Page 5 - Flipbook: Sociology Shortcuts Issue 4: Testing the Marshmallow Test

From A to B…

There are two significant problems with the claim As Michio Kaku, a strong advocate of the predictive
that delayed gratification is a cause of both powers of the Test puts it:
improved academic achievement (what we can
term the “soft hypothesis” because it only makes a “The ability to delay gratification is a key predictor
limited, but still significant, claim about the Test) of success because it reflects self-control,
and a wide range of adult life benefits such as discipline, and the ability to plan for the future.
better health, higher incomes and the like (the These traits are crucial for academic achievement,
“hard hypothesis”). as they help students stay focused, manage their
time effectively, and persist through challenges.”
The first is that delayed gratification itself can’t be
a cause of something like academic improvement. Assuming these traits really are “crucial for
There has to be a mechanism, such as “willpower” academic achievement” – something that ideally
or self-control, through which delayed gratification needs to be tested rather than (conveniently)
is expressed. In other words, the claim here is assumed – a second problem involves showing
something along the lines that children who have how “self-control” directly connects to and
high levels of self-control are able to delay determines improved academic ability. In other
gratification in the Marshmallow Test. words, we don’t actually know if those students who
delayed gratification and performed well
This, in turn, explains why these children become academically did so because they developed
academically successful – presumably through greater self-discipline, determination, grit and so
things like showing greater determination to forth. Proponents of the Marshmallow test simply
overcome problems or having the self-discipline to assume that they do.
study rather than use their time in some other
way.
Now you see it…

Leaving aside the argument that advocates of the For example, if we wanted to know how a plant
Marshmallow Test are simply assuming (the dependent variable) is affected by changes in
relationships they should be proving, the general light (the independent variable) we need to define
takeaway here is that will-power is a hugely- exactly what we mean by “a plant”. If we didn’t
important trait that not only determines our accurately define it we might accidentally measure
chances of educational success, it also determines the effect of light on something we mistake for “a
things like our future body-mass index (the extent plant”, such as television (not a great example, but
to which we are under or over weight), general you probably get the drift).
health, happiness and income. More importantly,
will-power is not only something that can be set at In other words we assume the variables
a very young age, it is seemingly resistant to themselves aren’t up for debate.
change, in the sense that once you have it, it
remains with you throughout your life – which, In the case of the Marshmallow Test, however,
although it seems improbable, is something we’ll recent neuroscientific developments (that
let pass. There are more-significant problems with obviously weren’t available to the original
the Test – the first of which is does it actually researchers) have suggested that what the original
measure what it claims to measure. researchers thought they were measuring may not
have been what they were actually measuring.
This is a slightly-odd question because when we
normally consider the validity of something like an And that presents a Very Big Problem.
experiment we’re generally looking at the
relationship between certain pre-defined variables. We’ve known for quite some time that different
parts of the brain serve different functions but it
wasn’t until it became possible to scan the brain to
see images of what was actually happening inside
our heads in real time that we could see exactly
which parts were active under what conditions.

5