Open main menu

The Stanford marshmallow experiment was a study on delayed gratification in 1972 led by psychologist Walter Mischel, then a professor at Stanford University.[1] In this study, a child was offered a choice between one small reward provided immediately or two small rewards if they waited for a short period, approximately 15 minutes, during which the tester left the room and then returned. The reward was either a marshmallow or pretzel stick, depending on the child's preference. In follow-up studies, the researchers found that children who were able to wait longer for the preferred rewards tended to have better life outcomes, as measured by SAT scores,[2] educational attainment,[3] body mass index (BMI),[4] and other life measures.[5] A replication attempt with a more diverse sample population over 10 times larger than the original study showed only half the effect size of the original study and suggested that economic background rather than willpower explained the other half of the variation.[6][7]


Stanford experiment

The first experiment in delay of gratification was a study conducted by Walter Mischel and Ebbe B. Ebbesen at Stanford University in 1970.[8]

The purpose of the study was to understand when the control of delayed gratification, the ability to wait to obtain something that one wants, develops in children. The original experiment took place at the Bing Nursery School located at Stanford University, using 32 children ranging in age from three to five years of age. The children were led into a room, empty of distractions, where a treat of their choice (either two animal cookies or five pretzel sticks) was placed on a table.[1] The children could eat the treat, the researchers said, but if they waited for fifteen minutes without giving in to the temptation, they would be rewarded with a second treat.[1] Mischel observed that some children "covered their eyes with their hands, rested their heads on their arms, and found other similar techniques for averting their eyes from the reward objects. Many seemed to try to reduce the frustration of delay of reward by generating their own diversions: they talked to themselves, sang, invented games with their hands and feet, and even tried to fall asleep while waiting - as one successfully did."[1]

Age was a major determinant of deferred gratification.


Test subjects were 16 boys and 16 girls attending the Bing Nursery School of Stanford University. Three other subjects were run, but eliminated because of their failure to comprehend the instructions. The children ranged in age from 3 years, 6 months to 5 years, 8 months (with a median age of 4 years, 6 months). The procedures were conducted by two male experimenters. Eight subjects (four male and four female) were assigned randomly to each of the four experimental conditions. In each condition each experimenter ran two boys and two girls in order to avoid systematic biasing effects from sex or experimenters.[8]


  1. Both the immediate (less preferred) and the delayed (more preferred) reward were left facing the subject and available for attention[8]
  2. Neither reward was available for the subject's attention, both rewards having been removed from sight[8]
  3. The delayed reward only was left facing the subject and available for attention while he or she waited[8]
  4. The immediate reward only was left facing the subject and available for attention while he or she waited[8]


On the table in the experimental room there were five pretzels and an opaque cake tin. Under the cake tin were five pretzels and two animal cookies. There were two chairs in front of the table; on one chair was an empty cardboard box. On the floor near the chair with the cardboard box on it were four battery operated toys. The experimenter pointed out the four toys; before the child could play with the toys, the experimenter asked the child to sit in the chair and then demonstrated each toy briefly and in a friendly manner, saying that they would play with the toys later on. Then the experimenter placed each toy in the cardboard box and out of sight of the child. The experimenter explained to the child that the experimenter sometimes has to go out of the room but if the child eats a pretzel the experimenter will come back into the room. These instructions were repeated until the child seemed to understand them completely. The experimenter left the room and waited for the child to eat a pretzel – they did this four times.

Next, the experimenter opened the cake tin to reveal two sets of reward objects to the child: five pretzels and two animal crackers. The experimenter asked which of the two the child liked better, and after the child chose, the experimenter explained that the child could either continue waiting for the more preferred reward until the experimenter returned, or the child could stop waiting by bringing the experimenter back. If the child stopped waiting, then the child would receive the less favored reward and forgo the more preferred one.

Depending on the condition and the child's choice of preferred reward, the experimenter picked up the cake tin and along with it either nothing, one of the rewards, or both. The experimenter returned either as soon as the child signaled him to do so or after 15 minutes.[8]

Follow-up studiesEdit

In follow-up studies, Mischel found unexpected correlations between the results of the marshmallow test and the success of the children many years later.[5] The first follow-up study, in 1988, showed that "preschool children who delayed gratification longer in the self-imposed delay paradigm, were described more than 10 years later by their parents as adolescents who were significantly more competent." [9][10]

A second follow-up study, in 1990, showed that the ability to delay gratification also correlated with higher SAT scores.[5]

A 2006 paper to which Mischel contributed reports a similar experiment, this time relating ability to delay in order to receive a cookie (at age 4) and reaction time on a go/no go task.[11]

A 2011 brain imaging study of a sample from the original Stanford participants when they reached mid-life showed key differences between those with high delay times and those with low delay times in two areas: the prefrontal cortex (more active in high delayers) and the ventral striatum, (more active in low delayers) when they were trying to control their responses to alluring temptations.[12][13]

A 2012 study at the University of Rochester (with a smaller N= 28) altered the experiment by dividing children into two groups: one group was given a broken promise before the marshmallow test was conducted (the unreliable tester group), and the second group had a fulfilled promise before their marshmallow test (the reliable tester group). The reliable tester group waited up to four times longer (12 min) than the unreliable tester group for the second marshmallow to appear.[14][15] The authors argue that this calls into question the original interpretation of self-control as the critical factor in children's performance, since self-control should predict ability to wait, not strategic waiting when it makes sense. Prior to the Marshmallow Studies at Stanford, Walter Mischel had shown that the child's belief that the promised delayed rewards would actually be delivered is an important determinant of the choice to delay, but his later experiments did not take this factor into account or control for individual variation in beliefs about reliability when reporting correlations with life successes.[16][17][18][19]

In the studies Mischel and colleagues conducted at Stanford University,[1][8] in order to establish trust that the experimenter would return, at the beginning of the "marshmallow test" children first engaged in a game in which they summoned the experimenter back by ringing a bell; the actual waiting portion of the experiment did not start until after the children clearly understood that the experimenter would keep the promise. Participants of the original studies at the Bing School at Stanford University appeared to have no doubt that they would receive a reward after waiting and chose to wait for the more desirable reward. However, Mischel's earlier studies showed there are many other situations in which children cannot be certain that they would receive the delayed outcome.[16][17][18][19] In such situations, waiting for delayed rewards may not be an adaptive response.

Watts, Duncan and Quan's 2018 conceptual replication[20] yielded mostly statistically insignificant correlations with behavioral problems but a significant correlation with achievement tests at age 15. These effects were lower than in the original experiment and reduced further when controlling for early cognitive ability and behavior, family background, and home environment.


  1. ^ a b c d e Mischel, Walter; Ebbesen, Ebbe B. (1970). "Attention In Delay Of Gratification". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 16 (2): 329–337. ISSN 0022-3514 – via
  2. ^ Mischel, Walter; Shoda, Yuichi; Rodriguzez, Monica L. (1989). "Delay of gratification in children". Science. 244 (4907): 933–938. Bibcode:1989Sci...244..933M. doi:10.1126/science.2658056.
  3. ^ Ayduk, Ozlem N.; Mendoa-Denton, Rodolfo; Mischel, Walter; Downey, Geraldine; Peake, Philip K.; Rodriguez, Monica L. (2000). "Regulating the interpersonal self: Strategic self-regulation for coping with rejection sensitivity". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 79 (5): 776–792. CiteSeerX doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.776. PMID 11079241.
  4. ^ Schlam, Tanya R.; Wilson, Nicole L.; Shoda, Yuichi; Mischel, Walter; Ayduk, Ozlem (2013). "Preschoolers' delay of gratification predicts their body mass 30 years later". The Journal of Pediatrics. 162 (1): 90–93. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.06.049. PMC 3504645. PMID 22906511.
  5. ^ a b c Shoda, Yuichi; Mischel, Walter; Peake, Philip K. (1990). "Predicting Adolescent Cognitive and Self-Regulatory Competencies from Preschool Delay of Gratification: Identifying Diagnostic Conditions" (PDF). Developmental Psychology. 26 (6): 978–986. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.26.6.978. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 4, 2011.
  6. ^ Calarco, Jessica McCrory (2018-06-01). "Why Rich Kids Are So Good at the Marshmallow Test". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2018-10-03.
  7. ^ Jason, Collins. "The marshmallow test held up OK – Jason Collins blog". The marshmallow test held up OK. Retrieved 28 July 2019.
  8. ^ a b c d e f g h Mischel, Walter; Ebbesen, Ebbe B. (October 1970). "Attention in delay of gratification". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 16 (2): 329–337. doi:10.1037/h0029815.
  9. ^ Faust, Michael (2016-03-30). Crapitalism. Lulu Press, Inc. ISBN 9781326612986.
  10. ^ Div, Jack A. Ottoson M. (2016-01-29). Just Plain Sense: Reflections of a Plains Pastor. WestBow Press. ISBN 9781512722871.
  11. ^ Eigste, Inge-Marie; Zayas, Vivian; Mischel, Walter; Shoda, Yuichi; Ayduk, Ozlem; Dadlani, Mamta B.; Davidson, Matthew C.; Aber, J. Lawrence; Casey, B.J. (2006). "Predicting Cognitive Control From Preschool to Late Adolescence and Young Adulthood" (PDF). Psychological Science. 17 (6): 478–484. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01732.x. PMID 16771797. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 22, 2007.
  12. ^ "Marshmallow Test Points to Biological Basis for Delayed Gratification". Science Daily. September 1, 2011. Archived from the original on October 4, 2011. Retrieved October 4, 2011.
  13. ^ Casey, B. J.; Somerville, Leah H.; Gotlib, Ian H.; Ayduk, Ozlem; Franklin, Nicholas T.; Askren, Mary K.; Jonides, John; Berman, Mark G.; Wilson, Nicole L.; Teslovich, Theresa; Glover, Gary; Zayas, Vivian; Mischel, Walter; Shoda, Yuichi (August 29, 2011). "From the Cover: Behavioral and neural correlates of delay of gratification 40 years later". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108 (36): 14998–15003. Bibcode:2011PNAS..10814998C. doi:10.1073/pnas.1108561108. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 3169162. PMID 21876169.
  14. ^ "Marshmallow Test Revisited". University of Rochester. October 11, 2012.
  15. ^ Kidd, Celeste; Palmeri, Holly; Aslin, Richard N. (2013). "Rational snacking: Young children's decision-making on the marshmallow task is moderated by beliefs about environmental reliability". Cognition. 126 (1): 109–114. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.08.004. PMC 3730121. PMID 23063236.
  16. ^ a b Mischel, Walter (1961). "Father absence and delay of gratification: Cross-cultural comparisons". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 63: 116–124. doi:10.1037/h0046877.
  17. ^ a b Mischel, Walter (1966). "Theory and research on the antecedents of self-imposed delay of reward". In B. A. Maher (ed.). Progress in Experimental Personality Research. New York: Academic Press. pp. 85–131.
  18. ^ a b Mischel, Walter; Staub, Ervin (1965). "Effects of expectancy on working and waiting for larger rewards". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2 (5): 625–633. doi:10.1037/h0022677.
  19. ^ a b Mischel, Walter; Grusec, Joan (1967). "Waiting for rewards and punishments: Effects of time and probability on choice". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 5: 24–31. doi:10.1037/h0024180.
  20. ^ Watts, Tyler W.; Duncan, Greg J.; Quan, Haonan (2018). "Revisiting the Marshmallow Test: A Conceptual Replication Investigating Links Between Early Delay of Gratification and Later Outcomes". Psychological Science. 29 (7): 1159–1177. doi:10.1177/0956797618761661. PMC 6050075. PMID 29799765.

External linksEdit