logo
New Twist on Famous Marshmallow Test: What Happens When You Add a Second Kid?

New Twist on Famous Marshmallow Test: What Happens When You Add a Second Kid?

Gizmodo12-05-2025

Our commitments to other people can have a big influence on how we act—even for children who are trying to keep themselves from snacking on a tasty treat right now. Peer support helped children pass the famous Stanford marshmallow test, which tests whether a child can resist a tempting treat long enough to receive an even bigger, better reward, according to a new study.
The study, published May 7 in Royal Society Open Science, found that children are more likely to wait for a larger reward if they have a buddy who has pledged to hold out than if they're alone. The findings show that promises can be a pretty powerful influence on people's behavior, echoing previous studies that have found that explicit vows make children less likely to cheat and more likely to tell the truth.
The original marshmallow test, conducted at Stanford in the 1970s, was fairly simple and exceptionally cute. An experimenter placed a marshmallow or other treat in front of a child before leaving them alone in a room. The experimenter told the child that if the marshmallow was still there when the experimenter returned, the child would get double the tasty treats. Follow-up studies found that children who 'passed' the marshmallow test by waiting until the experimenter returned had better outcomes later in life. But later studies challenged these findings, showing children who gobbled up the smaller reward were more likely to come from challenging homes and circumstances that may have made them less likely to trust adults. So, their relative levels of success later in life might have reflected the environment in which they were raised, not any intrinsic qualities.
In the new study, a team of researchers, including psychologist Owen Waddington from the University of Manchester, sought to determine how interactions with others impacted a child's ability to wait for a better reward. 'Successful cooperation often relies, in part, on individuals maintaining delayed gratification,' the scientists wrote in the study. 'This sense of obligation can also lead to increased effort, and therefore increased cooperative success.'
Researchers conducted the experiments online and paired each child with another child. The new experiments were conducted with children aged 5 to 6 years old and their parents. From their homes, a parent showed their child a familiar treat. The child was told that they would get an even better treat if and only if another child also waited for a larger treat under the same circumstances. The experimenters fibbed about a 'malfunctioning' Zoom link, which allowed participants to see the other child but not interact or communicate with them.
Participants were shown a video of the child they were paired with. The other child either promised that they wouldn't eat the treat or expressed uncertainty about whether they could wait.
The study showed that when one child promised to hold out, the other child waited longer before eating the treat than if their partner had expressed uncertainty. It turns out that promises can mean a lot, even for children. Compared to previous studies involving the marshmallow test, this study 'goes further to show that when a partner promises to wait for their treat, children's willingness to delay gratification is greater than when the partner expresses uncertainty,' the authors wrote.
Younger children were more likely to last the whole time than older children, though the difference was not statistically significant. The authors wrote that this might be because with age, 'children encounter more broken promises and learn that commitments are not always fulfilled.'
The findings indicate that promises promote cooperation in children, echoing earlier experiments in addiction research that buddy systems can prevent relapses. But the authors caution that they may not apply to all children, as the studies were mainly conducted on healthy children in northern England. Whether these findings apply to children across other cultures isn't clear yet.
It seems a simple promise goes a long way.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Atmospheric CO2 buildup broke another record in May
Atmospheric CO2 buildup broke another record in May

E&E News

time8 minutes ago

  • E&E News

Atmospheric CO2 buildup broke another record in May

Climate-warming carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere broke another record last month, breaching 430 parts per million for the first time in recorded history. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, whose researchers track atmospheric CO2, publicly announced the findings Thursday morning. NOAA announced the findings in social media posts on X and Facebook, linking to the public data on its website. The agency also typically reveals the annual CO2 in a news release, like last year's announcement, but hadn't done so as of 12:30 p.m. ET on Thursday. Advertisement Kim Doster, NOAA's director of communications, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

‘Proof' Review: Finding Truth in Numbers
‘Proof' Review: Finding Truth in Numbers

Wall Street Journal

time12 minutes ago

  • Wall Street Journal

‘Proof' Review: Finding Truth in Numbers

Thomas Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence read: 'We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable . . . ' It was supposedly Benjamin Franklin who suggested instead announcing the truths to be 'self-evident,' as though they were fundamental mathematical axioms providing an incontestable foundation for the new republic. The idea of self-evident truths goes all the way back to Euclid's 'Elements' (ca. 300 B.C.), which depends on a handful of axioms—things that must be granted true at the outset, such as that one can draw a straight line between any two points on a plane. From such assumptions Euclid went on to show, for example, that there are infinitely many prime numbers, and that the angles at the base of an isosceles triangle are equal. If the axioms are true, and the subsequent reasoning is sound, then the conclusion is irrefutable. What we now have is a proof: something we can know for sure. Adam Kucharski, a professor of epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, takes the reader on a fascinating tour of the history of what has counted as proof. Today, for example, we have computerized proofs by exhaustion, in which machines chew through examples so numerous that they could never be checked by humans. The author sketches the development of ever-more-rarefied mathematics, from calculus to the mind-bending work on different kinds of infinity by the Russian-German sage Georg Cantor, who proved that natural integers (1,2,3 . . . ) are somehow not more numerous than even numbers (2,4,6 . . .), even though the former set includes all the elements of the latter set, in addition to the one that contains all odd numbers. My favorite example is the Banach-Tarski paradox, which proves that you can disassemble a single sphere and reconstitute it into two spheres of identical size. Climbing the ladder of proof, we can enter a wild realm where intuitions break down completely. But proof, strictly understood, is only half the story here. Abraham Lincoln, Mr. Kucharski relates, taught himself to derive Euclid's proofs to give himself an argumentative edge in the courtroom and in Congress. Yet politics is messier than geometry; and so the dream of perfectly logical policymaking, immune to quibble, remains out of reach. What should we do, then, when a mathematical proof of truth is unavailable, but we must nonetheless act?

Fusion Energy Is The Key To World Hegemony
Fusion Energy Is The Key To World Hegemony

Forbes

time14 minutes ago

  • Forbes

Fusion Energy Is The Key To World Hegemony

What would it take for the United States to lose its hegemony to a rising power like China? Right now, America appears to be ahead economically and militarily. However, there is a stark difference between America's national strategy (insofar as one exists) and China's. The US under President Trump calls for regression. It seeks to restore a manufacturing economy that peaked in the 1950s—like an elderly man trying to restore hair where it hasn't grown for decades. It is doubling down on domestic oil, gas and coal. Through tariffs, disparagement of NATO and aggression towards allies like Canada and Denmark, the administration has alienated partners that long supported a US-led world order. Fusion will be a key element to become an energy superpower. (Wal van Lierop) China, meanwhile, has a tremendous lead in developing the economy of the future. It has a near monopoly on rare earth minerals, which are needed for electronics, renewable energy systems, defense technologies and more. China leads in solar, wind and batteries, the energy systems growing at the fastest rate. It is ahead in electric vehicles, industrial robotics and drones as well. It probably has achieved parity in artificial intelligence and may surpass the US soon. If China were to take Taiwan, it would control the global market for advanced chip manufacturing. In the background, but probably most importantly, China may be on track to commercialize fusion energy before the US or its disgruntled allies. Unlike the US, China has no domestic energy industry with vocal lobbyists (and purchasable politicians) to slow progress. It is funding fusion as a national strategy while private fusion companies in the West are at the mercy of investors that, for the most part, chase low risk and quick returns. Fusion promises cheap, plentiful, baseload energy without carbon emissions. AI, data centers and industrial robotics powered by fusion would produce goods and services at much lower costs than value chains dependent on fossil-fired electricity. Militaries built on swarms of small, cheap, electronic drones and robots—powered by small, distributed fusion facilities deep underground, safe from attack—would have an edge over competitors using large, expensive, petroleum-powered vehicles with vulnerable supply chains. I cannot overstate the ramifications of China developing fusion first. As an analogy, imagine if Japan and Germany had uncovered vast reserves of oil at home in the 1920s. American and Soviet oil gave the Allies a strategic advantage over the Axis powers. Had the situation been reversed, World War II could have ended differently. While private fusion companies in the West have raised about $8 billion total, China is investing at least $1.5 annually into fusion projects—double what the US government spends. Japanese and German investments in fusion don't even come close. Canada, for the record, has no fusion funding strategy. Moreover, the government of British Columbia, home of industry leader General Fusion, seems not to understand the value of this crown asset.* On all fronts nuclear, China is leaping ahead. In April, its scientists added fresh fuel to an operational thorium molten salt reactor—a first. The thorium reserves found in Inner Mongolia, an autonomous region of China, could theoretically meet Chinese energy demand for thousands of years. The kicker: this reactor design originated in the US. As project lead Xu Hongjie put it, 'The US left its research publicly available, waiting for the right successor. We were that successor." Moreover, in January, China's Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) sustained a fusion reaction for 1,066 seconds, setting a new record. Its Burning Plasma Experimental Superconducting Tokamak (BEST) fusion reactor could come online by 2027 and is expected to produce five times the amount of energy it consumes. When BEST announces this milestone, Western fusion companies may be announcing that they've run out of funding. To China, fusion is not a startup project—it's a matter of national interest and security. Its scientists are patenting more fusion-related technologies than any other single country and graduating more doctorates in fusion-related fields. And because China is the top refiner and exporter of the critical minerals needed in fusion reactors (e.g., for magnets), no external force is going to slow their progress. In the meantime, China has a cheap gas station next door—Russia—supplying all the fossil fuels China could need in exchange for support in its war with Ukraine. That support includes critical minerals needed by Russian arms manufacturers. Is fusion energy, along with other Chinese-dominated technologies, enough to end US hegemony? In 1988, historian Paul Kennedy published The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, a book that tried to explain the relative success (and failure) of powerful states. According to Kennedy, their rise and fall '…shows a very significant correlation over the longer term between productive and revenue-raising capacities on the one hand and military strength on the other.' Essentially, states must balance economic prosperity with strategy. Technological breakthroughs are vital to both. Innovation creates wealth, which enables the state to invest in defense and win wars. While underinvestment in defense leaves the state vulnerable to other powers, overextension and overspending on defense can run an economy into the ground, leaving it unable to sustain a strong military. Now, picture a great power—China—with a military to rival the US and fusion reactors that provide virtually unlimited energy. Imagine the clout China would have in establishing ports, military bases and consumer markets around the world if it could license that fusion technology. A China that exceeds the US in energy, industry, intelligence, mobility and defense is positioned to usurp it. Of course, China could bungle its advantage. Authoritarian regimes have a habit of mismanaging internal dissent, falsifying reality and making preventable mistakes. The rise of China is inevitable, but the self-inflicted decline of the US and its allies isn't. Rather, it's a choice reflecting how societies invest their resources and envision their future. *Disclosure: The author is an investor in General Fusion and sits on its board of directors.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store