Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Casey 2011 (Evaluation (Psychology as a science: fMRI scanner used,…
Casey 2011
Evaluation
Psychology as a science: fMRI scanner used, collected quantitative data, but no manipulation of IVs and collected qualitative data
Usefulness: Teaching children to wait improves cognitive control, teach cooling strategies
Nature/Individual explanations: Does not look at environmental causes behind the ability to delay gratification, just brain activity
Socially sensitive research: Questions whether people can really be blamed for not controlling impulses
Ethical considerations: Informed consent, confidential, no harm to participants
Validity: Quasi (ecological), males and females (population), standardised (internal), but experiment 1 was carried out at participants' homes (internal) and no manipulation of IVs (internal)
-
Reliability: Standardised timings, quantitative data, fMRI scanner, but collected qualitative data, and is not entirely replicable as experiment 1 was carried out at home
Sampling bias: Males and females, but all went to Stanford Nursery School
Keywords
-
-
-
-
Delay of gratification: An ability to put off something fun/pleasurable now in order to wait for something that is greatly fun/pleasurable or rewarding later
Cognitive control: Ability to suppress inappropriate thoughts or actions in favour of appropriate ones
Localisation of function: Different areas of the brain are associated with particular physical and psychological functions
Sample
-
-
-
117 contacted due to their above/below average scores in the marshmallow test AND the self control scales (60 low delayers, 57 high delayers)
59 took part in experiment 1 (32 high delayers (12 males, 20 females) and 27 low delayers (11 males and 16 females))
27 took part in experiment 2 but one was removed for poor fMRI performance (15 high delayers (5 males and 10 females) and 11 low delayers (7 males and 4 females))
Method
Experiment 1
-
-
-
-
Tasks presented using programmed laptop computers that were sent to the participants' homes (measuring accuracy and reaction times)
160 trials were presented in a randomised order (120 go, 40 no-go)
-
-
Experiment 2
-
Aimed to show that low delayers would show less activity in their pre frontal lobe cortex (inferior frontal gyrus)
-
-
-
48 trials presented (35 go, 13 no go)
-
DV: Impulse control on the go/no-go task, brain activity in the inferior frontal gyrus and ventral striatum
Results
-
Both groups accurate to 'go' trials in both the cool and hot tasks, but low delayers made more errors in their responses to the 'no-go' trials
Individuals who showed more difficulty delaying their gratification in childhood showed difficulty in adulthood in suppressing responses/cognitive control
Low delayers showed more activity in the ventral striatum and less activity in the inferior frontal gyrus.
-
-
Background
Metcalfe and Mischel (1999) suggested that cool and hot cues involved different areas of the brain. Cool cues: Inferior frontal gyrus/pre-frontal cortex. Hot cues: Ventral striatum/basul ganglia neural circuit
Marshmallow test (1960s) showed some children could delay their gratification and wait and get another marshmallow, but some could not delay their gratification and ate the first marshmallow
Aim: To investigate the extent to which the ability to resist temptation at pre-school age affected the same participants in adulthood. Control over impulses and sensitivity to social cues at the behavioural and neural level were examined.