Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Casey et al. 2011 Delay of Gratification (Procedure (Exp 1) (Procedure…
Casey et al. 2011 Delay of Gratification
Background
In the 1970s Mischel demonstrated some pre-schoolers could resist temptation and some could not
The 'marshmallow test' looked at delay of gratification to see if toung children could resist immediate reward to receive a better but delayed reward later
AIM - to assess whether delay of gratification in childhood predicts impulse control abilities in adulthood
Research method
Quasi experiment - IV whether participant high or low delayer
DV - performance on the impulse control task in experiment 1 and imaging results using fMRI
Repeated measures - some participants completed self control scales in 20s/30s and participants in experiment 1 did both "hot" and "cool" go/nogo tasks
Longitudinal study as followed some participants from age of 4 until in their 40s
Sample
562 four year olds from Stanford's Bing Nursery completed a delay of gratification task in the late 1960s
135 of these completed self-control scales in their 30s
117 of these 135 who were above or below average were asked to participate in the study
59 of them agreed to participate in experiment 1 and 27 went on to be a part of experiment 2
Procedure (Exp 1)
This tested whether individuals who were less able to delay gratification as children would also show less impulse control as adults
Participants completed two versions of the go/no go task, the "cool" version consisted of male and female stimuli (male and female faces should not have reward system)
The "hot" version consisted of happy and fearful faces
Before each run a screen appeared indicating which stimulus is go and which is no go, each face appeared for 500ms
160 trials per run (e.g. male go, male no go, happy go, happy no go etc.) - 120 go's and 40 no go's in each run
Procedure (Exp 2)
fMRI was used to examine neural correlates of delay of gratification
27 participants completed a "hot" version of the go/no go task similar to Exp 1 - didn't do "cool" task as already know difference between them
48 trials were run (35 go and 13 no go in each run) - fearful go, fearful no go etc.
One participant was excluded for excessively poor performance
Key findings (Exp 2)
two delay groups didn't differ significantly in correct "go" trials
Differences in "no-go" task were consistent with "hot" task in experiment one, low delayers committed more false alarms
Right inferior frontal gyrus involved in withholding a responseHigh acitivity in ventral striatum of low delayers in "no-go" - reward pathway, reward without control
Key findings (Exp 1)
Participants perfromed accurately on "go" trials in both hot and cool condition
accuracy on "no-go" trials was more variable with low delayers committing more false alarms than high delayers
if able to delay IFG is activated
High delayers have more activity in the IFG because they're resisting
Conclusions
Those who were low delayers in childhood were also low delayers in adulthood
Capacity to resist temptation varies by context