PSYCHOLOGIST Walter Mischel, then a professor at Stanford University, created an experiment on delayed gratification in 1960. Children between the ages of four and six were placed in a simple, quiet environment with a plate with one treat of their choice—a cookie, marshmallow or pretzel stick.
The children were told that they could eat the treat or wait a few minutes and the treat would be doubled. “In over 600 children who took part in the experiment, a minority ate the marshmallow immediately. Of those who attempted to delay, one-third deferred gratification long enough to get the second marshmallow.”
The follow-up studies yielded some unexpected results. The first follow-up study, in 1988, showed that “preschool children who delayed gratification longer were described more than 10 years later by their parents as adolescents who were significantly more competent.” A second follow-up study, in 1990, showed that the ability to delay gratification also correlated with higher college entrance exam scores.
We all make choices between short-term gratification and long-term benefits both as individuals and as a nation. And it is not always easy.
One man from “along da riles” in his early 30s has worked as a caretaker in a small gated village for the past 10 years. He makes enough income to support his wife and four children—with another baby on the way—and can count on the homeowners for some assistance in emergencies. But he has resigned himself to a future not much better than he currently lives. He is making sure his children will graduate from high school but little more.
Another man with a similar background has been a tricycle driver for 13 years. He and his wife made a conscious decision to have only one child. They believed that it was best to put all their effort into improving the future. He took free classes anywhere he could in his spare time. The child’s educational success was the first priority. The son is nearly ready to graduate from high school and last year the father took employment with a major firm as a trainee in the business. They have moved from da riles.
Subsequent “Marshmallow Experiment” studies changed the rules. In one, the length of the waiting time was significantly increased. Predictably, the number of children willing to wait decreased. In another that may be even more revealing, the children were “preconditioned” that a researcher would be more or less likely to follow through with their promise.
“We the people” are not much different than the child with a cookie on the plate. We are willing to wait, to even sacrifice in the short-term if we can see the light at the end of the time tunnel for long-term gain. Like the child, though, we want to be able to see the “cookie” and know that it is not all smoke-and-mirror government promises. We want to understand the benefits of waiting.
When interacting with a reliable experimenter, one who had followed through with their previous promises, the children waited four times longer. The researchers also discovered that those children from a stable household with parents that they considered reliable also waited longer and more often for the second marshmallow.
Policy-makers and political leaders need to learn these lessons. If you are going to make a promise, it needs to be concrete and the benefits obvious. If past promises have been broken, the public will follow this motto: “Fool me once, your fault; fool me twice, my fault.”