Aamir Walker
2/24/25
Developmental psychology
Empirical article assignment 2
Part 1: article summary
The article Waiting for the Second Treat: Developing Culture-Specific Modes of
Self-Regulation by Lamm et al. looks at how culture affects the way kids learn self-control. The
researchers tested 4-year-old children from two different backgrounds, rural Cameroonian Nso
communities and middle class German families using the Marshmallow Test. The research
question of the article can be said as follows: How do cultural differences influence the
development of self regulation and the ability to delay gratification, in young children? The
hypothesis being that said cultural differences do and that the Nso children would display higher
levels of impulse control. The children were placed in a room and recorded, their behaviors and
whether they ate the treat left by the researchers or if they waited till they got back were noted
between the different groups. The results showed that about 70% of the Nso kids were able to
wait, while only 30% of the German kids could. The study suggests that this difference comes
from how the children are raised. Nso parents focus on discipline and obedience, which helps
their kids develop better self-control. German parents encourage independence and let their
kids make their own choices, which might not help as much with resisting temptation. To the
researchers this information is incredibly important as it demonstrates that self regulation is not
a universal concept to be developed to rather a byproduct of cultural values, specifically how
they are shaped by the larger society; this information bolsters the importance of early life
experiences and upbringing in later psychological resilience, this information makes delayed
gratification to be not a benchmark phenomena exhibited by children but rather a result of
parental upbringing making if far more contingent than previously envisioned.
Part 2: critical analysis and reflection
The study however isn't free from criticism. Firstly the study is not longitudinal and the
children accessed for the study are all around the same age if not the same outright, as a result of
this there are likely a few unknowns resulting from the information gained from the study i.e
how applicable are these research findings later in life? The research article noted the
differences in the ability to delay gratification between children from different cultures and
came to the conclusion that culture did in fact have an impact; The study however did not
account for cultural considerations that could alter the perception of their observations made in
the study. For example the researchers noted how the Nso children were particularly still and in
some instances slept when presented with a tempting [Link] could be seen as self control
and a non display of delaying behaviors (which the researchers noted as behaviors that
potentially proceeded taking the treat preemptively) could very easily be soothing/delaying
behaviors as well the authors of the study are examining delayed gratification across cultures but
don't mention or seemingly acknowledge different approaches to regulating desires. In addition
what can be seen as stillness and delayed gratification could just be different cultural
expectations revealing themselves in the study; the authors did make a point to say that there
are different cultural expectations in Nso culture that would lead children to be still and adapt to
environments rather than be catered too but if that is the case then there “delaying” of
gratification wouldn't be a function of there will power or delaying technique but rather cultural
conditioning taking root in an unfamiliar environment lead by adults the children could simply
be reverting to cultural expectation rather than internally managing their own desires something
that on the surface has functionally the same result but is rooted in a much different place.
What I would do differently if i were a researchers would be to make the study be more
long term to properly see the effects culture has across a person's early life and not just a
Particular point of it where the child is especially dependant, this would also allow me to better
delineate between delaying behaviors and socially conditioned ones; this would be my primary
change as the bulk of the problems with this study revolve around interpretation of the signals
given by the children something that should be noted and categorized with more care but a less
overt change than manually extending the studies length I view this aspect of the study the most
indefensible tho i would also opt for a different methodology and not utilize the marshmallow
test since it is greatly criticized i would opt for a any myriad of gratification test techniques like
the “Snack Delay” method a simpler more reliable marshmallow test equivalent.
AI did not change my understanding of the work the way I typically use AI is a
summarization tool rather than an information gathering one and sparingly at that I say AI
helped arrange points in the article for me to look into further but any change in my
understanding would have been gained through the text.
AI SCRIPT:
Me: what are some faults with the study
Chat GPT: While Lamm et al. (2018) provides valuable insights into cultural influences on
self-regulation, there are some potential limitations and criticisms of the study:
1. Ecological Validity of the Marshmallow Test
● The Marshmallow Test was developed in a Western context and may not equally apply to
all cultures.
● The test assumes that delaying gratification is always beneficial, but in some cultural
settings, immediate consumption may be a more adaptive strategy due to environmental
or social factors.
2. Alternative Explanations for Nso Children’s Performance
● The high success rate of Nso children may not necessarily indicate superior
self-regulation. It could be due to differences in obedience, social conformity, or
respect for authority, rather than an internal ability to delay gratification.
● Nso children might have simply been more accustomed to following adult instructions
without question.
3. Lack of Socioeconomic Considerations
● The study compares a rural, farming community (Nso) with a Western,
middle-class sample (German children).
● Differences in economic security could influence the children’s decision-making. For
example, children in more resource-scarce environments may have learned that waiting
is more beneficial because rewards are less frequent.
4. Limited Generalizability
● The study focuses on only two cultural groups, making it difficult to generalize
findings to other societies.
● Even within Germany and Cameroon, there are variations in parenting styles and
socialization that may not be represented in the study.
5. Potential Researcher Bias
● The interpretation of results could be influenced by Western researchers’
perspectives, potentially overemphasizing autonomy vs. hierarchy as the main factor
in self-regulation.
● Cultural nuances in emotional expression and motivation might not be fully
captured by the study’s design.
6. One-Dimensional View of Self-Regulation
● The study focuses only on delay of gratification as a measure of self-regulation,
ignoring other important aspects like emotional regulation, impulse control, and
cognitive flexibility that might differ across cultures.
Conclusion
While the study provides strong evidence for cultural influences on self-regulation, these
limitations suggest that future research should:
● Include more diverse cultural and socioeconomic groups.
● Use alternative measures of self-regulation beyond the Marshmallow Test.
● Consider contextual factors like economic conditions and social expectations
that may shape children's decisions.
Would you like help finding follow-up studies that address these limitations?
Me: No thankyou
Chat GPT: No problem! Let me know if you ever need help with anything else.
ME: why is the marshmallow test questioned ?
The Marshmallow Test, originally conducted by Walter Mischel in the 1960s, has been
widely questioned in recent years for several reasons:
1. Overstating the Link to Future Success
● The original study suggested that children who could delay gratification (wait for the
second marshmallow) had better life outcomes, including higher SAT scores, better
health, and financial success.
● However, more recent studies (e.g., Watts et al., 2018) found that the link between
self-control in childhood and later success largely disappears when you control for
socioeconomic status (SES) and home environment.
2. Socioeconomic and Environmental Factors Matter
● Poorer children may not wait for the second marshmallow—not because they lack
self-control, but because in unstable environments, waiting may not always be a
rational choice.
● Children from wealthier, more predictable backgrounds may find it easier to delay
gratification because they trust that rewards will come later.
3. Cultural Bias in the Test
● The test assumes that delaying gratification is always the best strategy, but in
some cultures, sharing or consuming immediately may be more valued.
● Studies (like Lamm et al., 2018) show that self-regulation develops differently across
cultures, and obedience to authority might be mistaken for self-control.
4. Self-Regulation is More Than Just Delay of Gratification
● The Marshmallow Test focuses only on one aspect of self-regulation (impulse
control), ignoring other important factors like emotional regulation,
problem-solving, and social adaptability.
● Many successful people may not have performed well on the test but still developed
self-control through other means.
5. Replication and Variability in Results
● Follow-up studies have failed to fully replicate Mischel’s original findings,
particularly the strong link between marshmallow delay and long-term success.
● Modern studies suggest that parenting, environment, and education play a much
bigger role than a single childhood test.
Conclusion
While the Marshmallow Test is still a useful tool for studying self-control, it should not be
viewed as a definitive predictor of future success. Instead, self-regulation is influenced
by a complex mix of personal, cultural, and environmental factors.
ME: are there better alternatives to teh marchmellow test
Chat GPT:Yes! While the Marshmallow Test is a classic measure of delay of
gratification, researchers have developed better alternatives that provide a more
well-rounded view of self-regulation and executive function. Here are some
alternatives:
1. The "Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders" (HTKS) Task
🔹🔹What it Measures: Self-control, cognitive flexibility, and working memory.
How it Works:
● Children are asked to do the opposite of a given instruction (e.g., "Touch
your toes" means they should touch their head).
● This requires inhibitory control (resisting impulse) and cognitive flexibility
🔹
(switching actions).
Why It’s Better:
● Tests both impulse control and executive function, not just waiting.
● More interactive and engaging for young children.
📌 Used in many early childhood studies as a predictor of academic success!
2. The "Go/No-Go" Task
🔹🔹What it Measures: Inhibitory control and impulsivity.
How it Works:
● Children (or adults) see a series of images.
● They must press a button for certain images ("Go") but refrain from
🔹
pressing for others ("No-Go").
Why It’s Better:
● Can be adapted for different ages (used in both kids and adults).
● Used in neuroscience studies to measure brain activity related to impulse
control.
3. The Delay Discounting Task
🔹🔹What it Measures: How people weigh immediate vs. future rewards.
How it Works:
● Participants choose between a small immediate reward (e.g., $10 now) and a
larger delayed reward (e.g., $50 in a month).
● Helps assess real-world decision-making, unlike the Marshmallow Test’s
🔹
artificial setting.
Why It’s Better:
● Can be used across ages and cultures.
● More realistic and applicable to financial and behavioral decision-making.
4. The Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS)
🔹🔹What it Measures: Cognitive flexibility and executive function.
How it Works:
● Kids sort cards based on one rule (e.g., by color).
🔹
● Then, they must switch to a new rule (e.g., sorting by shape).
Why It’s Better:
● Measures mental flexibility, not just impulse control.
● Strongly linked to academic success and problem-solving skills.
5. The "Snack Delay" Task (A Simpler Version of the Marshmallow Test)
🔹🔹What it Measures: Impulse control.
How it Works:
● A child is told they must wait before eating a snack, but with clear rules and
🔹
time increments.
Why It’s Better:
● More structured than the Marshmallow Test.
● Avoids cultural biases by allowing clear expectations.
