For several years, I have harbored a slight sense of guilt regarding a phantom marshmallow.
This feeling emerged from the well-known Stanford marshmallow experiment conducted by psychologist Walter Mischel. In this study, preschoolers were given a marshmallow (or similar treat) with a choice: eat it immediately or wait 15 minutes to receive a second one. Mischel’s follow-up with these children into adulthood revealed that those who managed to delay gratification tended to be more successful. He concluded that the ability to wait was indicative of an innate capacity for delayed gratification.
So, why does this study give me a lingering sense of guilt? Knowing myself well, I am sure that little Emily would have found it impossible to resist devouring that sumptuous marshmallow right in front of her. (Even at nearly 40, I still struggle with such temptations, as evidenced by the empty Jet-Puffed marshmallow bags.)
While I can successfully delay gratification in areas like finances, education, career pursuits, and significant purchases, I convinced myself that I lacked a certain cognitive quality compared to those who could resist a treat.
However, Mischel’s conclusions may not hold up upon closer inspection. A recent investigation failed to replicate his findings, exposing a broader issue: many renowned behavioral studies suffer from similar replication challenges. Numerous attempts to recreate the original research have produced inconclusive results, omitted critical nuances, or proven outright incorrect. Consequently, we can expect a reassessment of many long-accepted behavioral psychology concepts in the near future.
Before you alter your daily routines, it’s worth considering how some foundational studies have emerged as more myth than fact.
The marshmallow experiment
Mischel’s initial experiment, conducted in the late 1960s, involved a rather small group of 90 preschool children from Stanford’s own institution. The recent research team, led by NYU’s Tyler Watts and UC Irvine’s Greg Duncan and Hoanan Quan, expanded this study to include 900 participants that better represented the broader population in terms of race, ethnicity, and parents’ educational backgrounds.
The new study revealed that children’s capacity to delay gratification was most significantly linked to socio-economic factors. A child from a low-income family may develop a habit of seizing immediate rewards due to uncertainty about future availability, while a child from a wealthier background could learn the advantages of waiting.
When family income was factored in, it was discovered that affluent children who opted to eat the marshmallow right away did not perform worse in later standardized tests than those who waited. Similarly, lower-income children who managed to delay gratification did not perform better than their peers who chose to indulge immediately.
Interestingly, children from wealthier families demonstrated a greater propensity for delaying gratification as adults, suggesting that our perceived “willpower” might be more influenced by upbringing than innate ability.
Ego depletion
Furthermore, a pivotal study on willpower, conducted two decades ago by Roy Baumeister and Dianne Tice, explored this concept through the lens of choice. In their experiment, participants were presented with a plate of freshly-baked cookies alongside a bowl of radishes. They had to choose one, which then led to a frustrating puzzle that they had to solve. Those who were permitted to munch on cookies persevered twice as long before giving up than those who were left with only radishes while smelling the cookies.
Baumeister and Tice coined the term “ego depletion” to explain their findings, positing that resisting the temptation to eat cookies drained participants’ willpower reserves, leaving them with diminished mental stamina for tackling the tricky puzzle. If willpower is indeed a limited resource, one can deplete it through minor choices before facing significant decisions.
However, subsequent research has struggled to replicate the original results, and meta-analyses reveal scant support for the ego depletion concept.
This indicates that our willpower may hinge more on motivations and beliefs rather than being merely a finite resource that can be exhausted through decision-making.
Power poses
If you have engaged with popular media, you may have come across Amy Cuddy’s TED talk on power poses, where she advocated for the transformative power of body language in boosting feelings of confidence. Her research suggested that adopting poses like the Superman stance for just two minutes could elevate testosterone levels, reduce cortisol (the stress hormone), and foster risk-taking behaviors.
This seemed like promising information for anyone facing anxiety during presentations or interviews—just find a secluded spot to assume a powerful stance for a few moments, and you could stride into any daunting interaction with newfound confidence, courtesy of changed hormone levels.
Yet, a follow-up study that quadrupled the participant size found no hormonal changes associated with power posing. Cuddy herself now claims to be “agnostic” about these hormonal outcomes, although she maintains that such poses can help individuals feel more empowered.
Cuddy might be correct about the perception aspect, even if the underlying scientific basis is not replicable. The placebo effect—cognitive bias leading individuals to feel something beneficial occurs simply due to their expectations—might play a significant role. Consequently, due to the widespread appeal of power poses, many might genuinely feel empowered after performing them.
Priming
In his acclaimed book Thinking, Fast and Slow, Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman discussed the concept of priming—the idea that subtle environmental cues can sway an individual’s behavior.
Initial studies suggested that participants walked slower after being exposed to words related to aging, exhibited more honesty near representations of eyes when faced with temptation, showed increased warmth when holding a warm beverage during conversations, and became more selfish upon encountering money.
However, replication attempts of these findings have been largely unsuccessful, implying that human behavior may be less malleable to such environmental cues than initially believed. This outcome is encouraging, as it affirms that we maintain a level of control over our actions and reactions beyond what was previously suggested.
Question what you read
Behavioral science offers intriguing insights into understanding our sometimes irrational decision-making processes. Nonetheless, it is crucial to recognize that researchers and the journalists reporting on their findings are also human. Mistakes, flawed studies, and even false reports can arise, purported as groundbreaking truths about financial and psychological behavior. Don’t allow these so-called “truths” to deter you from what works best for you—especially if that might mean opting to savor the marshmallow immediately.
