LAUSR

Does childhood delay of gratification predict important life outcomes? In one of the most widely known results in psychology, children who delayed gratification by resisting the temptation to eat a marshmallow in hopes of receiving a second one were more likely to thrive later in life, academically and behaviorally (Shoda, Mischel, & Peake, 1990). However, a recent article has cast doubt on this finding, as well as on the usefulness of interventions designed to train delay of gratification to improve life outcomes. Using a much larger data set, more representative sample, and modified marshmallow test, Watts, Duncan, and Quan (2018) found that the predictive power of the test for later academic achievement was diminished or disappeared when a range of covariates that they considered confounds were included.1 They thus concluded that future interventions should not focus on boosting delay of gratification. It is not straightforward to differentiate between confounds and aspects of a construct, and which variables get chosen as covariates depends on the researcher’s goal. Watts et al. state that they aimed to conceptually replicate the original findings of Shoda et al. (1990); in light of this, we argue that many of the variables in their models should not have been included as confounds because they likely captured factors that measure fundamental processes supporting delay of gratification. Thus, the weakened link between early delay of gratification and later outcomes is not surprising. Watts et al. included two sets of covariates in two sets of models: child-background and home-environment characteristics in one model and general cognitive and behavioral skills in the other. Their justification for including these variables was that child-background and home-environment covariates are unlikely to be targeted by early childhood interventions, and cognitive and behavioral skills are unlikely to be the focus of interventions that target the “narrow set of skills involved with gratification delay (e.g., a program that merely provided children with strategies to help them delay longer; see Mischel, 2014, p. 40).” Both sets of variables, however, measure fundamental processes supporting delay of gratification that are indeed reasonable and likely targets of interventions to boost delaying gratification. For example, in their models that included covariates measuring general cognitive and behavioral skills, Watts et al. controlled for executive functions (Diamond & Lee, 2011), which have been theorized to support delay of gratification, helping children maintain goals (e.g., waiting for two marshmallows) and inhibit impulses (e.g., not tasting the marshmallow in front of them; e.g., Diamond, 2013; Miyake & Friedman, 2012). Theoretical and empirical models suggest that executive function limitations underlie externalizing behavior (e.g., Sulik et al., 2015), which Watts et al. also controlled for in these models. They also controlled for verbal ability, which has been theorized to support executive function (e.g., Kuhn, Willoughby, VernonFeagans, Blair, & The Family Life Project Key Investigators, 2016) and shows moderate to high correlations with it (e.g., Carlson & Moses, 2001; Zelazo et al., 2013). Executive functions also appear to play a key supporting 839045 PSSXXX10.1177/0956797619839045Doebel et al.Delaying Gratification Matters research-article2019