Casey

• Background

  - Walter Mischel suggested the concept of delayed gratification which is the ability to resist temptation in order to get a better reward in the end

  
  

  - In order to test this, he conducted the marshmallow test whereby he presented children with a marshmallow + gave them 2 choices; eat the marshmallow or not eat the marshmallow + get a 2nd one when the researcher returned

  
  

  - He found that 1/3 of those who attempted to delay, delayed gratification long enough to earn the 2nd marshmallow, by using various techniques eg. turning round

  
  

  - Inspired Casey to conduct research to see if children in the original marshmallow experiment who were able to delay gratification were able to do this consistently in later life (whether delayed gratification is a stable trait) when they were adults, with more complex tasks
• Aim

  To build on previous research to assess whether delay of gratification in childhood predicts impulse control activities in adults
• Sample - exp 1

  - P's were taken fron the original delay gratification experiments = standard uni nursery

  
  

  - 59 p's, mixture of high and low delayers in childhood

  
  

  - high delayers: 20 women, 12 men

  - low delayers: 16 women, 11 men
• Materials - exp 1

  - two tasks to examine impulse control:

  -> one with 'cool' stimuli

  -> one with 'hot' stimuli

  
  

  - social cues of faces were used that were were selected from the NimStim set of faces
• Procedure - exp 1

  p's were asked to perform a go/nogo task

  
  

  'cool' version:

  - p's told to press button for one gender 'go' + not press for the opposite gender

  - facial expressions of people were neutral

  
  

  'hot' version:

  - p's shown happy or fearful faces (targets were alternated)

  
  

  -> p's instructed to respond as quickly as possible + as accurately as possible (accuracy of responses was collected)

  -> face appeared for 500 milliseconds (length of time to process face) followed by a 1 sec interval

  -> total of 160 trials per run
• Results - exp 1

  - no significant difference between high and low delayers in terms of reaction time

  
  

  - significant difference on logo trials : mean false alarm rate for the cool task was 9.96% and for hit trials 12.2%

  = harder to control conflict when emotion is involved

  
  

  - low delayers performed worse on hot tasks: happy faces acted as the main stimuli to cause false alarms
• Conclusions - exp 1

  - individuals which had difficulty delaying gratification at age 4 showed more difficulty as adults in suppressing responses to happy stimuli

  
  

  - results are consistent with previous work: context affects how easy it is to delay gratification = more tempting the cause, the harder it is to resist
• Sample - exp 2

  27 p's from exp 1 took part in exp 2 = participant attrition
• Materials - exp 2

  - objective E-Prime software

  - projection screen

  - responses recorded on Neuroscan 5 button response pad
• Procedure - exp 2

  - while in fMRI scanner, p's completed 'hot' version of go/logo task

  - stimuli + instructions were identical fo exp 1 except different timings + number if trials

  - two runs = one with a happy face, one with a fearful face
• Results - exp 2

  - accuracy rates for hot task were consistently high for go trials

  - performance was more mixed on nogo trails

  - low delay p's had more false alarms then high delayers

  
  

  physiological:

  - increased activity in ventral striatum (emotion/reward) in low delayers

  - reduced activity in right inferior frontal gyrus in low delayers
• Conclusions - exp 2


  - frontal region of the brain is active when resisting temptation + activation is reduced in low delayers

  
  

  - ventral striatum showed exaggerated activity in low delayers

  
  

  - different regions of the brain have more activity for cool and hot systems
• Overall conclusions

  - individuals at age 4 that have difficulties delaying gratification, have difficulty as adults in terms of suppressing responses to positive social cues

  
  

  - sensitivity to environmental hot cues plays a significant role in an individuals ability to suppress actions towards alluring cues
• Link to biological approach

  States that a person's ability to control their impulses and resist temptation is caused by an innate biological factor, which is increased activities in certain regions of the brain.

  Behaviours associated with high delayers originate from increased activity in brain regions associated with impulse control, and behaviours associated with seeking rewards originate in the ventral striatum.

  This is because she found that low delayers have increased activity in their ventral striatum whereas high delayers have increased activity in their right inferior frontal gyrus.
• Link to key theme 'regions of the brain'

  The ventral striatum is the region of the brain associated with rewards, meaning people who find it hard to resist temptation are more orientated towards rewards.
• Ethical issues (broken + followed)

  + confidentiality = no details were published about p's

  + deception = p's were not deceived about the nature of the study

  + right to withdraw

  
  

  - possible emotional harm by labelling people as low delayers
• Sample evaluation

  + similar age of delayers (high + low) from childhood

  
  

  - gender bias (more women then men were used in study)

  - relatively small sample size

  - ethnocentric
• Research method evaluation - quasi

  + enables studying of behaviour that would not be practical to manipulate

  -> high + low delayers

  -> more insight into delayed gratification

  
  

  - low ecological validity

  -> eg. MRI scanner of pressing a button

  -> limited generalisability to real life situations in relation to high/low delayers
• Reliability

  Internal:

  + standardised procedure used

  -> eg. faces were selected from the NimStim set of faces

  -> procedure can be replicated in the future to check for consistency

  
  

  External:

  + collects quantitative data

  -> eg. accuracy of responses was collected

  -> allow consistency to be checked
• Validity

  Internal:

  - lack of control over EV's

  -> eg. situational -> noises, distractions in the home

  -> not truly measuring region of the brain as intended

  
  

  External:

  + high predictive validity

  -> can predict future behaviours of high/low delayers as it is a consistent trait throughout life = can help manage this behav
• Nature v nurture

  Nature:

  -> delay of gratification was shown to be a stable individual characteristic suggesting people are either destined to be high/low delayers

  
  

  Nurture:

  -> upbringing + brain plasticity, brain structure may change over time => by age 4, children would have had external influence eg. models resisting temptations + learned about the idea of rewards
• Reductionism v holism

  Reductionism:

  -> assumes behav is determined by biological factors eg. varying ability to delay gratification is due to differences in the strength of the inferior frontal gyrus + ventral striatum, ignoring influence of other dispositional factors eg. upbringing

  
  

  Holism:

  -> weak inferior frontal gyrus + strong ventral striatum increases probability of being a low delayer + having a reduced ability to delay gratification
• Freewill v determinism

  Freewill:

  -> p's had the choice to press the button so actions as high or low delayers were due to their own freewill

  -> cooling techniques = able to resist temptation, use of freewill to change ability to delay gratification

  
  

  Determinism:

  -> being a high or low delayer is determined by the brain structure they are born with (eg. higher levels of activity in ventral striatum)
• Usefulness

  Usefulness:

  -> enhances knowledge that delay of gratification in childhood can predict this ability in adulthood => help protect from physical + mental health problems

  -> practical applications = strategies can be used to train young low delayers eg. use of cooling techniques to protect from future vulnerability

  
  

  Limited usefulness:

  -> being labelled as a low delayer may lead to a person displaying increasingly negative behaviours because they cannot resist temptation
• Socially sensitive

  Stigma:

  -> created around those who are low delayers as suggests that being a low/high delayer is innate = low delayers begin to feel like they cannot achieve long term goals - isolated from society?