For Peer Review
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Manuscripts submitted to Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience “Willpower” Over the Life Span: Decomposing Impulse Control For Peer Review Journal: Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience Manuscript ID: Draft Manuscript Type: Original Manuscript Date Submitted by the Author: Complete List of Authors: Mischel, Walter; Columbia University, Psychology Ayduk, Ozlem; University of California - Berkeley, Psychology Berman, Marc; University of Michigan, Psychology Casey, B. J.; Weill Cornell Medical College, Cornell University, Sackler Institute for Developmental Psychobiology Gotlib, Ian; Stanford, Psychology Jonides, John; University of Michigan, Psychology Kross, Ethan; University of Michigan, Psychology Teslovich, Theresa; Weill Cornell Medical College, Cornell University, Sackler Institute for Developmental Psychobiology Wilson, Nicole; University of Washington - Seattle, Psychology Zayas, Vivian; Cornell University, Psychology Shoda, Yuichi; University of Washington - Seattle, Psychology Keywords: Impulse Control, Delay of Gratification http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/scan Page 1 of 31 Manuscripts submitted to Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 1 2 3 FOR SPECIAL ISSUE on AGING for SCAN 4 5 6 7 8 “Willpower” Over the Life Span: Decomposing Impulse Control 9 10 11 Walter Mischel 12 13 Columbia University 14 15 Ozlem Ayduk 16 17 18 ForUniversity Peer of California, Review Berkeley 19 20 Marc G. Berman 21 22 University of Michigan 23 24 25 B. J. Casey 26 27 Sackler Institute of Weill Cornell Medical College 28 29 Ian Gotlib 30 31 32 Stanford University 33 34 John Jonides and Ethan Kross 35 36 37 University of Michigan 38 39 Theresa Teslovich 40 41 Sackler Institute of Weill Cornell Medical College 42 43 44 Nicole Wilson 45 46 University of Washington 47 48 Vivian Zayas 49 50 51 Cornell University 52 53 Yuichi Shoda 54 55 University of Washington 56 57 58 59 60 1 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/scan Manuscripts submitted to Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience Page 2 of 31 1 2 3 Abstract 4 5 6 7 8 Preschool children at Stanford University’s Bing nursery school 40 years ago 9 10 11 were tested for their ability to delay gratification on the “marshmallow test”. 12 13 Longitudinal follow up studies traced the long-term correlates of the observed early life 14 15 individual differences, focusing on consequential social, cognitive, and mental health 16 17 18 outcomes in each decadeFor over Peerthe developmental Review course. As they reach mid-life, 19 20 individuals from this study consistently high or low in delay ability and impulse control 21 22 are being assessed by our inter-disciplinary team with fMRI and a variety of cognitive 23 24 25 information processing measures to try to further identify and decompose the processes 26 27 that underlie the phenomena of “willpower” and impulse control. This article reviews 28 29 key findings from the longitudinal work, and from earlier experiments on the cognitive 30 31 32 appraisal and attention control strategies that influence the ability to delay gratification. 33 34 We also report preliminary findings from the mid-life follow up in progress, and discuss 35 36 37 implications of the research for the prediction and potential enhancement of important 38 39 life outcomes in the aging process. 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 2 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/scan Page 3 of 31 Manuscripts submitted to Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 1 2 3 More than four decades ago, the Bing Longitudinal Study began at Stanford 4 5 6 University’s preschool to try to identify and demystify the processes that underlie the 7 8 phenomena of “willpower.” These phenomena include diverse aspects of control over 9 10 11 one’s cognitions, emotions, and actions, particularly the ability to delay immediate 12 13 gratification and resist impulsive responding. With that goal, experimental studies and 14 15 long-term longitudinal investigations have been examining children’s abilities to delay 16 17 18 immediate gratification.For This abilityPeer is measured Review by assessing how long the child could 19 20 resist settling for a small, immediately available reward (e.g., one mini marshmallow) in 21 22 order to get a larger reward later (e.g., two mini marshmallows), dubbed the 23 24 25 “marshmallow test” by the media (e.g., Mischel, Ebbesen & Zeiss, 1972; Mischel, 26 27 Shoda, & Rodriguez, 1989; Mischel & Ayduk, 2004). 28 29 30 31 32 Attentional Control and Cognitive Reappraisals Enabling Delay: Early Experiments 33 34 This research began in the early 1970s with a series of experiments designed to 35 36 37 elucidate the attentional and cognitive mechanisms that enable young children to delay 38 39 gratification. These experiments helped to identify the role of attentional control, for 40 41 example, by self-distraction to reduce the frustration of continuing to wait (e.g., looking 42 43 44 away from vs. toward the temptations). The studies also documented the importance of 45 46 cognitive transformations or reappraisals in which the “hot” (e.g., appetitive, 47 48 consummatory) features of the tempting stimuli are “cooled” by changing how they are 49 50 51 mentally represented (e.g., envisioning the marshmallow as clouds). Such reappraisal 52 53 processes to “cool” hot stimuli have been shown to be highly effective in enhancing delay 54 55 of gratification. The same preschool child who yielded immediately to the temptation by 56 57 58 59 60 3 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/scan Manuscripts submitted to Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience Page 4 of 31 1 2 3 focusing on the consummatory features (e.g., its yummy, sweet, chewy taste) could wait 4 5 6 for otherwise unbearable delay periods for the same tempting stimulus by focusing on its 7 8 non-consummatory qualities (e.g., its shape). These results have been fully described 9 10 11 elsewhere (see e.g., Mischel, Ebbesen, & Zeiss, 1972; Mischel, 1974; Mischel, Shoda, & 12 13 Rodriguez, 1989; Mischel & Ayduk, 2004)). Although these experimental demonstrations 14 15 have been short-term and confined to brief laboratory situations, they suggest that these 16 17 18 strategies required Forto successfully Peer self-regulate Review can be taught. 19 20 The findings from these experiments and related research also led Metcalfe and 21 22 Mischel (1999) to propose a “Hot/Cool System Analysis of Delay of Gratification” to 23 24 25 explain the dynamics of “willpower.” In that conceptualization, there are two interacting 26 27 neurocognitive systems that enable self-control and willpower in the execution of one’s 28 29 intentions. A cool system, likely involving the top-down attentional network that includes 30 31 32 the dorsal frontoparietal neural circuit (Corbetta and Shulman, 2002) which underlies 33 34 processing that is affectively-neutral, flexible, slow, and strategic. It is the seat of self- 35 36 37 regulation and self-control (Mischel & Ayduk, 2004; Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). The 38 39 other (hot) system, likely mediated by the amygdala and other limbic structures, is the 40 41 basis of emotionality, fears, and passion; it is impulsive and reflexive, and sometimes it is 42 43 44 initially controlled by innate releasing stimuli (and is thus literally under stimulus 45 46 control). The hot system is fundamental for emotional (classical) conditioning, and it 47 48 undermines efforts at self-control. The balance between the hot and cool systems is 49 50 51 determined by stress, development, and the individual's self-regulatory dynamics. Recent 52 53 work has successfully extended this model to help individuals cope adaptively with 54 55 intense negative emotions that require “cooling” in order to facilitate adaptive 56 57 58 59 60 4 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/scan Page 5 of 31 Manuscripts submitted to Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 1 2 3 psychological adjustment (e.g., Kross, Ayduk, & Mischel, 2005; Kross & Ayduk, 2008). 4 5 6 Stumbling into Longitudinal Research: The Bing Life-Span Study 7 8 To the surprise of the initiators of this research program, what began as a set of 9 10 11 experiments with preschoolers turned into a life-span developmental study. Four decades 12 13 later this research is continuing to reveal remarkable patterns of coherence in 14 15 consequential psychological, behavioral, health, and economic outcomes from early 16 17 18 childhood to mid-life—theFor current Peer age of the Reviewparticipants. Given these provocative 19 20 findings and the methodological advances now available for probing self-control and 21 22 executive functions with increasing depth, this longitudinal sample provides a unique 23 24 25 opportunity for deepening our understanding of the basic neuro-cognitive mechanisms 26 27 underlying “willpower”. The present paper reports some of our current efforts to take up 28 29 this challenge. 30 31 32 Overview of Past Findings. Participants in the Bing Longitudinal Study come 33 34 from a sample of more than 300 participants who were enrolled in Stanford University’s 35 36 37 Bing preschool between 1968 and 1974. Since the original testing, the ability of these 38 39 participants to pursue long-term goals in the face of immediate temptation has been 40 41 assessed once every decade. Participants have now reached their late 30s and early to mid 42 43 44 40s, and information about their life outcomes, such as their occupational, marital, 45 46 physical health, and mental health status are continuing to become available. The findings 47 48 have surprised us from the start, and they continue to do so. For example, preschoolers 49 50 51 who delayed longer relative to other participants in the original “marshmallow test” 52 53 earned higher SAT scores and exhibited better social-cognitive and emotional coping in 54 55 adolescence (Mischel, Shoda, & Peake, 1988; Shoda, Mischel, & Peake, 1990).