This article is longer, divided into four parts, whether the marshmallow experiment from the "touchstone" fell off the altar to "poisonous chicken soup" friends, you can read the first three parts; friends who are more interested in improving self-control, you can directly read the fourth part:
01 Mischel's marshmallow experiment
02 Watts concept replication experiment
03 How to look at the difference between the results of the two experiments
04 How to improve self-control scientifically (suitable for adult children)
01
Mischel's marshmallow experiment
The "Marshmallow Experiment" is an experiment led by the famous American psychologist Misschel to study children's self-control. Between 1968 and 1974, Mischel's team experimented with 653 children aged 4-6 at Binn Kindergarten at Stanford University and tracked them until 2014.
The fame of the "marshmallow experiment" began at the beginning of this century, and with the publication of a paper by Misschel's research team, revealing the correlation between the performance of early children's delayed gratification in the marshmallow experiment and the subsequent longitudinal tracking of children's academic performance and behavioral performance, society's attention to the marshmallow experiment is getting higher and higher.
The most high-profile arguments in the paper are that children who are able to achieve delayed gratification early on grow up to have better academic performance, lower tendencies toward antisocial behavior and depression, and healthier (the lower the body mass index).
After the paper was published, it was publicized by many successful science articles, and was also cited by many children's education and training institutions, and its social dissemination was extremely widespread and sought after by many children's parents.
Why the marshmallow experiment is highly regarded, perhaps as Professor Michelle said in his book The Marshmallow Experiment:
Delayed gratification is visible and measurable in people's early lives, and it has a long-term and far-reaching impact on happiness and spiritual fulfillment, physical health, and so on in a person's life. (Every parent wants to know if their child will be successful in the future.)
The ability to delay gratification is a cognitive skill that can be learned, and its cognitive strategies can be improved and enhanced, which can be of great help in how to raise and educate children.
However, in 2018, the marshmallow experiment ushered in the first big challenge.
Watts et al. conducted a concept replication experiment of the Marshmallow Experiment, and the study pointed out that after controlling the influence of interfering factors such as "the child's individual background and family conditions (sex, ethnicity, birth weight, maternal age at birth, maternal education level, family income, family learning materials, etc.), and the cognitive and behavioral level of the child at 54 months (the size at the time of the experiment)," it was not possible to draw "conclusions that the performance of delayed gratification in early childhood is related to subsequent academic performance and behavioral performance". The marshmallow experiment fell from the altar to the bottom, and the former touchstone turned into poisonous chicken soup.
In order to find out whether the marshmallow experiment has been subverted, to find out what many psychologists have come to and fro, and what conclusions have been drawn that have guiding significance for parenting parenting, Doudou Mother consulted the original text of Watts's paper, and also carefully read Misschel's "Marshmallow Experiment: Self-Control Cultivation Bible", to give you a detailed review of the past and present lives of the marshmallow experiment.
Mischel's Marshmallow Experiment:
Mischel describes in his book The Marshmallow Experiment: The Bible of Self-Control that the experiment was designed to figure out why some children can control themselves in the face of temptation and some children can't.
Before conducting the experiment, Mischel did not expect to find a correlation between children's ability to delay gratification and future achievements, and in his experiments, he explored more ways to improve self-control and achieve delayed gratification.
< h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" > marshmallow experiment:</h1>
Purpose of the experiment: To observe when and how preschoolers exerted full self-control to wait for two marshmallows they desperately wanted, rather than being satisfied with getting one right away
Subjects: 653 children aged 4-6 at Binn Kindergarten, Stanford University (the number is data from the early Misschel et al. paper, and 550 children are written in the book "Marshmallow Experiment: The Bible of Self-Control")
Experimental method:
After the staff had established sufficient trust with the child and told them that they could choose to receive the same reward immediately (marshmallows, cookies, chocolates, etc.), or choose to wait 7 minutes (or longer, there were different waiting time experimental versions throughout the experiment), and the experimenter returned to the room to receive the same two rewards.
Staff will ensure that children understand the content of the experiment by asking them to repeat them.
The Marshmallow Experiment: The Bible of Self-Control Describes:
Our previous experiments in the Caribbean have shown that trust is of great importance as a factor in delayed gratification that affects willpower. In order to make the children trust the experimenter who has made a commitment to them, the children will play with the experimenter for a while until they feel comfortable and comfortable.
Afterwards, the children are arranged to sit at a small table with a bell ringing on it. In order to gain the full trust of the children, the experimenter pretended to leave the room step by step, and immediately after the children pressed the bell, they jumped back and said, "Look, your bell called me back." The experimenters repeated the process until the children realized that as soon as they rang the bell, the experimenter would return immediately. After this, the experiment of self-control, described as a "game", officially began.
During the whole experiment, in order to study which factors affect children's self-control, the "rewards" were divided into three different display forms: picture display, physical display, and covering rewards; the children were also divided into two different states: "self-control strategy training by researchers" and "self-control strategy training without researchers".
Longitudinal tracking metrics:
Academic Performance: STA (equivalent to the U.S. College Entrance Examination) Math and Language Scores
Adolescent behavioral manifestations: assessed by the mother filling out questionnaires, mainly to assess antisocial tendencies and depressive tendencies
Health status: BMI of 27 to 32 years
Data analysis and conclusions:
Special instructions:
In Mischel's experiment, samples suitable for studying early delayed gratification and later academic and behavioral performance need to meet the following conditions:
1, the researchers did not teach children about delayed gratification strategies
2. It is expected that the reward will be displayed in physical form and placed in a place where the child can see and get it
3. The subsequent academic performance and behavioral performance data of the sample were collected completely
In Mischel's experiment, only about 40 children met the above criteria. Through the analysis of these samples, the conclusion that "the performance of delayed gratification in early childhood is positively correlated with later academic performance, behavioral performance, and physical health" was obtained.
The following is an excerpt from the marshmallow experiment: The Bible of Self-Control: The Results of the Marshmallow Experiment:
Adolescence: more competitive and better academic performance. In the first follow-up survey in 1982, it was found that the longer four- and five-year-olds could wait, the higher the scores of the later SAT (College Entrance Examination in the United States), of which the children with the shortest persistence time (the last three) had an overall score difference of 210 points compared with the children who persisted the longest (the top three). The more cognitive and social skills they have during adolescence.
Post-adult: higher level of education and social skills. Children who wait longer in marshmallow experiments have lower body mass index and better sense of self-worth during their 25- to 30-year-olds, are able to pursue their goals more effectively, are better adaptable, and are able to cope effectively with depression and stress.
Scans of the middle-aged brain: a more active prefrontal cortex. Those who persisted with temptation longer in marshmallow experiments and continued to maintain a higher level of self-control later on had a very significant activation of the anterior circuitry of the brain, where neural activity integrates excitation and control processes, while others do not.
Conclusion: The Marshmallow Experiment and decades of follow-up research tell us that early life self-control has a crucial impact on how life develops later in life. At the same time, in small children, this ability can be assessed at least by simple measurements.
In addition to this conclusion, the Mischel team's series of studies further analyzed the factors that affect children's delayed gratification, such as the time it takes children to wait significantly when the reward is displayed in the form of a picture or obscured; the researchers trained the children in delayed gratification strategies, which also greatly improved the children's waiting time.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" > the shortcomings of the experiment:</h1>
As a scientific study, Mischel's experiments have obvious shortcomings
1, sample bias, Mischel's experimental sample is only children in Binn Kindergarten at Stanford University, it is difficult to represent the general level of American children, and the sample is poorly represented
2, the sample size of the longitudinal study was too small, and the SAT and behavioral problem tracking only contacted 185 out of 653 people
3, although mischel's experiment involved 653 people, the sample applicable to the experimental group that reached a conclusion was only about 40 people, and the sample size was small
4, there is no study of possible interfering factors
02
Watts' concept replication experiment
It is precisely because of these shortcomings in the marshmallow experiment that Watts and others hope to replicate the marshmallow experiment to further verify the connection between early delayed gratification and later academic performance and behavioral performance.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" > watts' concept replication experiment:</h1>
Objectives of the experiment: The link between early delayed gratification and later academic and behavioral performance.
Subjects: 918 54-month-old children in 10 cities across the United States (Watts' study sample was from NICHD SECCYD, a widely used database of child psychological development research)
Delayed gratification experiments: the same as the marshmallow experiment, and the selected study samples all met the "two conditions of the reward being displayed in physical form, and the delayed gratification strategy training for children was not carried out";
Two longitudinal tracks were performed in the first grade and at the age of 15, and the longitudinal tracking data of the selected samples were complete
Academic performance: WJ-R test
Adolescent Behavior: Child Behavior Checklist, filled out by mothers, mainly evaluates children's antisocial behavior and depressive manifestations
Watts focused on a 552 sample of mothers who did not have an undergraduate degree (when the child was one month old) for several reasons:
1, when conducting data analysis, it was found that in the sample, 68% of the mothers who obtained an undergraduate degree (when the child was one month old), 68% of the children could wait 7 minutes or more (in Mischel's experiment, 7 minutes is the time requirement to receive the reward), the proportion was too high; while the proportion of mothers who did not obtain an undergraduate degree was 45%
2, Mischel's experimental subjects are all children in Stanford Kindergarten, and their parents are Kochi people, Matts chose this part of the population, which can better supplement the experimental data
3, the household income of this part of the population is more representative of the situation of most American families
Key conclusions:
1, The correlation between early delayed gratification and academic performance in the first grade was 0.28 in children whose mothers did not obtain an undergraduate degree, which was statistically significant, but lower than the correlation between early delayed gratification and STA mathematical scores and 0.42% in language proficiency reported by Misschel et al.; when controlling the influence of children's individual background and family conditions (gender, race, birth weight, maternal age at birth, maternal education level, family income, family learning materials, etc.), The correlation decreased to 0.10, where there were still statistically significant differences, and when the effects of cognitive and behavioral levels at 54 months were controlled, the correlation decreased to 0.05;
2, the correlation coefficient between early delayed gratification and academic performance at age 15 was 0.24 for children whose mothers had not obtained an undergraduate degree, and the correlation dropped to 0.08 after controlling for the influence of the child's individual and family conditions; when the influence of the child's individual background, family conditions and the child's cognitive and behavioral level at 54 months, the correlation dropped to 0.05, and the statistical difference was not significant;
The top line is uncontrolled; the middle is to control children's background and family factors; and the bottom line is to further control the cognitive behavior at 54 months
3. In children whose mothers did not have an undergraduate degree, their early delayed gratification was not associated with behavioral manifestations (destructive behavior, depressive behavior) at the first year or 15 years of age.
In the picture, the child's mother has no college degree group, the left half is the academic achievement, and the right half is the result of behavioral problems.
1, 4, 7, 10 columns for No Controls
Columns 2, 5, 8, 11 control child background and home controls
Columns 3, 6, 9, 12 for controlling children's background and family variables + early cognitive abilities (Child background and HOME + Concurrent 54-Month Controls)
4, children whose mothers have obtained an undergraduate degree and children who do not currently have an undergraduate degree have a significant difference in the waiting time for delayed gratification
The average waiting time for children whose mothers did not have an undergraduate degree was 3.99 minutes, 45% of children were able to wait 7 minutes or more, and 23% of children waited for less than 20 seconds;
Children whose mothers have obtained an undergraduate degree have an average waiting time of 5.38 minutes, 68% of children are able to wait 7 minutes or more, and 10% of children wait for less than 20 seconds;
03
How to look at the difference between the results of the two experiments
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" > how to see Wats' team's experimental results different from those of Mischel's team:</h1>
1, Watts team conducted a concept replication experiment of the marshmallow experiment rather than a complete replication experiment, and the measurements and measurement times of their selected academic performance and behavioral performance were different. The correlation and effect obtained by the concept replication experiment are likely to be different from the original experiment.
2, Watts' team's analysis did not completely negate the Results of Mischel's experiments, and when the influence of interference factors was not controlled, there was also a correlation between the maternal sample that did not have an undergraduate degree, and the academic performance and early delayed gratification performance at the first and 15 years of age, although the Watts team came up with a smaller correlation.
As with the earlier studies, we found statistically significant, although smaller, bivariate associations between early delay ability and later achievement.
3, Watts' team found a correlation between early childhood delayed gratification and later academic performance, which is closely related to the interfering factors they studied, and the manifestation of early childhood delayed gratification may be the result of the action of these interfering factors.
Disruptors studied by Watts et al. include:
Child background: Gender, race, age, birth weight, BBCS standard score at 36 months, Bayley MDI score at 24 months, child temperament type at 6 months, family income, maternal reproductive age, maternal education level, mother's PPVT score
Household scores at 36 months: Learning materials, physical environment, response rate, academic incentives, demonstration effects, diversity, acceptance, and responsiveness empirical scale scores
Cognitive-behavioral assessment at 54 months:
WJ-R score (word recognition, problem solving, looking at pictures and speaking, sentence memory, residual word recognition)
Behavior test scales: disruptive behavior, depressive symptoms
Mischel also commented on this:
The Marshmallow experiment was originally designed to explore factors that influence children's self-control, and his colleagues' research also found that children's ability to delay gratification reflects children's ability to apply cognitive and emotional regulation strategies so that the waiting process does not get too painful. Thus, it is foreseeable that, as Watts's paper presents, once these cognitive and emotional regulation techniques are used as distractions and controlled for their effects, the correlation between early delayed gratification and later academic and behavioral performance naturally weakens.
He also said years of research by him and his colleagues, as well as by others, have found that "a child's ability to wait in the 'marshmallow test' situation reflects that child’s ability to engage various cognitive and emotion-regulation strategies and skills that make the waiting situation less frustrating. Therefore, it is expected and predictable, as the Watts paper shows, that once these cognitive and emotion-regulation skills, which are the skills that are essential for waiting, are statistically 'controlled out,' the correlation is indeed diminished."
After watts' paper was published, many articles took out of context, saying that "Watts' research completely overturned the conclusions of the marshmallow experiment" and exaggerated the influence of "family background", saying that "it is the family environment that determines the future of children", and from the above analysis, we can see that neither of these views is true.
04
How to cultivate self-control scientifically
For 50 years, the Marshmallow Lab has been exploring the factors that influence self-control and how to improve it, and the main findings described in the Marshmallow Experiment: The Bible for Developing Self-Control are as follows:
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" > neurobiological basis associated with self-control: the hot-emotional system and the cold-cognitive system</h1>
The thermal emotion system: The limbic system of the brain, formed very early in the evolutionary history of humans, consists of primitive brain structures located below the cerebral cortex at the top of the brainstem. It controls the instinctive impulses and emotions of human beings for survival needs, from fear and anger to hunger and sexuality. Once activated, the thermal emotion system triggers an immediate response.
Cold cognitive system: Closely connected to the limbic system of the brain is the cold cognitive system, which is cognitive, complex, reflective, and more responsive than the hot emotional system. The cold cognitive system, located at the center of the brain's prefrontal cortex, is controllable and plays an important role in some decision-making and self-control regarding the future.
The heating and cooling systems interact continuously: one side is active, the other is depressed.
In the Marshmallow experiment, instant rewards activated the limbic system, which is insensitive to delayed outcomes, automatically, unconsciously, and reflexively, and the limbic system wants what it wants immediately, and makes the value of any delayed reward abruptly diminish or greatly diminished. It is driven by the look, sound, smell, taste, and touch of a temptation, whether it's marshmallows that make preschoolers ring bells, or irresistible cakes on a plate, or the siren song that indulges sailors in ancient mythology. That's why smart people who often show up in public, such as presidents, lawmakers, governors, and financial tycoons, often make stupid decisions when the temptations in front of them tempt them to ignore the consequences.
Instead, delayed rewards activate the cold system, responding slowly, but it is the brain's prefrontal cortex, which is deliberately and rationally solved, that sets us apart from other creatures in nature and makes us unique "human" and capable of making long-term plans.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" > how to improve self-control: for both children and adults</h1>
Core Strategy:
Regardless of age, the core strategy of self-control is to cool the "present" and heat the "future". Push the temptation in front of you far in time and space, and then put the results of the delay in your mind and pull it as far as possible.
The emotional brain's tendency to over-evaluate immediate returns and delayed returns too low points to what we need to do when we want to exercise self-control: We need to reverse the process by cooling the "now" and heating the "future."
Experiments that Heat the Future: Retirement Planning Preferences
Hershfield and colleagues conducted a study in which a group of college students vividly showed what kind of retirement plans they would make when they reached retirement age. As a first step, the researchers asked each participant for a picture of him and created an avatar picture or an electronic picture. For some participants, the avatar represented their current age; for others, the avatar was made to look older, representing people in the 60-80 age group. Participants used a slider with an arrow to indicate how much percentage of their salary they would allocate to their 401(k) retirement pension account. When they point the arrow to the left, it means to increase the percentage of current household expenditure; when they point the arrow to the right, it means to increase the percentage of the pension fund. As shown in the following figure.
As a result, those who see themselves in the future will deposit 30% more for retirement than those who see themselves now.
Retirement preference plans
Strategies to combat temptation:
1, distraction strategy: let the child cover his eyes with his hands, or turn his head completely elsewhere to avoid seeing the rewards; or push the bell and plate out to keep it as far away from him as possible, or even push the plate to the edge of the table. The last resort is to close your eyes and try to go to sleep. These strategies can help your child increase latency.
2, abstract strategy: show the child a picture of the reward instead of the real reward, waiting will become much easier.
3, calm focus strategy: pay more attention to the abstract, cognitive, and informative characteristics of the reward (it is round, white, soft, small), such as prompting children to imagine marshmallows as round clouds.
4, imagine what others will do: When making hot emotional choices for others, it is often easier to use the cold cognitive system.
"If-then" Training: If the temptation appears, then what will I do
If we want to be self-controlling, we have to find a way to automatically activate the cold system when we need it, and this is the hardest thing to do unless we are prepared.
What we need is a good connection, similar to forming a conditioned reflex, something that can create an automatic connection between the necessary "no" response and the thermal stimulus (which usually triggers "go").
The first step in designing an "if-then" plan is to identify the hot spots that trigger the impulsive response you want to control.
One way to identify our own hotspots is to keep track of the moments when we get out of control, and once we've identified our hotspots, we can start building and implementing exact "if-then" plans to change the way we handle them. For example, when the needle points to 5 p.m., I will read a textbook; when I see a dessert list, I will not order chocolate cake.
With certain practice, the context becomes suggestive, and some kind of "if-then" action required to execute the plan becomes automated without the need for additional effort.
The "if-then" execution plan works not only when the "if" appears in the external environment (when the alarm goes off, when I enter the dessert shop), but also when the "hint" is your internal state (when I'm craving something, when I'm bored, when I'm anxious, when I'm hungry). As simple as it sounds, it is. By forming and practicing this execution plan, you are able to allow your thermal system to instinctively elicit a craving response whenever a corresponding cue arises. Over time, a new connection or habit forms, like brushing your teeth every time you go to bed.
To increase your child's sense of autonomy:
1. Help children understand early on the importance of what they can choose and that each option leads to different outcomes
2, early successful experience
Early success experiences help young children develop positive, reasonable expectations of success and ability and prepare them to discover activities that ultimately lead to satisfaction.
An important strategy for improving your child's experience of early success is to work with your child on enjoyable but challenging and increasingly difficult tasks.
3, incremental thinking mode
In this model, children do not see their talents, abilities, intellects, and behaviors as fixed, innate, specific reflections, but as skills and abilities that they can develop with their own efforts. Parents should praise their children when they see them give them all, rather than praising their children for being "very smart" at the end of the day.
It's also important to help children understand and accept that failures in life are part of life and learning, and then encourage them to find constructive ways to deal with such setbacks, so they will constantly try rather than become anxious, frustrated, and avoidant.
Role models
If you want your child to adopt strict self-reward standards, it's best if you instruct them to adopt such standards on the one hand and set an example with your own behavior on the other.
If you can't insist, or are strict with your children but are lenient with themselves, there's a good chance your child will adopt the self-reward standards you've set up rather than the standards you impose on them.
Experimentation: The Role of Role Models
Mischel and his student Robert Liebert selected a number of fourth-grade boys and girls around the age of 10 from a local elementary school near Stanford University. We introduced each child to a young woman ("role model") who showed the children a bowling game that a toy company used to test how much children liked the game. It's a miniature bowling alley, and after each game, the traffic light shows the score of each attempt. The target area at the end of the slide is blocked so that bowlers can't see where the ball hits, and can only use the score displayed by the signal light as feedback. These scores are pre-modulated and do not match the actual performance, but will make these scores completely credible to some extent. Within easy reach is a bowl filled with tokens — colorful poker chips that children and "role models" can use as a reward for their performance. Children are told in advance that at the end of the game, the value of the chips is equivalent to a valuable prize, and the more chips, the better the prize. The beautifully wrapped prizes were so attractive that they were placed in the room and left unnoticed in full view.
During the game, the "role model" and the child take turns trying, only once at a time. To mimic different parenting styles, we created three different scenarios: about how "role models" reward their performance and how to instruct children to evaluate and reward their performance. Each child participates in only one of these scenarios.
In the "difficulty standard" scenario, the "model" is equally strict with himself and the child. She only picks up a token when her score is very high (20) and says something self-praising "It's a good grade and deserves a chip" or "I'm proud of this score, so I should reward myself". When her score was below 20, she restrained herself from picking up the token and would criticize herself (e.g., "It's not a good grade, this shouldn't get a chip"). In dealing with children's performance, she used exactly the same approach, praising high scores and criticizing low scores. In the "'model' difficult, child simple" scenario, the "model" treats himself strictly, but tolerates children, leading them to self-reward with lower scores. In the "'model' simple, children's difficulties" situation, she is tolerant of herself, but has strict standards for children: children can only reward themselves when they get the highest score.
After participating in an experiment in one of the scenarios, the children would play bowling alone, still with tokens that could be freely withdrawn next to them, and we quietly observed their spontaneous self-reward behavior. Children who have experienced situations in which both the "model" themselves and the children are strictly required to adopt the strictest standards of self-reward. "Exemplary" encourages them to reward themselves only when they reach a high score, and at the same time, treat themselves to the same standards. When the criteria of the "model" are consistent with the standards imposed, in the absence of the "model", the children, without exception, all adopt such standards, no matter how strict the standards and how strong the children's desire for prizes. Research also shows that these effects are particularly strong when children believe that "models" are authoritative and have control over highly satisfactory feasts and rewards.
Children who were encouraged to be tolerant of themselves continued this way in subsequent individual tests, even though they had previously seen a "role model" who was strict with themselves. In situations where "role models" are tolerant of themselves and children are taught to be strict with themselves, half of them remain as strict with themselves as they were taught, while the others use more liberal standards, and they are tolerant of themselves as "role models." This study shows that if you want your child to adopt strict self-reward standards, it's best if you instruct them to adopt such standards on the one hand and set an example with your own behavior on the other. If you can't insist, or are strict with your children but are lenient with themselves, there's a good chance your child will adopt the self-reward standards you've set up rather than the standards you impose on them.
Love: It is more important to find goals and directions than to work hard to enhance self-control
The traditional concept of willpower as a fixed entity or essence holds that some people have a lot of self-control and some people have very little. According to this model, self-control is like a muscle: when you actively use your willpower, self-depletion occurs, and the muscle immediately begins to fatigue. As a result, your willpower and ability to control impulsive behavior are temporarily diminished in the face of multiple tasks that require self-control. This phenomenon can affect everything — from mental and physical endurance to rational thinking and problem solving, from reaction inhibition and emotional inhibition to making good or bad choices.
The feeling of exhaustion and exhaustion that results from hard work is real and common. But we also know that when we have enough motivation, we can stick with it all the time – and sometimes even enthusiastically. When we fall in love, even if we experience an exhausting day or a week or a month, we rush to the person we love, no matter where he is. For some people, when they feel tired, instead of turning on the TV, they run to a gym or sports field. For effort to persevere, the dynamic theory directly shows that whether we are energetic, or when we need to rest, take a nap, self-reward, and release the inner "grasshopper", it is actually the mentality, self-standards and goals that play a role in guiding our behavior.
Experiment: Willpower experiment
At Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, college students taking an introductory psychology course are asked to participate in a psychology experiment as part of their curriculum. Students who enterEd Professor Baumeister's lab participated in the Radish Experiment. The students were told they needed to fast before they came, so they were already hungry. In the experiment, students are forced to give up chocolate chip cookies and candy and eat some vegetables. They are then asked to solve geometric puzzles that they simply cannot solve. Research has shown that these college students are more likely to give up than those who are allowed to eat chocolate chip cookies and candy.
In many studies, students did reduce their subsequent efforts, but later studies showed that the reduction may not have been caused by the reasons indicated in the original studies. As the need for self-control that requires effort increases and the lengthy and tedious work increases, if the corresponding rewards do not increase with it, then the student's attention and motivation will most likely shift. Students are likely to get bored and feel that they have fully complied with the requirements of the experiment and done some boring tasks, rather than the students' willpower "muscles" are really weak. For example, in a task request, after spending 5 minutes deleting every letter "e" in a printed article, the students then had to delete each letter "e" followed by a vowel. When people are given more rewards for sticking with tasks, even tasks as boring as above will last longer. When the drive to exert self-control increases, so does the effort. But when the momentum does not increase, the effort will also be interrupted. The explanation based on these experiments is that the reduction in self-control is not due to the loss of resources, but rather it reflects changes in motivation and attention.
Carol Dweck of Stanford University and her colleagues have found that the power of cognition can be enormous, and that those who believe that after a painstaking mental effort, their spirits automatically fuel themselves will not show a decline in self-control even after experiencing energy-consuming things. Conversely, those who think their energy will be depleted by stressful and laborious experiences and need to fuel themselves through rest showed reduced self-control in the same situation.
Dweck's team tracked college students' behavior through three more points in time, the last of which required strong self-regulation — during final exams. During stressful exams, students who secretly believe that willpower is an infinite resource perform better than those who think willpower is a finite resource. The report shows that these students, who believe willpower is a limited resource, often eat more unhealthy foods when preparing for their tests, procrastination is severe, and self-regulation is ineffective.
These are the main results of the Marshmallow Laboratory's half-century commitment to "self-control."
Regardless of whether from the perspective of rigorous scientific experimental experience, early delayed gratification has a predicting effect on a person's success, from the simple life experience, self-control does have a very important impact on a person's success. Whether or not we can achieve delayed gratification is just one result, and as parents, perhaps Professor Mischel's team's research on how to improve self-control is more useful to us.
I am a beanie mother, a third-level psychological counselor, an active parenting practitioner, and I hope to grow up with all parents and mothers.