erica D; Schmitt, Colleen F; Nigg, Joel T 2011 "Delay discounting of reward in ADHD: Application in young children" Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 52 3: 256–64 doi:101111/j1469-7610201002347x PMC 3059765 PMID 21083561 
  45. ^ a b c d e Barlow, David H; Durand, V Mark 2011 Abnormal Psychology, An Integrative Approach 6th ed Belmont, CA: Wadsworth ISBN 978-1-111-34365-1 
  46. ^ Pinto, Anthony 2014 "Capacity to Delay Reward Differentiates Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder" Biol Psychiatry 75 8: 653–659 doi:101016/jbiopsych201309007 
  47. ^ Rehm, Lynn P 1977 "A self-control model of depression" Behavior Therapy 8 5: 787–804 doi:101016/S0005-78947780150-0 
  48. ^ Gratz, Kim L; Hepworth, Claire; Tull, Matthew T; Paulson, Autumn; Clarke, Sue; Remington, Bob; Lejuez, CW 2011 "An experimental investigation of emotional willingness and physical pain tolerance in deliberate self-harm: The moderating role of interpersonal distress" Comprehensive Psychiatry 52 1: 63–74 doi:101016/jcomppsych201004009 PMID 21220067 
  49. ^ Funder, David C 1998 "On the Pros and Cons of Delay of Gratification" Psychological Inquiry 9 3: 211–2 doi:101207/s15327965pli0903_3 
  50. ^ Gasman, Marybeth 2011 "Teaching Today's Students About Delayed Gratification" The Chronicle 
  51. ^ Truscott, Claire March 27, 2008 "Nearly half of marriages doomed for divorce, study finds" The Guardian London 
  52. ^ Alsop, Ronald J 2011 "Gotta have it, right now" Notre Dame Magazine 
  53. ^ a b c van den Bos, Ruud; de Ridder, Denise 2006 "Evolved to satisfy our immediate needs: Self-control and the rewarding properties of food" Appetite 47 1: 24–9 doi:101016/jappet200602008 PMID 16678304 
  54. ^ a b c d Fawcett, Tim W; McNamara, John M; Houston, Alasdair I 2012 "When is it adaptive to be patient A general framework for evaluating delayed rewards" Behavioural Processes 89 2: 128–36 doi:101016/jbeproc201108015 PMID 21920413 
  55. ^ a b c Kalenscher, Tobias 2007 "Decision Making: Don't Risk a Delay" Current Biology 17 2: R58–61 doi:101016/jcub200612016 PMID 17240330 
  56. ^ Long, Arwen; Platt, Michael 2005 "Decision Making: The Virtue of Patience in Primates" Current Biology 15 21: R874–6 doi:101016/jcub200510024 PMID 16271858 

delayed gratification, delayed gratification examples, delayed gratification experiment, delayed gratification magazine, delayed gratification marshmallow, delayed gratification meaning, delayed gratification psychology, delayed gratification quotes, delayed gratification study, delayed gratification video


Delayed gratification Information about

Delayed gratification


  • user icon

    Delayed gratification beatiful post thanks!

    29.10.2014


Delayed gratification
Delayed gratification
Delayed gratification viewing the topic.
Delayed gratification what, Delayed gratification who, Delayed gratification explanation

There are excerpts from wikipedia on this article and video

Random Posts

Ralph Neville, 2nd Earl of Westmorland

Ralph Neville, 2nd Earl of Westmorland

Ralph Neville, 2nd Earl of Westmorland 4 April 1406 – 3 November 1484 was an English peer Content...
Mamprusi language

Mamprusi language

The Mamprusi language, Mampruli Mampelle, Ŋmampulli, is a Gur language spoken in northern Ghana by t...
Singapore Changi Airport

Singapore Changi Airport

Singapore Changi Airport IATA: SIN, ICAO: WSSS, or simply Changi Airport, is the primary civili...
Christian Siriano

Christian Siriano

Christian Siriano born November 18, 1985 is an American fashion designer and member of the Council o...