Effects of attention to symbolically presented rewards on self-control.

Abstract

Previous research has shown that delay of gratification is decreased when children attend to the actual rewards in the contingency during the delay period. The present study investigated the effects of attention to symbolic presentations of the contingent rewards (in the form of slide-presented images) on children's ability to wait for the delayed reward. In sharp contrast to the effect of attention to the actual rewards, attention to the symbolic contingent rewards greatly increased the duration of the children's delay of gratification. This unexpected result was obtained both in conditions of waiting and working and both for continuous and intermittent presentation of the slides. The overall findings revealed the opposite effects of attention to real versus symbolic contingent rewards in the delay of gratification paradigm. Theoretical implications of different cognitive functions served by attention to real and symbolic reward stimuli were discussed.

Neuroeconomic Foundations of Economic Choice—Recent Advances

“…A series of classic experiments low weight, and a case in which it is not considered at all. A series of classic experiments by psychologist Walter Mischel suggest that physical proximity is also a key determinant by psychologist Walter Mischel suggest that physical proximity is also a key determinant (for example, see Metcalfe and Mischel, 1999;Mischel and Moore, 1973). In particular, (for example, see Metcalfe and Mischel, 1999;Mischel and Moore, 1973).…”

“…A series of classic experiments by psychologist Walter Mischel suggest that physical proximity is also a key determinant by psychologist Walter Mischel suggest that physical proximity is also a key determinant (for example, see Metcalfe and Mischel, 1999;Mischel and Moore, 1973). In particular, (for example, see Metcalfe and Mischel, 1999;Mischel and Moore, 1973). In particular, Mischel investigated children's ability to postpone consumption of candy in order to Mischel investigated children's ability to postpone consumption of candy in order to get more candy and found that their ability to wait was substantially increased if the get more candy and found that their ability to wait was substantially increased if the items were not present or if they were present but covered.…”

Why dieters fail: Testing the goal conflict model of eating

“…In line with the work on delay of gratification of Mischel and his colleagues (e.g., Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999;Mischel & Ayduk, 2004;Mischel, Shoda & Rodriguez, 1989), we assumed that restrained eaters are more likely than unrestrained eaters to access "hot" representations of palatable food stimuli, reflecting the arousing, 9 consummatory features of the food (i.e., its taste and texture), whereas unrestrained eaters use "cool", informational representations of food items. As Mischel's work on delay of gratification has amply demonstrated, a focus on the "hot" features of food stimuli, makes delay of gratification much more difficult (e.g., Mischel & Moore, 1973).…”

Bonuses and Bribes: Mood Effects in Memory

“…That is, while a positive feeling state has generally been found to in crease the probability of drawing upon positive material in memory and behaviors such as helping and generosity (Aderman, 1972;Batson, Coke, Chard, Smith, & Taliaferro, 1979;Cunningham, Steinberg, & Grev, 1980;Isen, 1970;!sen, Clark, & Schwartz, 1976;!sen & Levin, 1972;Levin & !sen, 1975;Mischel, Ebbesen, & Zeiss, 1973;Moore, Underwood, & Rosenhan, 1973;Underwood, Froming, &Moore, 1977;Weyant, 1978), the effects of negative feeling states are far more complex. Some studies suggest that in ducing negative mood states increases the likelihood of antisocial behaviors (Baron, 1972;Baron & Bell, 1975), whereas others suggest that negative affect either has no effect or increases the likelihood of positive behaviors (Carlsmith & Gross, 1969;Cialdini, Darby, & Vincent, 1973;Cialdini & Kenrick, 1976;!sen, 1970;McMillen, 1971;Mischel, Coates, & Raskoff, 1968;Mischel & Moore, 1973;D. T. Reagan, Williams, & Sparling, 1972;J.…”