The Marshmallow Experiment

Instant gratification takes too long

Who would ever guess that a brief observation of a four-year old alone with a marshmallow would be an excellent predictor of college entrance exam scores — twice as good a predictor as IQ test scores?

And an excellent guide to where an organisation's internal controls may be in decline.

In one of the most amazing developmental studies ever conducted, Walter Michel of Stanford created a simple test of the ability of four year old children to control impulses and delay gratification.

Children were taken one at a time into a room with a one-way mirror.

They were shown a marshmallow.

The experimenter told them he had to leave and that they could have the marshmallow right then, but if they waited for the experimenter to return from an errand, they could have two marshmallows.

One marshmallow was left on a table in front of them.

Some children grabbed the available marshmallow within seconds of the experimenter leaving. Others waited up to twenty minutes for the experimenter to return.

In a follow-up study, children were tested at 18 years of age and comparisons were made between the third of the children who grabbed the marshmallow (the "impulsive") and the third who delayed gratification in order to receive the enhanced reward ("impulse controlled").

The third of the children who were most impulsive at four years of age scored an average of 524 verbal and 528 math on their SAT scores.

The impulse controlled students who scored 610 verbal and 652 math.

This astounding 210 point total score difference on the SAT was predicted on the basis of a single observation at four years of age!

The 210 point difference is as large as the average differences between that of economically advantaged versus disadvantaged children and is larger than the difference between children from families with graduate degrees versus children whose parents did not finish high school.

At four years of age gobbling a marshmallow now v. waiting for two later is twice as good a predictor of later SAT scores than is IQ. Poor impulse control is also a better predictor of later delinquency than is IQ.

**

So what does this tell us about internal control environments.

You will be not surprised when Honestly Lay Bare says that it tells us an enormous amount.

The separation of a population between impulsive and impulse controlled and the correlation between those two populations as to future success suggests that the short term rewarding of employees may indeed have a negative impact on the success of the company.

As such, where you see an incentive program that is heavily weighed towards the short term (relatively real time gratification) against a program that has medium to long term incentives (deferred gratification) be warned.

The internal control environments based on real time gratification are likely to be ones where there is inbuilt underperformance and inefficient process (as there is no long term reward for sustaintable practices).

The internal control environments based on deferred gratification are likely to be ones where there is an incentive to ensure that the processes introduced are as at least sustainable to the point whereby the employee receives their reward.

**

All that from a marshmallow!