Talk:Stanford marshmallow experiment

A fact from Stanford marshmallow experiment appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 November 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a follow-up study by Stanford psychologist Walter Mischel showed that that a child's ability at age 4 to delay eating a marshmallow for 15 minutes correlated with higher SAT test scores years later?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/November.

Wikipedia

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Stanford University Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Stanford University on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Stanford UniversityWikipedia:WikiProject Stanford UniversityTemplate:WikiProject Stanford UniversityStanford University articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2019 and 10 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abglopcer, The Tim Smith.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the removal of the origins section. It was by the same researcher and has been discussed by him in his memoir about the marshmallow experiment in context of being the direct precursor of the experiment, as reported here: http://authenticjoy.org/2018/01/02/the-marshmallow-test-started-in-trinidad/. As such I believe it is relevant. However, I'm not restoring it myself, as I'm not clear whether a single blog source can be considered reliable, and so will leave decisive action up to more experienced editors. SteubenGlass (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two nearly equals one without 15 minutes of boredom

This article lacks any consideration of the view that many children/people may consider that stuffing down two treats would be only slightly more enjoyable than scoffing one, and that spending 15 minutes in boredom is not enough to compensate for the slight extra pleasure. An extra marshmallow is not enough compensation for 15 minutes 'work'. Its not clear if all children had to, or knew they had to, wait 15 minutes even if they ate the marshmallow. 92.15.6.86 (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What point are you trying to make? That the article doesn't explain various motivations of the children? That's not really relevant and would be speculation. What the article does say is that the children who eat the marshmallow immediately (including those, who as you say, think 15 minutes of boredom is not sufficient compensation) are going to generally have lower SAT scores and be considered less competent by their parents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.106.215 (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could <> Would

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

I haven't read the 'OR' - is the can't/won't confusion there in the original paper, or just as reported in this article ? ie confusing a psychological inability to wait (pathological ?) with a deliberate choice based on a value judgement (intelligence, reasoning)

I suspect the research is more objective, just showing a correlation, rather than the black/white cause/effect presentation in the media ? Just contrast the headlines in the References section !

Can children be trained to learn deferred gratification ? Dogs can be trained to balance a treat on their nose until permitted to eat it on command - see YouTube. It even works with a 'pretend treat', although the dog is probably rewarded for 'playing the game' anyway.

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism for this experiment?

I'm not comfortable with the editing process, but I'd like to recommend this article which points towards some criticism of the experiment. Seeing as how it has become relatively infamous by now, it really ought to have some criticism included. Here's an article if any one is interested . Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidoqo (talk • contribs) 03:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the actual experiment isnt critized but rather leaping to the conclusion that children who 'pass' the test are always expected to be more succesful in life. 145.77.106.6 (talk) 10:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I worked back from the Daily Beast article to the 2006 study it cites and added that to the Followup Studies section. -- SpareSimian (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What other skills lead to better life outcomes?

This study identifies deferred gratification as one skill (or trait) that correlates with better life outcomes. What other skills correlate with better life outcomes? Are such skills the same as leadership skills, or does “better life outcomes” diverge from “leadership” and rely on a different set of skills? --Lbeaumont (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Racism

Can we rewrite the origins section of this to be a little more racially respectful. It seems like this was written by a bull in a china shop without consideration that in 1958 the prose of the original citation was written in a time of intense racism and oppression. 87.114.78.116 (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fix confusion of Mischel et al. 1970 "Attention in delay of gratification" and Mischel et al. 1972 "Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification."

This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.

The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below.

This article appears to confuse the 1970 paper, in which the original delay gratification experiment took place, and the 1972 follow up experiment, which appears to be more cited in this article at this time. This is misleading, as the two experiments tested different things, the experiment from the 1972 article being much more complex, indeed, the quote about children that would "cover their eyes with their hands or turn around" comes from the 1970 article, not the 1972 article as referenced.

The 1970 article describes an experiment (and follow up experiment) testing the amount of time preschool aged children would wait "while facing either the delayed reward, a less preferred but immediately available reward, both rewards, or no rewards".

The 1972 article describes three experiments.

Experiment I tested the effects of self-distraction on the duration of gratification delay where children could see both the immediate and delayed rewards. The self-distraction techniques were divided into physical activity (a toy), cognitive activity (thinking pleasant and distracting thoughts) and a control. To quote the article, "The results clearly supported the hypothesis that effective delay behavior is greatly enhanced by the avoidance or reduction of the frustrative aspects of delay of gratification." It was also found that the cognitive distractions were especially potent.

Experiment II is a follow up to experiment I, and tested what types of cognitive distraction instructions elicited the most delay. The children were told to think either 'fun' thoughts, sad thoughts or about the reward. The results were that 'fun' waited on average approximately 13 minutes, than 'sad' thoughts avg. approx. 5 minutes, and the 'reward' group avg. approx. 1 minute.

Experiment III tested delay due to cognitive distraction when the rewards were obscured. The children were told to think about either the reward, 'fun' thoughts, or were given no instruction. In this experiment, the average of the 'no instruction' group was approximately 13 minutes, 'fun' approx. 14.5 and 'reward' approx. 1 minute.

I apologize that I was not able to extract the results for all of the experiments, but this is not my field of study, and the text is especially dense.

I have taken the liberty to add expert needed and misleaded.

Marshmallow Test

On All in the Mind tonight, this was referred to as "the marshmallow test" so this could be given as another name for this experiment. Vorbee (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into/redirect

These experiments likely entered public awareness due to the cuteness factor of little kids eating marshmallows, however they were primary research and should not be covered in a separate WP article. The specific guideline is "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." There is a section in Delayed gratification that summarizes the topic, and places the research in proper context. The maintenance tags, now four years old, could be resolved by merging whatever content is appropriate from here into that section, and this title made a redirect.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delayed gratification is a GA, and the section on this topic more that covers it, so the redirect could be done without a merge.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Connect to de.wikipedia.org?

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belohnungsaufschub#Marshmallow-Test --213.61.248.114 (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

solved --Ernsts (talk) 10:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mashmallow Test with animals

Test results with the following animals should be added:

non-human primates (apes: chimps, and some monkeys)
dogs
some birds (corvids: crows)
cephalopods (Sepia officinalis)

See

--Ernsts (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Failed to replicate?

What would be the proper way to incorporate this recent study into the article: [1] (see also this article Study Disavows Marshmallow Test’s Predictive Powers)? (Note that Walter Mischel co-authored this study even though it appeared after he passed away in 2018). An expert's help may be needed here. Eliokim (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An obvious interpretation of the results of the experiment

I'm surprised to see no mention of an obvious^{[original research?]} interpretation of the results of the experiment. Children with competent responsible parents will be motivated by the opportunity of a second marshmallow. Children with irresponsible or incompetent parents will prefer one marshmallow now to two marshmallows that might never happen. It's no surprise that the latter unfortunate children will also attain poorer SAT scores etc. Maproom (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. From personal experience with lower socioeconomic people and families and the more affluent. The affluent family are more likely to follow through with the promise of a second “marshmallow” since they can obtain any amounts of “marshmallows” at anytime . Poorer families will more than likely not have even a first “marshmallow” no less a second “marshmallow” to offer. Added to this others who also are trying to take “marshmallows” if they can and you have an environment of scarcity. This would mean the lower socioeconomic children are more likely to be pre-programmed to fail any “marshmallow” type test. If a study could eliminate or pre-program everyone equally could be found to balance this article I would predict less differences. Septagram (talk)

Q: anyone interested in yet another perespective on the "SME"...?

Howard from NYC (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://locusmag.com/2024/09/cory-doctorow-marshmallow-longtermism/

Help 65.18.121.157 (talk) 08:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]