Marshmallow-ology: Why Wait, When the Better Treat Might Never Arrive?

Impulse control may be a key predictor of later success, but for some kids delaying gratification makes little sense

  • Share
  • Read Later
Courtesy of the University of Rochester

(Updated) It’s the rare psychological experiment that is both informative and invariably hilarious to observe, but the “marshmallow test” — the one in which young children are asked to resist the sweet treat in front of them for the promise of a bigger, better treat later — fits the bill. Kids squirm, wriggle, sing aloud and cover their eyes to distract themselves from the temptation; they’ll even allow themselves to sniff or slyly stroke the yummy dessert, but not pick it up: their cuteness is often irresistible.

This apparently trivial challenge has serious implications, however. Children who are able to restrain themselves the longest in the marshmallow test are generally those who end up more successful later on in life: they grow up to achieve higher SAT scores (a 210 point difference), earn higher incomes, and have a lower chance of obesity, a lower risk of drug misuse and better health overall.

So, what determines which children will fall among the lucky 25% who can successfully resist the marshmallow? Is it an inherited genetic advantage that produces greater impulse control? Is delaying gratification a learned behavior? Or could children be making conscious choices about this specific task based on similar prior experiences — involving adults who promise better rewards later — of whether waiting really pays off?

(MORE: The Secrets of Self-Control: The Marshmallow Test 40 Years Later)

Researchers led by Celeste Kidd at the University of Rochester devised a clever way to find out. They brought 28 children, aged 3 to 5, into the lab, purportedly for an art project. Half of the children were subjected to a situation in which adults did what they said they would do, and delaying gratification paid off. The rest had a frustrating experience in which they waited for art supplies promised by an adult, but never received them. Afterward, all children participated in the marshmallow test.

Here’s how the experiment worked: the first group of children were placed in a room with a sealed jar of worn crayons and told they could either use them to draw on paper that would later be made into a cup, or they could wait for better supplies, which would be provided a few minutes later. All of the children managed to wait the two and a half minutes required and then received a tray containing many varieties of new and exciting art supplies.

Next, this group was allowed to draw their pictures and then were given another chance to delay gratification: either by deciding to use a small, not particularly nice sticker in their drawing now, or waiting to get several larger stickers later, bearing characters from Toy Story or Disney princesses, which their parents had designated would be especially appealing.

The unfortunate kids in the second group were subjected to the same situations, but although they waited patiently just like the other children, in both situations, the adult researchers ended up apologizing and said they were out of the promised supplies, leaving the kids with the worn or boring original items.

(MORE: Improving Willpower: How to Keep Self-Control from Flagging)

These experiences profoundly affected the children’s performance in the subsequent marshmallow test. Quite rationally, the kids who had previously waited and been disappointed twice held out only three minutes before deciding to eat the marshmallow in front of them, figuring the researchers might again fail to deliver on their promise to bring a second marshmallow.

In contrast, the kids whose waiting had previously paid off successfully held out an average of 12 minutes — a full four times longer than their peers — before yielding to the siren call of the white fluffy stuff.

Only one of the 14 kids who had been disappointed waited the full 15 minutes (before actually receiving the second marshmallow), while nine of the other 14 successfully waited and were rewarded.

(MORE: Can Addictive Behaviors Be Predicted in Preschool?)

As the researchers detail, these results have important implications for understanding the effects of poverty, abuse and neglect on child development. They write:

Consider the mindset of a 4-year-old living in a crowded shelter, surrounded by older children with little adult supervision. For a child accustomed to stolen possessions and broken promises, the only guaranteed treats are the ones you have already swallowed. At the other extreme, consider the mindset of an only-child in a stable home whose parents reliably promise and deliver small motivational treats for good behavior. From this child’s perspective, the rare injustice of a stolen object or broken promise may be so startlingly unfamiliar that it prompts an outburst of tears.

People who are unable to resist immediate temptation to get later, greater rewards are often seen as impulsive and irrational, but this new take on the marshmallow test suggests it’s not so simple. For kids growing up in chaotic neighborhoods where promised rewards often don’t materialize and violence threatens to cut life itself short at any time, delayed gratification often doesn’t seem like a rational choice. Instead, getting what you can while it’s there feels far more sensible.

And yet this seemingly rational decision-making can keep children who are raised in unstable homes and communities from making the choices that would allow them a better life. Favoring short-term pleasures over delayed rewards is not typically a recipe for educational or business success, after all.

(MORE: The Key to Health, Wealth and Success: Self-Control)

The good news here is that these choices seem context-dependent: the children involved in the study responded to the researchers’ behavior, which, presumably, was quite different from the way their parents or others around them typically treated them. The findings suggest that daycare programs, schools and afterschool programs might be able to provide settings where rewards do appear as promised and where impulse control is modeled and taught.

Prior research has also shown that the marshmallow test isn’t destiny: some children who can’t resist initially have been shown to develop excellent self-control later on. Moreover, the children who do delay successfully have been found to use specific, potentially teachable techniques — for example, imagining that the marshmallow is a cloud or just a picture — to distract themselves and encourage patience. Researchers are studying whether these strategies can be taught to children who don’t develop them spontaneously.

The new study was published in Cognition.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Correction [5:40 p.m.]: The original version of this post misstated the age range of the children included in Celeste Kidd’s study. They were aged 3 to 5, not 4 to 10.

Maia Szalavitz is a health writer for Find her on Twitter at @maiasz. You can also continue the discussion on TIME Healthland‘s Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIMEHealthland.


Patience is not taught to our children. Children are taught that if they cry someone will come running, if they are hungry they will get fed, and if they are fussy they will get attention. Instead of teaching children from a young age how to act in our society, we foolishly teach them selfishness and impatience. We say idiotic things like kids will be kids and let them run screaming through the mall. Tragically, the more one waits hand and foot on their child, the better mother or father society thinks you are. The more you sacrifice your sleep and waistline the more of a dedicated parent we are. In the end our selfish offspring will have to learn the hard way that good things come to those that wait.


"For kids growing up in chaotic neighborhoods where promised rewards often don’t materialize"

I think this is a pretty big assumption here. Lot of wealthy kids were promised rewards that often don't materialize as well, because their parents were never home. Keep in mind that for most young kids the biggest reward is being able to spend time with the parents, not an expensive game console or iPhone 5. How often a wealth kid was told that "we will have dinner together tonight" and then found out he is having dinner with his XBox instead?



I think you are assuming chaotic means wealthy.It does not.I think both studies (original and this one) show nothing more than a good upbringing and positive adult role models lead to a more productive adult.In the original study (from the 70's) it's much more likely that the children that took the marshmallow quickly had less trust in adults in general due to their upbringing, most likely rightfully so.Thus their success in life was a symptom of their upbringing just as their lack of trust of adults demonstrated by taking the marshmallow quicker represented that same symptom of upbringing.


Temptation is the root of all evil !

I cant say for certain but are there any kids who don't like Marshmallows ? I, would think the results would be different if 1 or 2 of them kids had a bellyful of marshmallows and tend to shy away from the ones they were enticed with.

Gary McCray
Gary McCray

I don't know, it seems to me that the second group successfully learned that the adults couldn't be trusted to deliver on their promises and made a very reasonable interpretation that their was no point in waiting.

A lesson that will often be repeated as they grow up.

And talk about a totally predictable outcome, so predictable in fact that there was clearly no need to bother with the test in the first place.


@Gary McCray They were working to prove the inherent flaws in the original study from the 70's.  It is a famous study, and thus showing some of it's flaws is important.  I never cared for the original study.   I always felt it showed nothing more than the child's preconceived trust of adults.  Children with bad parents don't trust adults.  Children that don't trust adults have a delayed gratification when dealing with adults.  Delayed gratification and poor SAT scores are both results of bad parenting.  It's not the delayed gratification that causes poorer scores it's the parenting.  I do believe some parenting skills are genetic and thus there is of course some genetic component directly and indirectly responsible.  However, conclusions of the original study were too superficial.


sorry should have "lack of delayed grat." in several spots

AgeRomance. c om
AgeRomance. c om

Age is only a number of candles on your cake. My wife and I both think so. She is 18 yrs younger than me. We met via…ΑɡeRomαnce. СοM ... If you are interested in age gap relationships, maybe you can take a try.


I remember participating in a test like this decades ago, only they had jelly beans.  I was about five.  I was told exactly the same things as these kids were told (Wait and you'll get something better).

I waited, of course.

What I got was more jelly beans.  I thanked them and put them in my pocket.

When it was all over and the folks there were talking to my parents about the results and my apparently super-human self-restraint (for a kid).  He told them I would probably be eating them soon.

"No, I won't," I told them, " (my brother) will."

The folks thought that was amazingly giving of me.  Very charitable, thinking of others.

I rolled my eyes and said, "Tonight we're having cake for dessert.  I like cake.  I hate jelly beans. My brother loves them.   I think he'll trade me his cake for the jelly beans."

"Why didn't you just take the jelly beans right away?"

"There weren't that many of them," I replied. " (My brother) likes cake, too, so I needed more to be sure he'd trade."

The morale of this very true story is always ask why a kid waited.  Sometimes it's not quite as straightforward as it may seem.

Oh, and the cake was chocolate and my stinking brother wouldn't trade.  Had it been vanilla, I think he would have.  The jelly beans got washed when I forgot to take them out of my pocket that night and never got eaten by anyone.  So much for delayed gratification.


@Fatesrider Yet another flaw I always thought about with the original study.  The reward is not viewed with equal desire by all the children.

Gary McCray
Gary McCray

Great moral and what was it you learned from that?