Мармелад в руке или журавль в небе? От колыбели до могилы
Click to viewСорок лет назад в одном из корпусов Стэнфорда рассадили по разным комнатам группу четырехлетних детей. Положили перед каждым по куску мармелада. Дядя-экспериментатор объяснил, что ему надо выйти буквально минут на пятнадцать, и если малыш не съест за это время мармелад, то получит еще один кусочек. Пятнадцать минут для четырехлетнего ребенка - это вечность. А сладости - вполне серьезный соблазн. Тем не менее нашлись малыши, которые продержались до прихода экспериментатора, получили заслуженный мармелад и...
И за последующие сорок лет - а за тем, что происходило с этими детьми дальше, наблюдали все это время - стало абсолютно ясно: умение или неумение поступиться сиюминутной выгодой в четыре года определило ни много ни мало всю их дальнейшую судьбу.
Интересно, что эксперимент еще не закончен. Наблюдения продолжаются. ВСЕ, кто НЕ съел мармелад, добились впечатляющих успехов. НИКТО из тех, кто уступил соблазну, успешен не был... Детальней про это ниже на английском.
Они странные, порой непочтительные, но именно от них зависит успех компании. Вы не вычислите этих людей на собеседовании или аттестации. Признаки зарыты глубже... * 8 качеств выдающихся сотрудников
Согласно Ричарду Вайзману, удача - в том числе и неудача - это нечто, что мы называем результатами осознанного обращения человеческих существ со случайностями. Просто некоторые люди ладят с ними лучше, чем другие. Удача - это не милость богов, а вполне измеряемая отдача от совокупности предсказуемых действий. В течение 10 долгих лет Вайзман следил за ходом жизни 400 испытуемых разных возрастов и профессий...
* Чем определяется везение, аkа удача
Если вам нужен совет, спрашивайте, чего не делать, что ускользает из виду, и не ожидайте найти такую информацию в цитатах и пышных биографиях людей. Но у людей, потерпевших неудачу, редко просят совет, как такой неудачи избежать, что, разумеется, очень печально. Ведь по сути, успех сводится к тому, чтобы регулярно избегать катастрофических провалов и рутинно справляться с мелкими текущими неурядицами...
* Хочешь успеха? Изучай неудачи. И делай иначе
The Stanford marshmallow experiment[1] was a series of studies on delayed gratification in the late 1960s and early 1970s led by psychologist Walter Mischel, then a professor at Stanford University. In these studies, a child was offered a choice between one small reward (sometimes a marshmallow, but often a cookie or a pretzel, etc.) provided immediately or two small rewards if he or she waited until the tester returned (after an absence of approximately 15 minutes).
In follow-up studies, the researchers found that children who were able to wait longer for the preferred rewards tended to have better life outcomes, as measured by SAT scores,[2] educational attainment,[3] body mass index (BMI)[4] and other life measures.[5] However, recent work calls into question whether self-control, as opposed to strategic reasoning, determines children's behavior.
The purpose of the original study was to understand when the control of deferred gratification, the ability to wait to obtain something that one wants, develops in children. The original experiment took place at the Bing Nursery School located at Stanford University, using children age four to six as subjects.
[Spoiler (click to open)]The children were led into a room, empty of distractions, where a treat of their choice (Oreo cookie, marshmallow, or pretzel stick) was placed on a table, by a chair.[1] The children could eat the marshmallow, the researchers said, but if they waited for fifteen minutes without giving in to the temptation, they would be rewarded with a second marshmallow.[1] Mischel observed as some would "cover their eyes with their hands or turn around so that they can't see the tray, others start kicking the desk, or tug on their pigtails, or stroke the marshmallow as if it were a tiny stuffed animal", while others would simply eat the marshmallow as soon as the researchers left.[1]
In over 600 children who took part in the experiment, a minority ate the marshmallow immediately. Of those who attempted to delay, one third deferred gratification long enough to get the second marshmallow.[1] Age was a major determinant of deferred gratification. The first “Marshmallow Test” was a study conducted by Walter Mischel and Ebbe B. Ebbesen at Stanford University in 1970.
Test subjects were 16 boys and 16 girls attending the Bing Nursery School of Stanford University. Three other subjects were run, but eliminated because of their failure to comprehend the instructions. The children ranged in age from 3 years, 6 months to 5 years, 8 months (with a median age of 4 years, 6 months). The procedures were conducted by two male experimenters. Eight subjects (4 males and 4 females) were assigned randomly to each of the four experimental conditions. In each condition each experimenter ran 2 males and 2 females in order to avoid systematic biasing effects from sex or experimenters.[8]
The conditions. 1) Both the immediate (less preferred) and the delayed (more preferred) reward facing were left facing the subject and available for attention[8]
2) Neither reward was available for the subject’s attention, both rewards having been removed from his/her sight[8]
3) The delayed reward only was left facing the subject and available for attention while he or she waited[8]
4) The immediate reward only was left facing the subject and available for attention while he or she waited[8]
Procedure. On the table in the experimental room there were 5 pretzels and an opaque cake tin. Under cake tin were 5 pretzels and two animal cookies. There were 2 chairs in front of table, on one chair was an empty cardboard box. On the floor near the chair with the cardboard box on it, were 4 battery operated toys. The experimenter pointed out the 4 toys; before the child could play with the toys, the experimenter asked the child to sit in the chair and then demonstrated each toy briefly and in a friendly manner, saying that they would play with the toys later on.
Then the experimenter placed each toy in the cardboard box & out of sight of the child. The experimenter explained to the child that the experimenter sometimes has to go out of the room but if the child eats a pretzel the experimenter will come back into the room. These instructions were repeated until the child seemed to understand them completely. The experimenter left the room and waited for the child to eat a pretzel - they did this 4 times.
Next the experimenter opened the cake tin to reveal 2 sets of reward objects to the child: 5 pretzels and 2 animal crackers. The experimenter asked which of the two the child liked better (preferred reward), and after the child chose, the experimenter explained that the child could either continue waiting for the more preferred reward until the experimenter returned, or the child could stop waiting by bringing the experimenter back. If the child stopped waiting, then the child would receive the less favored reward and forgo the more preferred one.
Depending on the condition and the child’s choice of preferred reward, the experimenter picked up the cake tin and along with it either nothing, one of the rewards, or both. The experimenter returned either as soon as the child signaled him to do so or after 15 minutes.[8]
In follow-up studies, Mischel found unexpected correlations between the results of the marshmallow test and the success of the children many years later.[5] The first follow-up study, in 1988, showed that "preschool children who delayed gratification longer in the self-imposed delay paradigm, were described more than 10 years later by their parents as adolescents who were significantly more competent".
A second follow-up study, in 1990, showed that the ability to delay gratification also correlated with higher SAT scores.[5]
A 2006 paper to which Mischel contributed reports a similar experiment, this time relating ability to delay in order to receive a cookie (at age 4) and reaction time on a Go/no go task.[9]
A 2011 brain imaging study of a sample from the original Stanford participants when they reached mid-life showed key differences between those with high delay times and those with low delay times in two areas: the prefrontal cortex (more active in high delayers) and the ventral striatum (an area linked to addictions) when they were trying to control their responses to alluring temptations.[10][11]
A 2012 study at the University of Rochester altered the experiment by dividing children into two groups: one group was given a broken promise before the marshmallow test was conducted (the unreliable tester group), and the second group had a fulfilled promise before their marshmallow test (the reliable tester group). The reliable tester group waited up to four times longer (12 min) than the unreliable tester group for the second marshmallow to appear.[6][12] The authors argue that this calls into question the original interpretation of self-control as the critical factor in children's performance, since self control should predict an inability to wait, not strategic waiting when it makes sense. The authors suggest that the correlations between marshmallow performance and later life success may therefore be confounded, with successful children being raised in reliable situations.
Prior to the Marshmallow Studies at Stanford, Walter Mischel had shown that the child's belief that the promised delayed rewards would actually be delivered is an important determinant of the choice to delay, but his later experiments did not take this factor into account or control for individual variation in beliefs about reliability when reporting correlations with life successes. (с) источник
* Привычки богатых и бедных людей: разница и следствия * Хвалить мальчика и девочку: есть разница
* Почему в селах и бедных странах по многу детей * Подборка советских учебников одним файлом
* Переписка 3-летней девочки с торговым центром * Как я "заставила" ребенка любить читать