The classic Stanford marshmallow test, a measure of children’s ability to delay gratification, has been revisited with a focus on the impact of peer influence. Can a simple promise make a difference in a child’s ability to resist a tempting treat? New research suggests that the answer is a resounding yes.
The original marshmallow test, conducted in the 1970s, presented children with a choice: enjoy one marshmallow now or wait and receive two later. While initial findings linked delayed gratification with future success, subsequent research highlighted the influence of socioeconomic factors, suggesting that children from disadvantaged backgrounds might be less inclined to trust the promise of a future reward. This new study, however, explores a different angle: the power of peer commitment.
Published in Royal Society Open Science, the study involved pairing children aged 5 to 6 with a “partner” and presenting them with a similar dilemma. The children were told they would receive a better treat if they and their partner waited. Crucially, the partners (shown in pre-recorded videos) either promised to wait or expressed uncertainty about their ability to resist.
The results revealed a compelling pattern: children were significantly more likely to delay gratification when their partner had made a promise to wait. This reinforces the idea that even young children are influenced by social commitments and the perceived trustworthiness of others. This study builds on previous research demonstrating the impact of promises on children’s behavior, such as reducing cheating and promoting truth-telling.
Interestingly, younger children in the study exhibited a slightly greater tendency to wait the full duration, although the difference wasn’t statistically significant. The researchers speculate that this might be because older children have more experience with broken promises, leading to a more nuanced understanding of commitment reliability.
This research underscores the potential of peer support in promoting positive behaviors, even in young children. The findings echo observations from addiction research, where buddy systems can help prevent relapses. However, the authors acknowledge that further research is needed to determine the generalizability of these findings across different cultures and populations.
The study primarily focused on healthy children in northern England. Future research should explore whether these findings hold true for children from diverse backgrounds and cultural contexts.
While further investigation is warranted, this study provides compelling evidence of the power of promises in shaping children’s behavior. A simple commitment from a peer can significantly enhance a child’s ability to resist temptation and delay gratification, suggesting a powerful tool for fostering cooperation and promoting positive social development. This understanding could have implications for educational strategies and interventions aimed at supporting children’s self-regulation and social skills.
