4 ms·

I've never understood the marshmallow test. I'm supposed to sit there and stare at a delicious marshmallow for some indeterminate amount of time in order to get

I've never understood the marshmallow test. I'm supposed to sit there and stare at a delicious marshmallow for some indeterminate amount of time in order to get one extra marshmallow? Offer me a whole bag and we'll talk. I've always wondered if this test measures more of the child's willingness to please the researcher, and not so much their capacity for delayed gratification.

lifeplusplus 5y ago
that's the point, 2 is greater than 1, not 100x but still greater, would you choose greater benefit at the cost self gratification or short term gain?
- swid 5y ago
  I think the other poster has a point - The marginal utility of the second marshmallow is lower. Then there is added cost in the time spent waiting. Even if you have to wait in the room regardless, I think it’s fair to say there is a cost to delaying the gratification. Why one extra? What if I just give you 5% of a marshmallow? 1%? A coherent argument can be made that the extra costs are not worth it. I don’t particularly like marshmallows, but maybe I’ll eat one. Maybe two marshmallows in the future would be higher utility or whatnot than one marshmallow now, but that isn’t always the case.
  - suzzer99 5y ago
    Exactly. I think 4-5 year old me would have weighed the utility of sitting there having a battle of wills with myself for one extra marshmallow, and quickly decided it wasn't worth it. What if I hold out for 10 minutes only to finally give in, and then the researcher returns seconds later? Better to fail fast than risk that. At the moment there seems to be a lot of weight behind the idea that we only have so much willpower to burn in a day. So you might hold out against that tempting box of donuts all day at work, only to break down stop at a bar on the way home for a few pints. I think on some level I've always felt that avoidance is better than fighting when it comes to willpower. First option - avoid the temptation. Second option - give in. Only if #1 isn't feasible and #2 is a very bad outcome, then go to battle.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      I think you just summed up the point of the experiment and what it tests. There are multiple strategies people can take to willpower and life. Some work better than others in different situations. There are people who don't mind waiting patiently for that 2nd marshmallow. I'm sure there are situations in life where that mindset is beneficial. Move fast and break things is good for some goals, slow and steady is good for other goals.
  - lifeplusplus 5y ago
    which is I think is the point some people can think of future gains as more permanent. If it's certain you will get 2 over 1, then 2 is better, it's more. However, if it was uncertain, that you may get 2, then it's a different scenario, maybe more justifiable to eat the 1 marshmallow now then wait for 2 that may never materialize. If you are naturally built to follow logic over innate desires, then of course you are gonna do better. You will have so much better control over yourself. We already KNOW what we must do, but we don't we succumb to our desires and we know the pros and cons of doing both. We know that we should sleep at consistent time, we know we should eat healthy, we know we should stay active and not sit for hours, we know we should not procrastinate....we know how the good choice will lead to use "2" marshmallows and how what we are doing will alleviate our desires only right now. But we continue to ignore bigger but delayed reward for smaller but instant reward, naturally, ending up with fewer gains.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
elevaet 5y ago
I've always wondered this too: is this actually testing a child's meta-awareness and ability to read "the game", rather than their self control? This would also be a trait that leads to success later in life. These studies could be right for the wrong reasons.
- evanmoran 5y ago
  I think this is the right take. The game has very weak rewards and clearly by saying “if you wait you will get two marshmallows”, some number of kids will assume they want you to wait and do it for that reason rather then the desire for a second marshmallow. As a side note, I have a four year old and have no idea if he even would eat the first marshmallow. Sometime I imagine he would eat it instantly and then he would talk about it for days to us (“can you believe they had a marshmallow on that plate!”). Other times it would remind him of birthday cake (or something else) and he’d just save the marshmallow in his pocket forever. For example, he still has half his Halloween candy and it’s late February.

lifeplusplus 5y ago

that's the point, 2 is greater than 1, not 100x but still greater, would you choose greater benefit at the cost self gratification or short term gain?

swid 5y ago
I think the other poster has a point - The marginal utility of the second marshmallow is lower. Then there is added cost in the time spent waiting. Even if you have to wait in the room regardless, I think it’s fair to say there is a cost to delaying the gratification. Why one extra? What if I just give you 5% of a marshmallow? 1%? A coherent argument can be made that the extra costs are not worth it. I don’t particularly like marshmallows, but maybe I’ll eat one. Maybe two marshmallows in the future would be higher utility or whatnot than one marshmallow now, but that isn’t always the case.
- suzzer99 5y ago
  Exactly. I think 4-5 year old me would have weighed the utility of sitting there having a battle of wills with myself for one extra marshmallow, and quickly decided it wasn't worth it. What if I hold out for 10 minutes only to finally give in, and then the researcher returns seconds later? Better to fail fast than risk that. At the moment there seems to be a lot of weight behind the idea that we only have so much willpower to burn in a day. So you might hold out against that tempting box of donuts all day at work, only to break down stop at a bar on the way home for a few pints. I think on some level I've always felt that avoidance is better than fighting when it comes to willpower. First option - avoid the temptation. Second option - give in. Only if #1 isn't feasible and #2 is a very bad outcome, then go to battle.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    I think you just summed up the point of the experiment and what it tests. There are multiple strategies people can take to willpower and life. Some work better than others in different situations. There are people who don't mind waiting patiently for that 2nd marshmallow. I'm sure there are situations in life where that mindset is beneficial. Move fast and break things is good for some goals, slow and steady is good for other goals.
- lifeplusplus 5y ago
  which is I think is the point some people can think of future gains as more permanent. If it's certain you will get 2 over 1, then 2 is better, it's more. However, if it was uncertain, that you may get 2, then it's a different scenario, maybe more justifiable to eat the 1 marshmallow now then wait for 2 that may never materialize. If you are naturally built to follow logic over innate desires, then of course you are gonna do better. You will have so much better control over yourself. We already KNOW what we must do, but we don't we succumb to our desires and we know the pros and cons of doing both. We know that we should sleep at consistent time, we know we should eat healthy, we know we should stay active and not sit for hours, we know we should not procrastinate....we know how the good choice will lead to use "2" marshmallows and how what we are doing will alleviate our desires only right now. But we continue to ignore bigger but delayed reward for smaller but instant reward, naturally, ending up with fewer gains.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

elevaet 5y ago

I've always wondered this too: is this actually testing a child's meta-awareness and ability to read "the game", rather than their self control? This would also be a trait that leads to success later in life. These studies could be right for the wrong reasons.

evanmoran 5y ago
I think this is the right take. The game has very weak rewards and clearly by saying “if you wait you will get two marshmallows”, some number of kids will assume they want you to wait and do it for that reason rather then the desire for a second marshmallow. As a side note, I have a four year old and have no idea if he even would eat the first marshmallow. Sometime I imagine he would eat it instantly and then he would talk about it for days to us (“can you believe they had a marshmallow on that plate!”). Other times it would remind him of birthday cake (or something else) and he’d just save the marshmallow in his pocket forever. For example, he still has half his Halloween candy and it’s late February.