Delay of gratification is a person’s ability to resist temptation for a least preferred but immediate reward in order to receive a later but larger reward (Mischel, Ebbesen, & Zeiss, 1972). Mischel, Ebbesen, and Zeiss (1972) held a series of experiments at Stanford University to of study the role of attentional and cognitive mechanisms in delay of gratification (Mischel et al., 1972). The experiment investigated the effects of attention to the goal objects and was measure by the amount of time that the participants waited. To investigate the role of attention and cognition in delay of gratification, each participant was given either an over activity, a cognitive activity, or no activity during the delay period (Mischel et al., 1972). The hypothesis
…show more content…
Six of the participants were lost due to their misunderstanding of the instructions or simply because they chose to eat one of the reward object while waiting. The ages of the participants ranged from 3 years 9 month to 5 years 3 months (Mischel et al., 1972). The hypothesis was that delay of gratification would be short when the frustration was made high by directing the participants to think about the rewards (Mischel et al., 1972). A three-condition study was designed to included three different types of instructions that were given to the participants before they began to wait for their rewards. The first condition was similar to Experiment I, in which the participants were waiting for reward objects. The only difference came after the child had answered the usual three comprehension questions correctly and the experimenter instructed the participants to think sad thoughts or fun and happy thoughts as a form of distraction (Mischel et al., …show more content…
There was a total of 16 participants whose ages ranged from 3.5 years to 5.5 (Mischel et al., 1972). Half of the participants were assigned to the experimental condition, which directed the participant’s attention to the reward objects. The other half was equally divided between the control conditions of “think fun” and no ideation (Mischel et al., 1972). The procedure in this experiment was similar to the procedural aspects in the previous two experiments except this time the reward was removed from the participant’s visual field (Mischel et al., 1972). The reward objects were placed under an opaque cake tin and placed under a table to ensure that it could not been seen by the participants (Mischel et al., 1972). It was predicted that there would be long delay times when participants were told to think about the rewards, but were not physically able to see
Six of the participants were lost due to their misunderstanding of the instructions or simply because they chose to eat one of the reward object while waiting. The ages of the participants ranged from 3 years 9 month to 5 years 3 months (Mischel et al., 1972). The hypothesis was that delay of gratification would be short when the frustration was made high by directing the participants to think about the rewards (Mischel et al., 1972). A three-condition study was designed to included three different types of instructions that were given to the participants before they began to wait for their rewards. The first condition was similar to Experiment I, in which the participants were waiting for reward objects. The only difference came after the child had answered the usual three comprehension questions correctly and the experimenter instructed the participants to think sad thoughts or fun and happy thoughts as a form of distraction (Mischel et al., …show more content…
There was a total of 16 participants whose ages ranged from 3.5 years to 5.5 (Mischel et al., 1972). Half of the participants were assigned to the experimental condition, which directed the participant’s attention to the reward objects. The other half was equally divided between the control conditions of “think fun” and no ideation (Mischel et al., 1972). The procedure in this experiment was similar to the procedural aspects in the previous two experiments except this time the reward was removed from the participant’s visual field (Mischel et al., 1972). The reward objects were placed under an opaque cake tin and placed under a table to ensure that it could not been seen by the participants (Mischel et al., 1972). It was predicted that there would be long delay times when participants were told to think about the rewards, but were not physically able to see