Daum: Save the nation — buy now

Remember the famous Stanford marshmallow study of 1972? It asked children at a campus nursery school to choose between eating a marshmallow (or a cookie or a pretzel, depending on their preference) right away or waiting while the researcher stepped out of the room for a period of time, at which point they would get two marshmallows. The purpose of the study, which involved more than 600 children, was to determine at what age we begin to develop an understanding of delayed gratification.

In follow-ups through the 1980s, data showed that the "high delayers" (the ones who held out for two marshmallows) had more social and academic success and even got higher SAT scores than their "low delaying" peers.

Recently, as if to remind us that attending a university-affiliated preschool can have lifelong ramifications, a subgroup of the participants, now in their 40s, have been evaluated once again, some with MRI brain scans.

It turns out that those who, as children, gobbled up their marshmallows at the first opportunity and then continued to have similar impulses throughout their lives showed more activity in the parts of the brain associated with pleasure. The ones who held out for two marshmallows had more activity in the prefrontal cortex, associated with impulse control. The findings were published last month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The original study, which has been duplicated time and again, has long been a source of public fascination. Type "Stanford marshmallow" into a Google video search and you'll find clip after clip of cute kid footage, most of it replicating almost exactly the behaviors of the subjects in the original study. (There's lots of hiding of eyes, kicking of desks and even fondling of the marshmallow as though it were a stuffed toy.)

But adorableness aside, much of the appeal of the research lies in the way it lends scientific credence to one of the great American edicts about success: There's a direct correlation between delayed gratification and positive outcome.

"Sacrifice now, benefit later" goes the mantra of upward mobility. We like to believe this ethic is what separates the college-bound student from the dropout. We like to believe it's the reason marrying young carries a greater divorce risk than marrying later. Most of all, we like to hold it up as an essential difference between the rich and the poor. Read just about any finance guru — Richard Kiyosaki, who wrote "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" to name one — and lack of impulse control among the poor emerges as a major theme.

But how good is impulse control when every segment of society — rich, poor and middle class alike — starts to delay gratification by simply not buying things? You get a stalled-out economy with seemingly no end in sight, one in which "lack of consumer demand" has been cited as a bigger problem than economic uncertainty.

Granted, it's not as simple as that, and granted, uncertainty begets diminished demand and vice versa. Still, there's something ironic about the fact that the behavior most associated with prosperity — delayed gratification — is now perpetuating our lack of it.

Does that mean that an army of "low delaying" marshmallow eaters could save the nation by hitting the malls and buying on credit? Probably not, since that's more or less what happened during the most recent real estate boom and things didn't work out too well. But it's increasingly clear that even as we shun instant-gratification seekers, even as we link them to lower achievement and buy into platitudes about rich thinking versus poor thinking, we need them. Especially the ones who are already rich.

We need them to splurge when others are saving, to take risky business ventures when the rest of us are laying low. For every Warren Buffett, who's probably hoarding marshmallows in his Omaha garage, we need a Donald Trump, who may well be constantly pumping marshmallow fluff into his veins.

And let's face it, high delayers, with their long-term successful outcomes, just don't have the stomachs for that. What the world needs now are the kids who stuffed their faces. Otherwise, it's a rocky road indeed.

mdaum@latimescolumnists.com

Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • The real reason for Washington's derivatives gift to banks
    The real reason for Washington's derivatives gift to banks

    As we embark on the seventh year since the historic collapse of the Lehman Bros. investment bank, it's clear we haven't fixed what broke the economy in 2008. Big banks still control Congress. Workers remain acutely vulnerable to another financial crisis. But we can't blame only Wall Street...

  • Continue -- but gradually reduce -- federal risk in terrorism insurance
    Continue -- but gradually reduce -- federal risk in terrorism insurance

    The terrorists who turned the World Trade Center into rubble struck a devastating blow to the U.S. economy too, and few sectors felt it as acutely as the insurance industry. Afterward, insurers balked at providing any coverage for damage caused by further acts of terrorism, making it harder...

  • A tax system tilted toward the rich
    A tax system tilted toward the rich

    Congress managed to pass a tax bill in December — a great relief to tax professionals like myself. But what our legislators didn't do was address the fundamentally unfair way the United States taxes people who work for a living compared with people who live off of the earnings of their...

  • In spending-bill battle, Obama and banks prevail over Pelosi, Warren
    In spending-bill battle, Obama and banks prevail over Pelosi, Warren

    So much for the new populism.

  • Obama's myRA accounts come up short for savers
    Obama's myRA accounts come up short for savers

    President Obama's legacy will probably not include retirement savings accounts, but he did point the way to a promising option this year: a government-sponsored account, aimed at the millions of workers without access to an employer plan. As with so much else in his presidency, it's an...

  • That ugly spending bill? That's what compromise looks like
    That ugly spending bill? That's what compromise looks like

    The trillion-dollar spending bill that the House of Representatives passed last week had something for everyone to hate. But it was still a step, however awkward, toward making the United States governable again.

  • Empty threats vs. real immigration reform
    Empty threats vs. real immigration reform

    House Republicans once again find themselves choosing whether to govern or to make a point. Last year they embarked on a destined-to-fail effort to "defund Obamacare," leading to a 16-day government shutdown. Now, some Republicans want to "defund amnesty," a reference to President Obama's...

  • The new Rand Paul vs. the old Rand Paul
    The new Rand Paul vs. the old Rand Paul

    Rand Paul, the heretofore libertarian senator from Kentucky, gave a foreign policy speech to Republican grandees in New York last week with a clear message: I'm not an isolationist like my dad.

Comments
Loading