Are you a 1 marshmallow kid or a 2 marshmallow kid?

[thecoach]

There was a thread on here a while ago about delaying grtification vs. instant gratification. Found this article about a Standford study from the 1960s that was done with some kids about delayed gratification and success and thought you might be interested....

1 marshmallow or 2? A study on the benefits of delayed gratification

There is more infor at the link getting more into how to make your kids 2 marshamallow kids, but here's the summary of the study.

While listening to the book, Crucial Conversations a few weeks back, the authors discussed a study that was done in the 1960’s by Standford University psychology researcher Michael Mischel. His study demonstrated how important self-discipline is to success.

The study began with a group of children 4 years old. He optionally offered them one marshmallow immediately, but instead if they could wait for him to return later, they could have two marshmallows instead. He left for approximately 20 minutes. His theory? The children that could wait would demonstrate they had the ability to delay gratification and control impulse, both significant and important traits for attaining wealth and being financially successful. As you would expect, some children took one marshmallow, and other children decided to wait and received two later.

Fourteen years later, the simple study demonstrated the significant differences between the two groups of children. The children who delayed gratification and waited until Dr. Mischel’s return were more positive, persistent when faced with life difficulties, more self motivated and were able to delay immediate gratification in order to pursue their longer term goals.

The children who chose 1 marshmallow didn’t fare as well. They were more indecisive, mistrustful of others, less self confident and often more troubled in general. They were more obviously unable to delay immediate gratification.

Comparing the SAT scores of the 1 marshmallow students to the 2 marshmallow students showed that students that chose 1 marshmallow scored an average of 210 points lower than the 2 marshmallow students. Why? 2 marshmallow students are able to sacrifice immediate activity in the interest of more focused study time for a longer term benefit. The one marshmallow students were far more impulsive resulting in higher distraction and less focus on their school work. They fell for the old “Hey let’s go out, you can always study later“.

Lack of impulse control has proven to result in less successful marriages, low job satisfaction, bad health, overall frustration in life. All of these result in something that has significant negative impact on being wealthy: low income.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Russ H]

Fascinating.

The conclusions make some pretty big assumptions:

1. That all children have exactly the same perspective re abundance vs scarcity.

If a child believes in abundance, they will believe that they can get twice as much if they wait for it.

If, however, they have been raised to fear loss, or that they may not have their next meal, then taking the marshmallow NOW has significant advantages for survival.

2. Trust

If a child has been raised to trust strangers, they will be more likely to believe that the stranger will, indeed, give them 2 marshmallows.

But if a child has had differing experiences-- that promises made are often broken, or that people say one thing, and do another, than again-- they will seize the single marshmallow.

I would venture to guess that children raised amidst an atmosphere of abundance and promises kept would be higher achievers, and that children who were raised w/fear, scarcity, and an incosistent/untrustworthy or unreliable atmosphere would have a much harder time applying themselves.

Another study w/ similar flaws is the early Stanford Binet IQ tests (yes, same Stanford).

********

You raise an excellent point though, coach:

Can you make your kid a 2-marshmallow kid?

What things would you do?

-Russ H.