Marshmallows: Not As Bad For You As You Thought

Will this little girl's love of marshmallows doom her to failure later in life?Image Source/ZUMAPRESS

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

You know all about the marshmallow test, don’t you? A researcher shows kids a marshmallow and tells them they can eat it now, or, if they wait a bit, they can have two marshmallows. If the kid waits, it shows excellent self-discipline and the ability to delay gratitude, which helps in later life.

There’s only one problem: the studies demonstrating this are kind of crappy: small sample sizes, upper middle class kids, etc. Recently, though, a professor at NYU came across an old NIH study that administered the marshmallow test to a thousand diverse 4-year-olds. When the kids were recontacted at age 15, the results were dismal: there was hardly any correlation at all between doing well on the marshmallow test and doing well later in life. But over at Vox, Brian Resnick tells us there was this:

His paper also found something that they still can’t make sense of. Most of the predictive power of the marshmallow test can be accounted for kids waiting just making it 20 seconds before they decide to eat the treat. “So being able to wait for two minutes, five minutes, or seven minutes, 2 min, 5 min, or 7 min, the max, it didn’t really have any additional benefits over being able to wait for 20 seconds.”

That makes it hard to imagine the kids are engaging in some sort of complex cognitive trick to stay patient, and that patient. It makes it hard to imagine the test is revealing something deep and lasting about their potential in life. And perhaps it’s an indication that the marshmallow experiment test is not a great test of delay of gratification or some other underlying measure of self-control.

I disagree! First of all, 20 seconds is a long time for a four-year-old. What’s more, those first 20 seconds are the most important. When it comes to emotional control, the biggest difference is not between the person who waits a few minutes to make a decision vs. the person who sleeps on it overnight. The biggest difference is between either of them and the person who’s always popping off instantly over something. That could be something as small as an impulse purchase or as large as getting into a bar fight over an imagined slight. In either case, if you make the effort to think for even a few seconds, you’re miles ahead.

That said, I doubt the marshmallow test really tells us much. But if it tells us anything, it’s probably about the value of not being a hothead.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend