KEY STUDY- Casey et al (2011)
- Created by: emilyleverton
- Created on: 07-02-17 11:32
View mindmap
- Casey et al. (2011)
- Aim
- Wether it was dispositional behaviour
- To see if the ability to delay gratification or not was a consistent personality trait
- To discover if behavior was situational or not
- Participants
- 565 participants aged 4 - Marshmallow test
- 1993- 155 participants now in their twenties- Questionnaire on self control
- 2003- 135 participants now in thirties- follow up questionnaire on self control
- 117 participants chosen to take part (high and low delayers)
- 59 agreed to take part
- 117 participants chosen to take part (high and low delayers)
- 2003- 135 participants now in thirties- follow up questionnaire on self control
- 1993- 155 participants now in their twenties- Questionnaire on self control
- 565 participants aged 4 - Marshmallow test
- Method
- longitudinal study- over 40 years
- Quasi experiments- IV was whether participant was high or low delayer (naturally occurring)
- Experiment one
- 59 participants
- cool version: male and female stimuli
- hot version: happy and fearful faces
- each face appeared for 500ms follow by a 1s interstimulus interval
- a total of 160 trials presented in a pseudorandomised order (120 go, 40 no go)
- tasks presented using programmed laptops sent to participants homes
- Experiment two
- fMRI used to examine neural correlates of the delay of gratification
- 27 of 59 participants from Exp 1 agreed to take part
- each face appeared for 500ms followed by an interval ranging from 2 to 14.5s
- 48 trials presented in a pseudorandomised order (35 go, 13 no go)
- task viewable by a projection and a Neuroscreen five-button resposne pad recorded button responses and reaction time
- Experiment one
- Quasi experiments- IV was whether participant was high or low delayer (naturally occurring)
- longitudinal study- over 40 years
- Results
- Experiment one
- no significant difference between reaction times of high and low delayers
- no significant differences on go trials (99.8% on cool, 99.5% on hot)
- both groups made mistakes on no go trials (9.96% on cool, 12.2% on hot)
- low delayers made more mistakes on hot tasks- largely errors on happy face trials
- both groups made mistakes on no go trials (9.96% on cool, 12.2% on hot)
- no significant differences on go trials (99.8% on cool, 99.5% on hot)
- no significant difference between reaction times of high and low delayers
- Experiment two
- no significant difference in terms of reaction times
- both groups highly accurate on go trials
- low delayers held more false alarms on no go trials- 14.5%
- low delayers had less activity in the right inferior frontal cortex on the no go trials
- low delayers had more activity in the ventral striatum- more with happy faces on no go trials
- low delayers had less activity in the right inferior frontal cortex on the no go trials
- low delayers held more false alarms on no go trials- 14.5%
- both groups highly accurate on go trials
- no significant difference in terms of reaction times
- Experiment one
- Conclusions
- low delayers at age 4- difficulty resisting happy faces
- suggests that low self control is consistent within an individual
- resisting temptations varies by context- dependent on what the 'hot' stimulus is
- ability to delay gratification depends on cognitive control and the compelling stimulus
- resisting temptations varies by context- dependent on what the 'hot' stimulus is
- suggests that low self control is consistent within an individual
- low delayers at age 4- difficulty resisting happy faces
- Aim
Comments
No comments have yet been made