| In Experiment 1, thirty-two five and six-year-olds made three choices between a smaller immediate reward and a larger reward delayed 24 hours. The choices were a 1-inch pretzel versus a 2.5-inch pretzel (Low Income Level), a 2.5-inch versus a 6.5-inch pretzel (Moderate Income Level), and three versus seven 6.5-inch pretzels (High Income Level). Following choice, one of the three income levels was randomly selected, and the child consumed his/her selection in front of the experimenter, either immediately or after the delay, and returned any leftovers. Children who chose to delay at a low income level, switched to the immediate reward at a higher income level. However, the children who chose the immediate reward at a low income level did not stay with the immediate reward as income level rose.;Experiment 3 replicated the procedures of Experiment 1 except that a prior requirement that leftovers be returned was eliminated. The subjects were the same four nine and ten-year-olds as in Experiment 2. Each child was tested on three occasions using a different reward type. With the exception of one reward type for one child, all subjects switched from the delayed to the immediate reward as income level rose.;Choice in this delay-of-gratification procedure was more easily explained in terms of the microeconomic principles of discounting and marginal utility than in terms of Mischel's cognitive social learning theory.;In Experiment 2, four nine and ten-year-olds varied the sizes of the rewards (chocolate chips, chiclets, sunflower seeds) at each income level during four sessions until a point of approximate indifference was achieved between the amount of the immediately available good and the amount accessible after a 24 hour delay. Only one choice was consumed and was determined by throwing dice. For all children greater amounts of the delayed reward were necessary to achieve indifference as income level rose. This result was replicated for three of the children using Tic-Tacs, and Starbursts. |
