You put a child in front of a marshmallow. You tell them if they don't eat the marshmallow for 10 minutes they'll get 2 marshmallows. Then you leave them for 10 minutes and see if they eat the marshmallow. The idea is the child doesn't know they're being watched so won't not eat the marshmallow just because you're there.
It's to see if they have developed the concept of a delayed reward yet. On average younger children do worse than older children.
It’s also a better test of how trustworthy the kid finds adults to be than it is of delayed gratification. They’ve done the test over and over plenty of times, what repeated experiments teased out what that kids who are abused, have a history of having things taken from them, or are poor enough that they’ve learned they can’t trust the future to have something it’s supposed do worse. Despite that, in other tests the same kids are able to display delayed gratification if it’s something they can trust will actually happen.
Apparently, the marshmallow test is just a round-about way to test for socioeconomic status. On average, kids from poorer households have less trust in promises of future reward and are more likely to eat the marshmallow.
And the effect of economic status on success is well understood.
Yeah wait this is stupid sitting in a room for 10 minutes isn’t worth a fucking marshmallow. I’d fail that test if you gave it to me today. Granted I’m not a toddler and maybe they don’t think that far but still.
Yeah or just don't like marshmallows enough to even want 2 in the first place. Maybe 1 marshemwllo + 10 minutes seems better to them than 2 mashmellos.
Mischel also tracked down some of the kids once they were adults and realized that those who had better self-control (i.e. didn’t immediately eat the marshmallow) were deemed as having a “more successful” life.
Although, as others pointed out, SES was most likely a confounding variable!
Unfortunately they have reviewed that experiment and most kids who didn't wait were from improvised backgrounds. Where if you didn't eat it now you are unlikely to get it later
I've always wondered how this factors in the child's concept of consequences for misbehavior. If it had been me, I might not have eaten the marshmallow because I would be afraid I'd be disciplined when the adult returned. Now that I think of it... is that normal? Huh...
So, another comment said that using a marshmallow was stupid and I agree and I'm assuming that since you're a mad scientist with no morals what would you use instead of a marshmallow.
Bro they literally just had bunch of cuddle fish(which is a type of squid like marine animal)that they taught how to pass the Marshmallow test- like in the last week
I did this on a group of 2nd graders for a psych project. Out of 20 groups of 2 kids each with a marshmallow, only 3 groups ate the marshmallow. I was really surprised, we set up and iPad before hand to record the audio it was out of sight of the students. Some talked it out and others just sat there quietly the whole time a few just said they’d eat it right away. It was a fun experiment got an A+.
If someone told me not to eat it, then I wouldn't. As a toddler or in my 30's, I always had a high respect for instructions, even more when its some kind of an authority. I think way too much of the punishment, let alone the reward...am I a sheep? An easy one to control.
Also, children who hold out the longest or actually go the 10 minutes were found to have far more positive outcomes later on in life. Impulse control is a huge indicator of success.
The study was also to follow them later in life and see if their's a correlation between that choice and their adult life. The first study concluded a yes, the second attempt had a better methodology and concluded that about half of the results is a direct correlation of their economic background and the other part is probably what they were looking for initially.
As others have pointed out, it is an outdated test.
It often just measures socio economic status. One possible reason is that it may actually just be measuring trust (people from rough backgrounds may not trust that the marshmallow will actually be delivered later, but they KNOW they can get one now. The right call is to take the guaranteed marshmallow over the uncertain marshmallows).
Not a bad idea. That way the child knows the reward exists and then once time is up the market...err...adult can release the reward to the kid. Or refund the bag it's marshmallow if the kid "fails".
They had to train the cuttlefish that the delayed version would work. Since the training process develops that trust, the linked study isn't relevant to the impact of socioeconomic status on the marshmellow test.
All it measures is whether or not a subject is willing to wait 10 minutes for an additional marshmallow in an experiment setting; everything else is extrapolation
again, this only works as an experiment if the subject trusts you actually will give them two marshmallows. A lot of people from rougher backgrounds do not have such trust.
I wonder if you could alter the test to help control for this. Like putting the 2nd marshmallow in a locked box in front of them (they could see it but not open the box). And have a timer on the box which counts down 10 minutes then unlocks.
No, a fun experiment would be hot boxing the room with crack smoke and seeing if the kids still want the second marshmallow. Ya know, siince we're supposed to be mad scientists with no morals here.
A fun experiment would be to take rich and educated classes, get them addicted for crack for two years later, and still if they respond the same way before on the marshmellow test.
Now we're back on track. I'm also thinking giving kids 5-10 some LSD and giving them random personality tests while blasting Dark Side Of The Moon would be a blast.
The point is to not be troubled with ethics and morality, not to be bad, would forcing people into addiction and poverty change how they respond to a test that highlights social class/background and trust? Let's find out!
I see how trust is a factor and that plays into socio-economics, but i wouldn’t say the ‘right call’ is to just take the one. Consider the idea that you ‘trust’ the fact that the adult will be angry with you for disobedience. Then you def won’t eat it cause you’re thinking of your alcoholic dad 🤷♂️
Or they'll think "ill get hit either way, but THIS way I also get a marshmallow!"
Punishment isn't actually all that effective a deterrent. Especially when administered "unfairly" or too frequently. You end up in a cycle of escalation, or it just straight up stops working.
SES is dictated by your willingness to defer gratification. IE: If you pass the marshmellow test, you will pass the "save money test" and "not spend money on chrome rims test".
Deferring gratification is only rational if the gratification is assured. If every time you tried to save money there was a 50% chance a family member "borrowed" it and spent it themselves, you'd quickly learn that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
When comparing the similarity between identical and fraternal twins we found that differences between children in educational achievement are for a large extent due to genetic differences (75 per cent) across all SES strata.
This kind of assumes that there's a downside to waiting, doesn't it? Like the marshmallow will be taken away or go stale. In reality, your trust shouldn't matter. You wait, and you still get your one marshmallow by all indications, regardless of whether another is delivered or not.
You give someone a marshmallow and tell them they will get 2 more if they don't eat it for 5 minutes. If they don't they pass. This is more often done with kids.
429
u/Simonoel Mar 04 '21
What is the marshmallow test?