Measurement of delay of gratification

To determine if psychoanalytic and social learning theorists are referring to the same phenomenon when they speak of "delay of gratification", 26 college undergraduates were divided into high and low groups on the basis of their scores on a "money-spending" questionnaire (a social learning measure). The difference between these two groups with respect to Rorschach M responses (the psychoanalytic measure) was nonsignificant. It was suggested that psychoanalytic and social learning theorists are probably referring to different phenomena when they speak of "delay of gratification."     

Affect and delay of gratification

Three experiments investigated the influence of positive and negative affect manipulations on children's preferences for small immediate versus large delayed rewards. Positive and negative affect were induced via verbal instructions to imagine happy and sad experiences. Elementary school children were randomly assigned to a control condition or to one of several treatment conditions consisting of two affect manipulations: a positive followed by a negative, the reverse, and (in the third experiment) two positives or two negatives. In some conditions (in the second and third experiments) measurement of delayed reward preference followed the first and second affect inductions whereas in other conditions (in the second and third experiments) measurement followed only the second affect manipulation. As predicted, negative affect subjects chose fewer large delayed rewards than did positive affect subjects during the first assessment (p < .02). At the second assessment, comparison among treatment and control conditions revealed the influence of a prior commitment effect which negated the potential influence of a second affect manipulation on preference for delayed rewards.     

Attraction and delay of gratification

The present study examined the degree to which differential attraction to the prizes could explain children's decisions in a delay of gratification situation. After rating the attractiveness of prizes, each child responded to four delay choice situations. While significant effects were obtained on only one choice pair, the results generalized to the other choices: nondelayers consistently perceived less discrepancy in attraction between the immediate and delayed rewards than did delayers. In general, the smaller discrepancy among nondelayers was due to a greater attraction to the immediate prize. As predicted, these results held only for “inconsistent” children and not for children who consistently delayed or did not delay across all four choices. The implications of this finding for trait-situation explanations of delay are discussed. While it was predicted that differential attraction would explain previously reported SES differences in delay tendencies, middle and lower SES children responded similarly, both in level of attraction to the prizes and actual delay behavior.     

Choice and delay of reinforcement

Pigeons were trained to peck either of two response keys for food reinforcement on equated aperiodic schedules. The distribution of responding at the two keys was studied as reinforcement was delayed for various durations. The relative frequency of responding at each key was shown to match the relative immediacy of reinforcement, immediacy defined as the reciprocal of the delay of reinforcement.     

Contingencies promote delay tolerance

The effectiveness of functional communication training as treatment for problem behavior depends on the extent to which treatment can be extended to typical environments that include unavoidable and unpredictable reinforcement delays. Time‐based progressive delay (TBPD) often results in the loss of acquired communication responses and the resurgence of problem behavior, whereas contingency‐based progressive delay (CBPD) appears to be effective for increasing tolerance for delayed reinforcement. No direct comparison of TBPD and CBPD has, however, been conducted. We used single‐subject designs to compare the relative efficacy of TBPD and CBPD. Four individuals who engaged in problem behavior (e.g., aggression, vocal and motor disruptions, self‐injury) participated. Results were consistent across all participants, and showed lower rates of problem behavior and collateral responses during CBPD than during TBPD. The generality of CBPD treatment effects, including optimal rates of communication and compliance with demands, was demonstrated across a small but heterogeneous group of participants, reinforcement contingencies, and contexts.     

Choice and reinforcement delay

Previous studies of choice between two delayed reinforcers have indicated that the relative immediacy of the reinforcer is a major determinant of the relative frequency of responding. Parallel studies of choice between two interresponse times have found exceptions to this generality. The present study looked at the choice by pigeons between two delays, one of which was always four times longer than the other, but whose absolute durations were varied across conditions. The results indicated that choice is not uniquely determined by the relative immediacy of reinforcement, but that absolute delays are also involved. Models for concurrent chained schedules appear to be more applicable to the present data than the matching relation; however, these too failed to predict choice for long delays.     

Processes operative during delay of gratification

Sixty-four middle-class preschool children chose between waiting for a preferred item and receiving a less desired item immediately. The items were of different classes, i.e., one food and one toy, and subjects waited with one, both, or neither of the rewards available for viewing. The likelihood that a subject would continue waiting for the delayed reward was found to increase as a function of previous waiting time rather than decrease or remain constant as required by two current theories of delay of gratification processes, an aversive affect model implied by Mischel and Ebbesen (1970) and Atkinson and Birch's (1970) dynamics of action. Although display of rewards impaired successful delay, replicating previous results, dynamics of action predictions of differential effects for display of immediately available and delayed outcomes of different classes were not confirmed. Systematic observation of spontaneous subject activities during the delay period offered additional support for the notion that distraction facilitates successful waiting behavior. A decision-attention model is proposed to account for the present results as well as those of previous studies of delay of gratification.We would like to thank the director, Mr. Jack Lewis, and the staff of the Red Bell Nursery of Plymouth, Michigan, for helping us obtain subjects for this study and providing access to their facilities. We are also grateful to Ms. Shirley St. Peter and Ms. Carolyn Jagacinski for their work as experimenters.     

Priming pride promotes delay of gratification

Motivation and Emotion - Distinct positive emotions signal adherence to specific goals: pride signals the successful pursuit of long-term goals, while joy signals the successful pursuit of...     

Relative delay of reinforcement and choice

Pigeons' responses on either of two concurrently available keys each associated with variable-interval 60-sec schedules occasionally changed the schedule on that key to a terminal-link interval schedule providing access to gain while the other key became inoperative. Experiment I compared simple fixed- and mixed-interval schedules in the terminal links, and showed that for all subjects and schedules the distribution of responses during the concurrent initial links was accurately described by the relative inverse delay of reinforcement squared. Experiment II extended the generality of this formulation to a situation in which rate of reinforcement was constant and delay alone was varied.     

Spiral aftereffects after long-term delay

Tested the effects of three kinds of postadapation stimuli on short- and long-term spiral aftereffects. Magnitude and duration of short-term aftereffects were significantly reduced by 5 min. of no visual stimulation preceding inspection of the postadaptation field. Results do not support previous findings of long-term aftereffects.     

Subjective probability and delay.

Human subjects indicated their preference between a hypothetical $1,000 reward available with various probabilities or delays and a certain reward of variable amount available immediately. The function relating the amount of the certain-immediate reward subjectively equivalent to the delayed $1,000 reward had the same general shape (hyperbolic) as the function found by Mazur (1987) to describe pigeons' delay discounting. The function relating the certain-immediate amount of money subjectively equivalent to the probabilistic $1,000 reward was also hyperbolic, provided that the stated probability was transformed to odds against winning. In a second experiment, when human subjects chose between a delayed $1,000 reward and a probabilistic $1,000 reward, delay was proportional to the same odds-against transformation of the probability to which it was subjectively equivalent.     

Probability and delay in commitment

In the first stage of a two-stage choice, human subjects chose between probabilistic access to a second choice (between a small high-probability reward and a large low-probability reward) and commitment to the large low-probability reward. When confronted with the second-stage choice, subjects strongly preferred the small high-probability reward. When the first-stage probability (of access to the second stage) was high, subjects strongly preferred the path leading to the choice in the second stage. But when the first-stage probability was low, subjects committed themselves to the large low-probability reward. These results parallel those obtained by Rachlin and Green (1972) with pigeons and constitute some evidence that probabilities may be interpreted as delays.     

Social discounting and delay discounting

Social discounting was measured as the amount of money a participant was willing to forgo to give a fixed amount (usually $75) to another person. In the first experiment, amount forgone was a hyperbolic function of the social distance between the giver and receiver. In the second experiment, degree of social discounting was an increasing function of reward magnitude whereas degree of delay discounting was a decreasing function of reward magnitude. In the third experiment, the shape of the function relating delayed rewards to equally valued immediate rewards for another person was predicted from individual delay and social discount functions. All in all, the studies show that the social discount function, like delay and probability discount functions, is hyperbolic in form. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Unsignalled delay of reinforcement in variable-interval schedules

Three pigeons responded on several tandem variable-interval fixed-time schedules in which the value of the fixed-time component was varied to assess the effects of different unsignalled delays of reinforcement. Actual (obtained) delays between the last key peck in an interval and reinforcement were consistently shorter than the nominal (programmed) delay. When nominal delays were relatively short, response rates were higher during the delay condition than during the corresponding nondelay condition. At longer nominal delay intervals, response rates decreased monotonically with increasing delays. The results were consistent with those obtained from delay-of-reinforcement procedures that impose either a stimulus change (signal) or a no-response requirement during the delay interval.