Psychology Question

Write 1 sentence in which you summarize the research question.   Write 1-3 sentences in which you summarize the authors’ claim.Write 4-6 sentences in which you describe the method the authors used, focusing on what it was like to be a participant in this study and explaining the experimental manipulation(s) (independent variable) and measurement(s) (dependent variables) used in the study.Write 1-3 sentences in which you summarize the data that the authors use to support their claim. Make sure to clearly explain how these data support the authors’ claim.Identify the most important plot or table (give the page number and name, e.g., “Figure 2, p. 205”), andwrite 4-6 sentences describing the findings as they are presented. For a plot, this will likely involve describing the x- and y-axes, if there are different groups of participants, what do the bars or the points represent, etc. For a table, this will likely involve describing what’s in the rows, what’s in the columns. Make sure to clearly explain how this plot or table communicates the key finding.Write 4-6 sentences in which you consider alternative explanations for the data reported. Make sure to clearly explain how this explanation contrasts with the authors’ claim. Received: 4 January 2018
| Revised: 10 July 2019 | Accepted: 26 August 2019
DOI: 10.1111/desc.12905
PAPER
Preschoolers find ways to resist temptation after learning that
willpower can be energizing
Kyla Haimovitz1 | Carol S. Dweck2 | Gregory M. Walton2
1
Department of Psychology, University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Abstract
2
Department of Psychology, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA, USA
Children’s tendency to delay gratification predicts important life outcomes, yet little
Correspondence
Kyla Haimovitz, Department of Psychology,
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
PA, USA.
Email: kylah@sas.upenn.edu
specific strategies. The present research investigated the effect of exposing children
Funding information
National Science Foundation; John
Templeton Foundation, Grant/Award
Number: 59558
task. Children exposed to a storybook character who struggled with waiting, but
is known about how to enhance delay of gratification other than by teaching task‐
to a model who experiences the exertion of willpower as energizing. In two experi‐
ments, 86 4‐ to 5‐year olds were read a story that represented the exertion of will‐
power as energizing or a control story before taking part in a delay of gratification
eventually found it energizing, spontaneously generated more delay strategies, which
enhanced delay. By promoting the search for effective strategies, this approach pro‐
vides a promising direction for efforts to foster self‐regulation early in development.
1 | I NTRO D U C TI O N
effectively resist their impulses in the face of temptation while oth‐
ers struggle? And how can we influence these processes to promote
Decades of research show that measures of self‐control adminis‐
better self‐control in early childhood?
tered in early childhood are strong predictors of major life outcomes.
Past research conceptualizes childhood self‐control as an abil‐
Young children with greater self‐control – the regulation of thoughts,
ity rooted in neurocognitive processes (e.g., Tabibnia et al., 2011), or
feelings, and actions in service of enduringly valued goals – are better
more commonly, as skill. This conception has led to the creation of
prepared to enter school, showing higher math and literacy scores in
early‐childhood curricula that include a focus on developing self‐reg‐
kindergarten and early elementary school (Blair & Razza, 2007; Bull
ulatory skills through practice in regular, developmentally appropri‐
& Scerif, 2001; Eisenberg, Duckworth, Spinrad, & Valiente, 2014;
ate activities. These systemic and school‐wide reforms have yielded
McClelland, Morrison, & Holmes, 2000; Valiente, Lemery‐Chalfant,
promising results (Diamond, Barnet, Thomas, & Munro, 2007; Lillard
Swanson, & Reiser, 2008), better social functioning (Duckworth,
& Else‐Quest, 2006; Rybanska, McKay, Jong, & Whitehouse, 2018;
Quinn, & Tsukayama, 2012; Eisenberg et al., 1997; Fabes et al., 1999;
Sasser, Bierman, Heinrich, & Nix, 2017; see Diamond & Lee, 2011;
Maszk, Eisenberg, & Guthrie, 1999), and fewer health problems (e.g.
for successful but mixed results of such reforms, see Blair & Raver,
Daly, Egan, Quigley, Delaney, & Baumeister, 2016; McClelland et
2014). In the present research, however, we conceptualized self‐con‐
al., 2000). Childhood self‐control also predicts greater professional
trol as not just a skill or ability but also as rooted in a belief system
success, better health, less drug use, and less criminality in adult‐
that encourages children to (or discourages them from) searching for
hood (Caspi, Wright, Moffitt, & Silva, 1998; Daly, Delaney, Egan,
effective strategies to meet self‐regulatory challenges. That is, apart
& Baumeister, 2015; Heckman, Stixrud, & Urzua, 2006; Mischel,
from how good people are at resisting temptations, their success in
Shoda, & Rodriguez, 1989; Moffitt et al., 2011), above and beyond
self‐regulating may also be determined by their understanding of
childhood IQ and socioeconomic status and with effects of simi‐
self‐control. For instance, is it possible to resist temptations? Will
lar magnitude (Moffitt et al., 2011). Moreover, Moffitt et al. (2011)
resisting temptations tire you out or energize you? Such beliefs serve
showed that the more children improved their self‐control in child‐
as a mental model that helps people make sense of their experiences
hood, the better their outcomes in adulthood, even when control‐
facing self‐regulatory challenges and that can help them plan and
ling for their initial levels of self‐control. The importance of these
execute their corresponding behaviors (see Yeager & Dweck, 2012).
effects raises a pressing question: How do some children come to
We wondered if there are ways to represent willpower to young
Developmental Science. 2020;23:e12905.
https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12905
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/desc
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
|
1 of 10
2 of 10
|
HAIMOVITZ et al.
children that would help them develop self‐control even without in‐
troducing new skills or task‐specific strategies.
This question is in part derived from one relevant area of past
research relating to how children (and adults) understand personal
attributes. For example, viewing intelligence as fixed versus mal‐
leable can create different approaches to learning in students (e.g.,
Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007; see Mueller & Dweck, 1998;
Yeager & Dweck, 2012). Those who view intelligence as a quality
that can be developed, relative to those who view it as fixed, tend to
approach learning experiences with more adaptive strategies, such
as maintaining or increasing effort when they encounter difficulty
(e.g., Blackwell et al., 2007; Hong, Chiu, Dweck, Lin, & Wan, 1999;
see Burnette, O’Boyle, VanEpps, Pollack, & Finkel, 2013).
What ways of understanding self‐control might promote an
adaptive search for self‐control strategies? Past research with col‐
lege students shows that those who think of willpower as a limited
and easily depleted resource exhibit declines in self‐control as they
Research Highlights
• Preschoolers were read a story that represented the use
of willpower as energizing, or a control story, before par‐
ticipating in a delay of gratification task.
• Children exposed to a storybook character who struggled
with waiting, but eventually found it energizing, spon‐
taneously generated more delay strategies, and delayed
longer.
• Results suggest children’s self‐control is dependent not
just on skills, but on underlying frameworks that can
motivate children to actively seek out ways to exert
self‐control.
• By promoting a search for effective strategies, such ap‐
proaches to self‐control may provide promising directions
for intervention.
take on a series of difficult tasks. By contrast, people who think of
willpower as not so limited and even as self‐energizing find ways
to sustain self‐regulatory efforts over time (Job, Dweck, & Walton,
2010; Job, Walton, Bernecker, & Dweck, 2015; Miller et al., 2012).
Storybooks are a common vehicle to transmit and draw attention
In adults, these are called limited and non‐limited resource theories.
to cultural beliefs and lessons about how people think and act (e.g.,
The latter agree that, ‘If you have just resisted a strong temptation,
Bal & Veltkamp, 2013; Dodell‐Feder & Tamir, 2018; Kidd & Castano,
you feel strengthened and can withstand any new temptations’. This
2013; Miller, Wiley, Fung, & Liang, 1997; Oatley, 2016; Tsai, Louie,
past research addressed an influential model of self‐control, which
Chen, & Uchida, 2007). Indirect priming of messages communicated
argues that, as people engage in acts of self‐control, they in fact de‐
in a storybook has also been shown to be more effective at increas‐
plete a limited resource, making it harder to exert control on a sub‐
ing delay of gratification, compared with direct instruction to wait
sequent task (Baumeister, Vohs, & Tice, 2007). However, this model
(Kesek, Cunningham, Packer, & Zelazo, 2011). Thus, we thought sto‐
has seen mixed results and been called into question in recent years
ries might be a useful way to model this understanding of willpower
(e.g. Carter, Kofler, Forster, & McCullough, 2015; Friese, Loscelder,
for young children. We embodied a conceptualization of willpower
Gieseler, Frankenbach, & Inzlicht, 2018). Job et al. (2010) showed
as energizing in a storybook character: a child who experiences wait‐
that it is chiefly those who believe that willpower is limited who show
ing as difficult at first but eventually finds waiting strengthening and
diminished self‐control when they encounter later difficulties. This
rewarding.
is the case both when beliefs about willpower are measured as an
This approach draws on past research. For instance, one study
individual difference and when they are manipulated experimentally,
found that fourth‐ and fifth‐grade children exposed to an adult
demonstrating their causal effects. Individual differences in will‐
model who expressed a preference for delayed rather than imme‐
power beliefs also predict important outcomes in the real world, such
diate rewards subsequently endorsed similar choices (Bandura &
as grades in demanding school settings (Job et al., 2015). Notably,
Mischel, 1965). Yet, modeling the mere choice to wait may not, on
the belief that exerting willpower is energizing is more common in
its own, equip children with beliefs that help them persevere when
some cultural contexts, than the view that willpower depends on
waiting is difficult. It may also be important to convey that experi‐
a limited, easily depleted resource, a view relatively common in the
encing difficulty while waiting need not mean that one cannot keep
United States (Savani & Job, 2017). The existence of strong cultural
waiting – that difficulty can also be energizing. Consistent with this
differences in a belief system that predicts important life outcomes
theorizing, but focused on math learning, Schunk, Hanson, and Cox
further underscores the importance of understanding how these
(1987) exposed fourth‐ to sixth‐gradechildren to a model who first
belief systems develop and what factors may promote the develop‐
struggled and then succeeded in learning a math exercise. Children
ment of more adaptive beliefs early in life.
who saw this model later performed better on a similar math exer‐
In early childhood, children may not yet have well‐formed beliefs
cise than children exposed to a model who performed well without
about willpower. But they may still approach self‐control demands
initially struggling. Similarly, Leonard, Lee, and Schultz (2017) found
in different ways. How might research on willpower theories with
that infants exposed to an adult who struggled with and succeeded
adults inform ways to enhance children’s self‐control? The current
in using a set of toys persisted longer trying to get their own toy to
research tested whether exposure to a model in a storybook who ex‐
function, compared to those who saw an adult use the toy with ease
periences exerting willpower as energizing would inspire preschool‐
(see also Klein & O’Brien, 2017; Lin‐Siegler, Ahn, Chen, Fang, & Luna‐
ers to search for self‐control strategies in the face of temptation.
Lucero, 2016; Schunk & Hanson, 1989; Zimmerman & Blotner, 1979;
| 3 of 10
HAIMOVITZ et al.
Zimmerman & Ringle, 1981). These studies illustrate how responsive
If these hypotheses were supported, it would suggest how ex‐
children can be to models who illustrate the process of overcoming
posure to a model who experiences struggling with self‐control as
challenges.
energizing can empower young children to strive to self‐regulate.
Extending these past literatures, the present research tests the
impact of a storybook model who chooses to delay gratification,
overcomes struggles in self‐control, and finds this process energiz‐
ing. We hypothesize that exposure to this model – even without ex‐
posure to concrete strategies for delaying gratification – will lead
children to seek out ways to make waiting easier (and perhaps more
energizing or enjoyable) for themselves. By trying out strategies,
2 | E X PE R I M E NT 1
2.1 | Methods
2.1.1 | Participants
children may be more likely to find strategies that are effective and
In all, 43 4‐ to 5‐year olds (58% female) in a university‐affiliated
thus delay longer. Past research suggests that using a diversity of
laboratory preschool in the San Francisco Bay Area participated.
strategies spontaneously in the delay of gratification task relates to
Sample size was based on what was needed to detect an effect of
greater delay, and that such strategy use increases with age (Carlson
80% power, using effect sizes from similar manipulations of story‐
& Beck, 2009). If children do indeed try out strategies while waiting,
books to encourage challenge seeking in the same population, which
without modeling or instruction in specific strategies for self‐con‐
found an average effect of d = 0.86 (Master, 2011). One initial par‐
trol, it would suggest that children develop self‐control not merely
ticipant was excluded because a fire drill interrupted the experiment.
by being taught skills or by imitating or trying harder, but instead as
The mean age of our participants was 4.5 years, ranging from 48 to
active and strategic agents.
61 months (SD = 3.76 months). We chose to focus on this age range
We examined this hypothesis in the context of delay of gratifi‐
to match previous research on the delay paradigm (e.g., Mischel et
cation, an especially important marker of self‐control (Duckworth,
al., 1972, 1989), and because children may start developing knowl‐
Tsukayama, & Kirby, 2013; Mischel et al., 1989). Most studies that
edge of which strategies are effective for delaying gratification be‐
have successfully manipulated delay of gratification have involved
tween ages 4 and 5 years (Mischel & Mischel, 1983). All participants
the provision of specific techniques to delay, such as providing
were fluent English speakers. The participants attended a part‐time
children task‐specific cognitive strategies (e.g., look away from the
(8–20 hr/week) play‐based nursery school in an upper‐middle class
marshmallow, Mischel & Ebbesen, 1970; ‘imagine the marshmal‐
community; however, the school provides 20%–25% of children with
low as a cloud’; Mischel & Baker, 1975). Other work suggests that
financial aid so as to diversify the economic status of the student
providing children with a personal or group identity associated
body. Approximately 38% of students in the school was identified by
with self‐control can increase delay (e.g., a Superman cape, Doebel
parents as multi‐ethnic/racial and 64% students as of one race/eth‐
& Munakata, 2018; Karniol et al., 2011; Toner, Moore, & Emmons,
nicity. Of the latter, approximately 62% was Caucasian, 14% Asian,
1980; see White & Carlson, 2016; White et al., 2017 for similar ex‐
9% Indian/South Asian, 8% Hispanic, 6% Middle Eastern, and 2%
amples). Instead, we used a model to represent the idea that exerting
African American.
self‐control can be energizing.
Classroom teachers distributed and collected parent permis‐
In two experiments, which used different comparison conditions
sion forms during drop off and pick up. Children whose parents
(a neutral control in Experiment 1 and a successful waiting control in
had given consent were approached by one of several female re‐
Experiment 2), we tested whether exposure to a storybook charac‐
searchers and asked if they wished to participate. These research‐
ter who experiences the exertion of willpower as energizing would
ers had previously acted as classroom assistants so that children
prompt children to become more resourceful in their own efforts to
could become familiar and comfortable with them before being
delay – that is, to spontaneously make more distinct efforts to help
asked to participate.
themselves delay – and whether this increase in strategic behavior
would mediate longer delay.
Secondarily, if children do make more strategic efforts, would
2.1.2 | Procedure
they then come to use more effective strategies, which, in turn,
Participants were randomly assigned to hear one of two story‐
would contribute to a longer delay? To test this, we measured the
books about a child going through his or her day (referred to by
proportion of time children distracted themselves from the temp‐
the participating child’s name and matching their gender in an ef‐
tation as an observable measure of effective strategies for delaying
fort to increase relatability; see Master, 2011). Both stories con‐
gratification. This measure was derived from past research suggest‐
tained the same simple illustrations. In the experimental condition,
ing that children’s delay is facilitated by non‐consummatory or ‘cold’
the story conveyed the idea that exerting self‐control can be en‐
strategies such as distraction that reduce the salience of the con‐
ergizing (e.g., ‘Lucy waited and waited and it was hard. But the
summatory or ‘hot’ aspects of the temptation (Mischel, Ebbesen, &
longer she waited, the stronger she felt!’, ‘I can keep on going’,
Zeiss, 1972; Peake, Hebl, & Mischel, 2002; see Metcalfe & Mischel,
Lucy thought. ‘If I can wait a few minutes, then I can keep wait‐
1999). Importantly, we were careful not to introduce such delay
ing’). This idea was highlighted through two concrete examples in
strategies in the content of the storybooks.
which the main character waited to open a present and waited to
4 of 10
|
HAIMOVITZ et al.
get ice cream. We embodied the aspects of a non‐limited theory of
2013). The experimenter also did not make any reference to the
willpower in a storybook character who encountered two differ‐
storybooks during the delay task. After giving the child the treat,
ent situations because children have difficulty generalizing broad
all children explored a novel toy with the experimenter to end on a
lessons or principles beyond the particular situation in which they
positive note regardless of which treat they received.
learned them (e.g., Holyoak, Junn, & Billman, 1984). This generali‐
zation process is facilitated using concrete examples that children
can relate to their own experiences (Chen, Yanowitz, & Daehler,
2.1.3 | Dependent measures
1995). In an effort to increase children’s engagement with the
Children were videotaped while waiting, allowing two blind raters to
story, the main character chanted the mantra ‘Keep on keeping on’
later code the strategies children used to delay gratification.
several times and the participating child was encouraged to chant
We coded the total number of discrete strategy bouts – how many
along. To avoid any harmful effects of introducing the idea that
times children tried a distinct delay strategy. A given strategy could
willpower is a limited resource, control‐condition children heard a
be coded as more than one ‘bout’ if it was used more than once in‐
story with the same structure and plot (opening a present, going to
dependently, that is, if these uses were separated by time and by
get ice cream), but one that did not highlight waiting or represent
another strategy attempt. Delay strategies were behaviors that
self‐control as energizing. In this condition, children were similarly
children appeared to use as a means of entertainment, distraction,
encouraged to chant a positive mantra but it was unrelated to
or motivation while waiting. These included a mixture of strategies
waiting (‘I love Sunday, Sunday, Sunday’). Both stories were posi‐
that have been considered effective in past experimental and cor‐
tive in content and neither described any specific strategies found
relational research, such as children distracting themselves from the
in previous research to help children delay gratification (e.g., dis‐
temptation (e.g., covering their eyes, turning away from the treat)
tracting oneself from the treat, thinking about the ‘cold’ qualities
and strategies that have been considered ineffective in past re‐
of the treat; see Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). Notably, while previ‐
search, such as focusing on the temptation (e.g., touching, staring at
ous research has not tested whether chanting is itself an effective
the treat). We also included strategies that have not been examined
waiting strategy, it could potentially serve as one, perhaps espe‐
in as much detail as to their causal effectiveness in past research
cially chanting about waiting. We thus explore whether condition
(e.g., telling a story, singing a song), but that have been observed in
effects (e.g., on children’s strategy use) extend beyond increasing
some past research (Carlson & Beck, 2009) and seemed likely in‐
children’s chanting behavior. See Supplementary Material for full
tended to make waiting easier.1 Coders also separately coded the
story texts.
number of times children chanted the mantra they learned in their
Next, we administered the delay of gratification task. If chil‐
respective storybooks to account for potential alternative explana‐
dren resisted an immediate treat (e.g., two gummy bears), they
tions, and ensure that chanting was not included in the strategy bout
could obtain a preferred later treat (e.g., three gummy bears; see
count.
Mischel & Baker, 1975). Specific treats were assigned based on
That measure of strategy bouts was meant to capture children’s
parents’ prior ratings of the child’s preference. The delay task
search for strategies, so we looked at how many distinct times chil‐
was introduced as a new game with no connection to the story
dren tried something. We additionally wanted to capture whether
and, while listening to the story, children were unaware that they
children actually devoted more time to potentially more effective
would complete the delay task. First, children were given a bell
strategies. We thus coded the proportion of time children spent using
and the experimenter explained that the experimenter would need
distraction strategies (i.e., directing their attention away from the
to leave the room, but that any time the child rang the bell, they
temptation, as opposed to looking at, touching, or smelling the treat
would bring the experimenter back into the room. After the child
or bell), as an observable measure of effective strategies for delaying
practiced bringing the experimenter back in the room by ringing
gratification (Mischel & Ebbesen, 1970; Mischel et al., 1972; Peake
the bell, the experimenter then took out the pair of larger and
et al., 2002). This measure was derived from past research suggest‐
smaller treats and placed them on the table in front of the child
ing that children’s delay is facilitated by non‐consummatory or ‘cold’
where they were left visible during the entire period. The exper‐
strategies such as distraction that reduce the salience of the con‐
imenter explained that if the child waited until the experimenter
summatory or ‘hot’ aspects of the temptation (Mischel et al., 1972;
came back on their own, they could have the larger treat, but if
Peake et al., 2002; see Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). As noted, we did
they did not want to wait, they could ring the bell any time to
not introduce such delay strategies in the content of the storybooks.
bring them back, they could have the smaller treat. Once the child
Two coders rated approximately 30 videos each, with 10 of those
answered three questions assessing the child’s understanding of
videos randomly selected to be coded by both coders to assess reli‐
the game, the experimenter left the room without specifying a re‐
ability. The intra‐class correlation coefficient was high for both num‐
turn time, and returned either when the child rang the bell for the
ber of strategy bouts (ICC = 0.95) and proportion of time spent using
smaller treat, or after 13 min (see Supplementary Material for full
distraction strategies (ICC = 0.98).
experimental script). The delay procedure was designed to avoid
Delay of gratification – the total amount of time children waited
demand characteristics; the experimenter manifested indifference
for the larger reward – was recorded by the experimenter via
as to whether or not the child chose to wait (see Duckworth et al.,
stopwatch.
| 5 of 10
HAIMOVITZ et al.
F I G U R E 1 For both experiments, Panel (a) shows the mean number of strategy bouts in each condition; Panel (b) shows the mean
amount of time children spent using distraction strategies, with percentage of total time listed above each bar; and Panel (c) shows the mean
amount of time children spent delaying gratification. Error bars represent ±1 SE of the mean
2.2 | Results
We found support for each of our three hypothesized main ef‐
fects: Children who heard the storybook that conveyed that will‐
power can be energizing exhibited more overall strategy bouts
(M = 21.61, SD = 13.73) than control participants (M = 10.40,
SD = 9.30), t(41) = −3.02, p = .004, η p 2 = 0.19, 95% CI [−18.54,
−3.87] (Figure 1a). They also spent a greater proportion of time
distracting themselves from the temptation (Proportion M = 0.38,
SD = 0.25; Minutes: M = 4.73, SD = 3.29) than control participants
(Proportion: M = 0.16, SD = 0.17; Minutes: M = 1.86, SD = 2.13),
t(41) = −3.34, p = .002, η p 2 = 0.21, 95% CI [−0.34, −0.07] (Figure 1b).
And they waited 47% longer (M = 10.57, SD = 4.67 min) than chil‐
dren who heard the control storybook (M = 7.20, SD = 6.00 min),
t(41) = −2.07, p = .045, η p 2 = 0.10, 95% CI [−399.65, −4.87] (see
F I G U R E 2 Total number of strategy bouts mediates the effect
of condition on delay of gratification time in Experiments 1 and 2.
Standardized coefficients are reported. Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 Figure 1c). Additionally, given the irregular distribution of delay task waiting time, we considered two alternative tests of signifi‐ of experimental condition on delay time was significant, β = .31, cance. First, we ran a Mann–Whitney U test, a nonparametric test SE = 0.15, p = .045, R 2 = .09. After controlling for total strategy that does not assume a normal distribution. Results support the bouts, the condition effect on delay time was no longer significant conclusion that participants in the experimental condition tended (β = −.02, SE = 0.11, p = .86), indicating full mediation. The signif‐ to wait longer than those in the control, U = 152.5, Z = −2.14, icant indirect effect of condition through strategy bouts, β = .33, p = .032. Second, a survival analysis found again that participants SE = 0.10, was confirmed with a bootstrapped sample of 10,000 in the experimental condition outperformed those in the control, bias corrected confidence interval (BCCI) of 95% [.1390, 0.5395] χ 2 = 4.30, p < .05, with 74% of participants waited the full time in (see Figure 2). To ensure that our results were not dependent on the experimental condition, while 45% did so in the control. These analytic decisions, when we include chanting in the strategy bouts main effects were all consistent with our hypotheses that seeing count, all results remain the same. The effect of storybook condi‐ a model who finds struggling with waiting to be energizing would tion on strategy bouts was still significant, t(41) = 2.97, p = .005, engage more strategically in an effort to delay, spend more time η 2 = 0.18 and the mediating relationship with delay time also held using effective strategies, and ultimately delay longer. (β = .30, SE = 0.15, p = .045, reduced to β = −.03, SE = 0.12, p = .81). Next, we examined whether the changes in strategy use ac‐ These findings support our key hypothesized mediation that chil‐ counted for the greater delay time among children who heard dren exposed to a model who experiences struggling with waiting the storybook condition. The total number of strategy bouts pre‐ as energizing were motivated to search for possible strategies to dicted longer delay, β = .77, SE = 0.11, p < .001. The total effect help themselves wait, and in doing so, waited longer. 6 of 10 | 2.3 | Discussion HAIMOVITZ et al. (Experimental M = 0.79, SD = 0.11; Minutes: M = 8.88, SD = 3.30; Control M = 0.65, SD = 0.21; Minutes: M = 5.47, SD = 3.79), In Experiment 1, exposure to a model who at first struggled to wait t(41) = −2.85, p = .007, ηp 2 = 0.17 (Figure 1b). Finally, experimental but came to find this energizing led preschoolers to behave more participants waited 38% longer (M = 11.23, SD = 3.53 min) than con‐ strategically and this increased their delay of gratification. However, trol participants (M = 8.15, SD = 5.12 min), t(41) = −2.30, p = .026, it is possible that just the focus on waiting in the experimental story‐ ηp 2 = 0.12, 95% CI [−184.61, −80.17] (Figure 1c). Nonparametric book contributed to these results (see Bandura & Mischel, 1965). To tests confirmed these results: Mann–Whitney U = 152.5, Z = −2.14, further isolate the effect of the energizing conception of willpower, p = .032, and Kaplan–Meier χ 2 = 4.38, p < .05, with 77% of partici‐ Experiment 2 used a new control storybook that also described a pants waited the full time in the experimental condition, while 48% model waiting successfully but lacked the message that struggling did so in the control. with willpower can be energizing. Turning to mediation analyses, we found that the total number of strategy bouts predicted longer delay, β = .52, SE = 0.13, p < .001. 3 | E X PE R I M E NT 2 3.1 | Methods 3.1.1 | Participants The total effect of experimental condition on delay time was signif‐ icant, β = .37, SE = 0.15, p = .018, R2 = .13, and after controlling for total strategy bouts, the condition effect on delay time was no longer significant (β = .20, SE = 0.13, p = .14), indicating full mediation. The indirect effect of strategy bouts, β = .16, SE = 0.08, was confirmed with a bootstrapped sample of 10,000 BCCI of 95% [.0231, 0.3544] In all, 43 participants of 4‐ to 5‐year olds (51% female) attending the (see Figure 2). Including chanting as a strategy did not change the re‐ same university‐affiliated laboratory preschool with the same de‐ sults – the treatment effect on discrete strategy attempts remained mographic background and recruitment procedures as Experiment the same when we include chanting in the strategy bouts measure, 1. Mean age was 4.89 years (SD = 5.54 months), ranging from 48 to t(41) = −2.33, p = .025, ηp 2 = 0.11, 95% CI [−14.61, −1.04], as did the 67 months. mediating relationship with delay time (β = .34, SE = 0.15, p = .026, reduced to β = .17, SE = 0.14, p = .22). 2 3.1.2 | Procedure In Experiment 2, participants were randomly assigned to hear either the experimental story from Experiment 1 or a new control story. 3.3 | Exploratory analyses combining Experiments 1 and 2 Waiting was mentioned an equal number of times in the two sto‐ Finally, although we were admittedly underpowered to detect a rybooks, and the main character successfully waited in the same serial mediation relationship (see Bullock & Ha, 2011; Thoemmes, situations (opening a present, getting ice cream; see Supplemental MacKinnon, & Reiser, 2010), we combined results from Experiments Material for full story texts). Pilot participants (N = 30 adults) rated 1 and 2 to tentatively explore whether the data supported the full the main characters as waiting an equal amount of time, with equal theoretical model: if the storybook condition led children to try success, and viewed the two stories as equally positive (all ts < 1.1, more strategy bouts, which translated into a greater proportion of ns). However, whereas the experimental story highlighted how the time using effective distraction strategies, and thus led to longer main character experienced exerting self‐control as energizing (e.g., delay. We tested this model using bootstrapping procedures recom‐ ‘the longer you wait, the stronger you feel’), the control story did not mended for smaller samples (Fritz & MacKinnon, 2007; Preacher & introduce this conceptualization of willpower as difficult but even‐ Hayes, 2008). tually energizing; the main character simply waited successfully. To The aggregated data supported the full serial mediation model. help keep children engaged, participants in each condition chanted Controlling for an indicator of study to account for any differences in the respective mantras of each condition as in Experiment 1. Delay sample or procedure in the two studies, the experimental storybook of gratification, strategy bouts, and time spent pursuing effective led children to try more strategy bouts, B(83) = 0.37, SE = 0.10, p < .001, distractions strategies were measured using the same procedure as 95% CI [.1691, 0.5778]. Strategy bouts then led to a larger proportion in Experiment 1. Two blind raters coded the strategy measures reli‐ of time spent using distraction strategies, B(82) = 0.244, SE = 0.08, ably (ICCs from 0.92 to 0.99). p < .01, CI [.0888, 0.3998], as did condition, B(82) = 0.21, SE = 0.07, p < .01, CI [.0729, 0.3449]. Strategy bouts then predicted greater delay 3.2 | Results time, B(81) = 0.54, SE = 0.09, p < .001, CI [.3529, 0.7237], as did propor‐ tion of time using distraction strategies, B(81) = 0.46, SE = 13, p < .001, Once again, experimental participants made more discrete strategy CI [.1935, 0.7284]. While the total effect of condition on delay was attempts (M = 19.22, SD = 11.59) than control participants (M = 12.2, significant, B(83) = 0.33, SE = 0.11, p < .01, CI [.1164, 0.5465], once SD = 10.09), t(41) = −2.08, p = .043, η p 2 = 0.10 (Figure 1a). In the accounting for mediators, the effect of condition on delay time was no course of generating strategies, experimental participants also spent longer significant, B(81) = −0.008, SE = 0.09, p = .93, ns, CI [−0.1841, a greater proportion of time using (effective) distraction strategies 0.1683]. The individual indirect effect of condition through number | 7 of 10 HAIMOVITZ et al. brief storybook manipulation, the possibility for understanding such recursive processes points to the need for several streams of future research. These include longitudinal studies that track children's de‐ velopment of self‐control approaches and strategies, and ultimately, longitudinal field experiments that test persuasive means of promot‐ ing adaptive, self‐sustaining approaches to willpower (see Walton & F I G U R E 3 Serial multiple mediation models for Experiment 1 and 2 combined. Standardized coefficients are reported. Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 Wilson, 2018), ones that can alter children's trajectories. Another question for future research is how the approach to self‐control as energizing, and the associated search for strategies, is naturally socialized. Literature on the development of implicit theories of intelligence would suggest that modeling and lan‐ of strategy bouts was significant, B = 0.20, BCCI [.0981, 0.3262], as guage from parents and teachers play a likely role (e.g., Haimovitz was the indirect effect through strategy bouts and then proportion of & Dweck, 2016; Gunderson et al., 2013; cf. Haimovitz & Dweck, distraction strategies, B = 0.04, BCCI [.0128, 0.0959], and through pro‐ 2017). Cultural products and advertising can also communicate portion of distraction strategies alone, B = 0.10 BCCI [.0335, 0.1963] views of willpower as limited or self‐energizing (such as advertise‐ (see Figure 3). ments for the necessity of sugary cereals or candy bars for frequent See Tables S1 and S2 in the Supplementary Material for more energy boosts; or the depiction of frequent breaks as necessary exploratory analyses on the frequency and condition differences in for sustaining effort). As noted above, past research that demon‐ delay for each strategy. strates how exerting willpower is thought to be energizing more in some cultural contexts (like India) than in others (the USA; Savani & Job, 2017) implies that there are differences in cues across cultures 4 | G E N E R A L D I S CU S S I O N about willpower, perhaps cyclically reinforcing individual beliefs. What kinds of cues are salient to young children? For instance, are The present studies suggest that the message that exerting will‐ there differences in early‐childhood experiences between children power can be difficult but energizing can influence children's gen‐ in India and the USA that contribute to cultural differences be‐ eration and use of delay of gratification strategies. Exposing children tween adults by conveying messages analogous to our storybooks, to a storybook model who struggled to wait but came to experience such as in interpersonal communications or in media (e.g., story‐ this as energizing led them to make more distinct efforts to help books, children's television)? Future research could learn from such themselves delay, to spend a greater proportion of time using effec‐ differences to inform theory about how culture and development tive strategies, and to delay longer. We also found support for the intersect, and to build applications that foster more adaptive ap‐ hypothesized mediation: the message that exerting willpower can proaches to willpower, even in a culture like the United States that be energizing led children to approach a self‐control challenge more may predominantly endorses limited theories of willpower (Savani strategically, which accounted for their increased time spent delay‐ & Job, 2017). ing gratification. These findings also lend support to our core theoretical assump‐ These results highlight how self‐control may develop not just as a tion that children are active, strategic agents. It could have been the set of skills to learn through repeated practice on challenging tasks, case that hearing the treatment storybook simply led children to as examined in past research (e.g., Diamond et al., 2007; Mischel infer that waiting is possible, and thus to just grit their teeth and try & Baker, 1975; Mischel & Ebbesen, 1970), but through a general to wait out the time out without giving much thought toward trying approach to willpower that encourages children's generation and to make waiting easier or more energizing. If so, children might have use of self‐control strategies. Our focus on encouraging children's tried to wait longer but not searched for ways to make waiting easier. search for effective self‐control strategies makes an important ad‐ Of course, some children may have done so. However, the studies vance. This approach to self‐control may be a critical, yet under‐ found that many children searched for effective strategies. Indeed, studied, way in which early‐childhood self‐control develops and the mediation analyses suggest that in continuing to try strategies predicts later outcomes beyond self‐control skills alone. If children children then tended to include more effective strategies as they learn to approach willpower as self‐energizing, can this develop into sought to delay gratification. a more general tendency to search for strategies and be resourceful Some limitations of the studies warrant discussion as well. First, across multiple novel self‐regulatory situations? There may also be because we did not measure children's beliefs about willpower before important relationships between self‐control strategies and skills. A and after the manipulation, we cannot differentiate various possible tendency to search for strategies appropriate for a given situation changes that contributed to these effects. For instance, although we could, for instance, help children learn strategies that are effective balanced the amount of waiting represented in both the experimental for them in which situations, thus building skills that make it easier and control stories to rule out simply priming or modeling waiting, we to exert self‐control. While the current study does not attempt to do not know whether we primed an existing idea that willpower is en‐ measure or manipulate long‐term or generalizable outcomes with a ergizing, rather than introduced a new idea about willpower. We find 8 of 10 | HAIMOVITZ et al. both possibilities interesting and compatible ideas that future research E N D N OT E S could explore through measuring beliefs about willpower, which may 1 We use the term strategy with the assumption that the highly activated goal to get the bigger reward is driving their behavior in this paradigm, in line with past research (e.g., Mischel & Ebbesen, 1970; Mischel et al., 1972; Yates & Mischel, 1979). 2 While we measured delay strategies in terms of bouts to more fully capture the dynamic nature of children's behavior, when we exam‐ ined a simplified count of total unique strategies that participants used in exploratory analyses, experimental condition still predicted a greater number of unique strategies used, study 1: t(41) = 2.28, p < .05, η2 = 0.11; study 2: t(41) = 2.17, p < .05, η2 = 0.10. not be feasible in preschool students, but could perhaps be measured in older children. Another limitation of the current studies is that they relied on measures of observable behavior alone. While behavioral measures seem appropriate for the age group of interest, and pro‐ vide the best metric of self‐regulatory success, future research may examine strategy use and its underlying cognitive mechanisms using other means, like self‐report (see Kushnir, Gopnik, Chernyak, Seiver, & Wellman, 2015). Additionally, to design the manipulation, we translated research on adults’ beliefs about willpower into a form that young children could understand by embodying the core elements in a storybook charac‐ ter: someone who struggles with waiting at first, but still chooses to wait and finds that energizing. Although we believed these elements to be the minimum necessary to communicate a parallel and impactful idea to children, it could leave open the possibility that one of these elements was more important. While it would be possible to include different aspects of these elements in control conditions, we worried that conveying that willpower is, for instance, difficult (without also conveying that it can be energizing) could have confirmed or induced a limited theory and reduced delay, so we opted not to do so in initial testing. Future work could try to tease these elements apart to see if simply seeing someone struggle with willpower would be helpful on its own (or conversely, harmful). 5 | CO N C LU S I O N S This research provides exciting implications for the advancement of theory and application of self‐control research. These results suggest the promise of conceptualizing children's self‐control as dependent not just on the development of self‐control skills through practice, but on underlying beliefs that motivate children to actively seek out ways to exert self‐control as they face novel self‐regulatory challenges. By understanding how children come to generate self‐control strategies at a young age, we may have the potential to improve children's self‐control with far‐reaching impact. AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S Funding was provided by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship to the first author and the John Templeton Foundation. Thanks to Stephanie Reeves, Melissa Powell, Maya Kratzer, Toke Odimayomi, Nicole Ruiz and Priya Shankar for help with data collection and coding and to Angela Duckworth for her comments on the manuscript. DATA AVA I L A B I L I T Y S TAT E M E N T The data that support the findings of this study are openly available at https​://osf.io/st6pu/​. REFERENCES Bal, P. M., & Veltkamp, M. (2013). How does fiction reading influence empathy? An experimental investigation on the role of emotional transportation. PLoS ONE, 8(1), e55341. https​ ://doi.org/10.1371/ journ​al.pone.0055341 Bandura, A., & Mischel, W. (1965). Modifications of self‐imposed delay of reward through exposure to live and symbolic models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2(5), 698. https​://doi.org/10.1037/ h0022655 Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). The strength model of self‐control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 351– 355. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00534.x Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theo‐ ries of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transi‐ tion: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78, 246–263. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2014). Closing the achievement gap through modification of neurocognitive and neuroendocrine function: Results from a cluster randomized controlled trial of an innovative approach to the education of children in kindergarten. PLoS ONE, 9(11), e112393. https​://doi.org/10.1371/journ​al.pone.0112393 Blair, C., & Razza, R. P. (2007). Relating effortful control, executive func‐ tion, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Development, 78, 647–663. https​://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01019.x Bull, R., & Scerif, G. (2001). Executive functioning as a predictor of children's mathematics ability: Inhibition, switching, and working memory. Developmental Neuropsychology, 19, 273–293. https​://doi. org/10.1207/S1532​6942D​N1903_3 Bullock, J. G., & Ha, S. E. (2011). Mediation analysis is harder than it looks. In J. N. Druckman, D. P. Green, J. H. Kuklinski, & A. Lupia (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of experimental political science (pp. 508–521). New York: Cambridge University Press. Burnette, J. L., O'Boyle, E. H., VanEpps, E. M., Pollack, J. M., & Finkel, E. J. (2013). Mind‐sets matter: A meta‐analytic review of implicit theories and self‐regulation. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 655–701. https​://doi. org/10.1037/a0029531 Carlson, S. M., & Beck, D. M. (2009). Symbols as tools in the devel‐ opment of executive function. In A. Winsler, C. Fernyhough & I. Montero (Eds.), Private speech, executive functioning, and the de‐ velopment of verbal self‐regulation (pp. 163–175). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. https​ ://doi.org/10.1017/CBO97​ 80511​581533.014 Carter, E. C., Kofler, L. M., Forster, D. E., & McCullough, M. E. (2015). A series of meta‐analytic tests of the depletion effect: Self‐control does not seem to rely on a limited resource. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 796–815. https​://doi.org/10.1037/xge00​ 00083​ Caspi, A., Wright, B., Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. (1998). Early failure in the labor market: Childhood and adolescent predictors of unemployment HAIMOVITZ et al. in the transition to adulthood. American Sociological Review, 63, 424– 451. https​://doi.org/10.2307/2657557 Chen, Z., Yanowitz, K. L., & Daehler, M. W. (1995). Constraints on access‐ ing abstract source information: Instantiation of principles facilitates children’s analogical transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 445–454. https​://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.3.445 Daly, M., Delaney, L., Egan, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2015). Childhood self‐ control and unemployment throughout the lifespan: Evidence from two British cohort studies. Psychological Science, 26, 709–723. https​ ://doi.org/10.1177/09567​97615​569001 Daly, M., Egan, M., Quigley, J., Delaney, L., & Baumeister, R. F. (2016). Childhood self‐control predicts smoking throughout life: Evidence from 21,000 cohort study participants. Health Psychology, 35, 1254. https​://doi.org/10.1037/hea00 ​0 0393​ Diamond, A., Barnett, W. S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007). Preschool program improves cognitive control. Science, 318, 1387–1388. https​ ://doi.org/10.1126/scien​ce.1151148 Diamond, A., & Lee, K. (2011). How can we help children succeed in the 21st century? What the scientific evidence shows aids executive function development in children 4–12 years of age. Science, 333, 959–964. https​://doi.org/10.1126/scien​ce.1204S29 Dodell‐Feder, D., & Tamir, D. I. (2018). Fiction reading has a small positive impact on social cognition: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147, 1713–1727. Doebel, S., & Munakata, Y. (2018). Group influences on engaging self‐ control: Children delay gratification and value it more when their in‐ group delays and their out‐group doesn’t. Psychological Science, 29, 738–748. https​://doi.org/10.1177/09567​97617​747367 Duckworth, A. L., Quinn, P. D., & Tsukayama, E. (2012). What no child left behind leaves behind: The roles of IQ and self‐control in predicting standardized achievement test scores and report card grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 439–451. https​://doi.org/10.1037/ a0026280 Duckworth, A. L., Tsukayama, E., & Kirby, T. A. (2013). Is it really self‐ control? Examining the predictive power of the delay of gratification task. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 843–855. https​:// doi.org/10.1177/01461​67213​482589 Eisenberg, N., Duckworth, A., Spinrad, T., & Valiente, C. (2014). Conscientiousness: Origins in childhood? Developmental Psychology, 50, 1331–1349. https​://doi.org/10.1037/a0030977 Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Murphy, B. C., Guthrie, I. K., Jones, S., … Maszk, P. (1997). Contemporaneous and longitu‐ dinal prediction of children’s social functioning from regulation and emotionality. Child Development, 68, 642–664. https​ ://doi. org/10.1037/0012-1649.34.5.910 Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, N., Jones, S., Smith, M., Guthrie, I., Poulin, R., … Friedman, J. (1999). Regulation, emotionality, and preschoolers' so‐ cially competent peer interactions. Child Development, 70, 432–442. https​://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00031​ Friese, M., Loschelder, D. D., Gieseler, K., Frankenbach, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2018). Is ego depletion real? An analysis of arguments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 30, 1–25. https​://doi.org/10.1177/10888​ 68318​762183 Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18(3), 233–239. https​:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x Gunderson, E. A., Gripshover, S. J., Romero, C., Dweck, C. S., Goldin‐ Meadow, S., & Levine, S. C. (2013). Parent praise to 1‐ to 3‐year‐ olds predicts children’s motivational frameworks 5 years later. Child Development, 84, 1526–1541. https​ ://doi.org/10.1111/cdev. 12064​ Haimovitz, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2016). What predicts children’s fixed and growth intelligence mindsets? Not their parents’ views of intelligence but their parents’ views of failure. Psychological Science, 27, 859–869. https​://doi.org/10.1177/09567​97616​639727 | 9 of 10 Haimovitz, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2017). The origins of children's growth and fixed mindsets: New research and a new proposal. Child Development, 88(6), 1849–1859. https​://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12955​ Heckman, J., Stixrud, J., & Urzua, S. (2006). The effects of cognitive and noncognitive abilities on labor market outcomes and social behavior. Journal of Labor Economics, 24, 411–482. https​ ://doi. org/10.1086/504455 Holyoak, K. J., Junn, E. N., & Billman, D. O. (1984). Development of ana‐ logical problem solving skill. Child Development, 55, 2042–2055. https​ ://doi.org/10.2307/1129778 Hong, Y.‐Y., Chiu, C.‐Y., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D.‐M.‐S., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system ap‐ proach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 588–599. https​://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.588 Job, V., Dweck, C. S., & Walton, G. M. (2010). Ego depletion—Is it all in your head? Implicit theories about willpower affect self‐regulation. Psychological Science, 21, 1686–1693. https​://doi.org/10.1177/09567​ 97610​384745 Job, V., Walton, G. M., Bernecker, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2015). Implicit the‐ ories about willpower predict self‐regulation and grades in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 637–647. https​ ://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0​0 00014 Karniol, R., Galili, L., Shtilerman, D., Naim, R., Stern, K., Manjoch, H., & Silverman, R. (2011). Superman can wait: Cognitive self‐transforma‐ tion in the delay of gratification paradigm. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 40, 307–317. https​://doi.org/10.1080/15374​ 416.2011.546040 Kesek, A., Cunningham, W. A., Packer, D. J., & Zelazo, P. D. (2011). Indirect goal priming is more powerful than explicit instruction in children. Developmental Science, 14(5), 944–948. https​ ://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01043.x Kidd, D. C., & Castano, E. (2013). Reading literary fiction improves theory of mind. Science, 342(6156), 377–380. Klein, N., & O'Brien, E. (2017). The power and limits of personal change: When a bad past does (and does not) inspire in the present. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(2), 210–229. https​ ://doi. org/10.1037/pspa0​0 00088 Kushnir, T., Gopnik, A., Chernyak, N., Seiver, E., & Wellman, H. M. (2015). Developing intuitions about free will between ages four and six. Cognition, 138, 79–101. https​ ://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogni​ tion.2016.01.003 Leonard, J. A., Lee, Y., & Schulz, L. E. (2017). Infants make more attempts to achieve a goal when they see adults persist. Science, 357(6357), 1290–1294. https​://doi.org/10.1126/scien​ce.aan2317 Lillard, A., & Else‐Quest, N. (2006). The early years: Evaluating Montessori education. Science, 313, 1893–1894. https​://doi.org/10.1126/scien​ ce.1132362 Lin‐Siegler, X., Ahn, J. N., Chen, J., Fang, F.‐F.‐A., & Luna‐Lucero, M. (2016). Even Einstein struggled: Effects of learning about great sci‐ entists struggles on high school students’ motivation to learn sci‐ ence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 314–328. https​://doi. org/10.1037/edu00​0 0092​ Master, A. (2011). “I want to try and try”: Increasing achievement motiva‐ tion in young children. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from Stanford University. Maszk, P., Eisenberg, N. G., & Guthrie, I. K. (1999). Relations of children’s social status to their emotionality and regulation: A short‐term longi‐ tudinal study. Merrill‐Palmer Quarterly, 45, 468–492. McClelland, M. M., Morrison, F. J., & Holmes, D. L. (2000). Children at risk for early academic problems: The role of learning‐related social skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 307–329. https​://doi. org/10.1016/S0885-2006(00)00069-7 Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106, 3–19. https​://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.1.3 10 of 10 | Miller, E. M., Walton, G. M., Dweck, C. S., Job, V., Trzesniewski, K. H., & McClure, S. M. (2012). Theories of willpower affect sustained learning. PLoS ONE, 7, e38680. https​ ://doi.org/10.1371/journ​ al.pone.0038680 Miller, P. J., Wiley, A. R., Fung, H., & Liang, C.‐H. (1997). Personal story‐ telling as a medium of socialization in Chinese and American families. Child Development, 68, 557–568. https​://doi.org/10.2307/1131678 Mischel, W., & Baker, N. (1975). Cognitive appraisals and transformations in delay behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 254–326. https​://doi.org/10.1037/h0076272 Mischel, W., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1970). Attention in delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(2), 329–337. https​:// doi.org/10.1037/h0029815 Mischel, W., Ebbesen, E. B., & Zeiss, A. R. (1972). Cognitive and atten‐ tional mechanisms in delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 204–218. https​://doi.org/10.1037/h0076272 Mischel, W., & Mischel, H. N. (1983). Development of children’s knowl‐ edge of self‐control strategies. Child Development, 54, 603–619. https​ ://doi.org/10.2307/1130047 Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, L. M. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244, 933–938. https​ ://doi.org/10.1126/scien​ ce.265805 Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., … Caspi, A. (2011). A gradient of childhood self‐ control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 108, 2693–2698. https​ ://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.10100​76108​ Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 33–52. https​://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.33 Oatley, K. (2016). Fiction: Simulation of social worlds. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(8), 618–628. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.06.002 Peake, P. K., Hebl, M., & Mischel, W. (2002). Strategic attention de‐ ployment for delay of gratification in working and waiting sit‐ uations. Developmental Psychology, 38, 313–326. https​ ://doi. org/10.1037/0012-1649.38.2.313 Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strate‐ gies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple media‐ tor models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https​://doi. org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879 Rybanska, V., McKay, R., Jong, J., & Whitehouse, H. (2018). Rituals im‐ prove children's ability to delay gratification. Child Development, 89(2), 349–359. https​://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12762​ Sasser, T. R., Bierman, K. L., Heinrichs, B., & Nix, R. L. (2017). Preschool intervention can promote sustained growth in the executive‐func‐ tion skills of children exhibiting early deficits. Psychological Science, 28(12), 1719–1730. https​://doi.org/10.1177/09567​97617​711640 Savani, K., & Job, V. (2017). Reverse ego‐depletion: Acts of self‐control can improve subsequent performance in Indian cultural contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(4), 589–607. https​:// doi.org/10.1037/pspi0​0 00099 Schunk, D. H., & Hanson, A. R. (1989). Influence of peer‐model attributes on children's beliefs and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 431–434. https​://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.431 Schunk, D. H., Hanson, A. R., & Cox, P. D. (1987). Peer‐model attri‐ butes and children's achievement behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 54–61. https​://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.79.1.54 Tabibnia, G., Monterosso, J. R., Baicy, K., Aron, A. R., Poldrack, R. A., Chakrapani, S., … London, E. D. (2011). Different forms of self‐control HAIMOVITZ et al. share a neurocognitive substrate. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31, 4805–4810. https​://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUR​OSCI.2859-10.2011 Thoemmes, F., MacKinnon, D. P., & Reiser, M. R. (2010). Power analysis for complex mediational designs using Monte Carlo methods. Structural Equation Modeling, 17, 510–534. https​ ://doi.org/10.1080/10705​ 511.2010.489379 Toner, I. J., Moore, L. P., & Emmons, B. A. (1980). The effect of being labeled on subsequent self‐control in children. Child Development, 51, 618–621. https​://doi.org/10.2307/1129308 Tsai, J. L., Louie, J. Y., Chen, E. E., & Uchida, Y. (2007). Learning what feelings to desire: Socialization of ideal affect through children’s sto‐ rybooks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 17–30. https​:// doi.org/10.1177/01461​67206​292749 Valiente, C., Lemery‐Chalfant, K., Swanson, J., & Reiser, M. (2008). Prediction of children's academic competence from their ef‐ fortful control, relationships, and classroom participation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 67–77. https​ ://doi. org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.67 Walton, G. M., & Wilson, T. D. (2018). Wise interventions: Psychological remedies for social and personal problems. Psychological Review, 125(5), 617–655. https​://doi.org/10.1037/rev00​0 0115​ White, R. E., & Carlson, S. M. (2016). What would Batman do? Self‐dis‐ tancing improves executive function in young children. Developmental Science, 19(3), 419–426. https​://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12314​ White, R. E., Prager, E. O., Schaefer, C., Kross, E., Duckworth, A. L., & Carlson, S. M. (2017). The “Batman Effect”: Improving perseverance in young children. Child Development, 88(5), 1563–1571. https​://doi. org/10.1111/cdev.12695​ Yates, B. T., & Mischel, W. (1979). Young children’s preferred at‐ tentional strategies for delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 286–300. https​ ://doi. org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.1.3 Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resil‐ ience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47, 302–314. https​ ://doi. org/10.1080/00461​520.2012.722805 Zimmerman, B. J., & Blotner, R. (1979). Effects of model persistence and suc‐ cess on children's problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(4), 508–513. https​://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.71.4.508 Zimmerman, B. J., & Ringle, J. (1981). Effects of model persistence and statements of confidence on children's self‐efficacy and problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(4), 485–493. https​:// doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.73.4.485 S U P P O R T I N G I N FO R M AT I O N Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of the article. How to cite this article: Haimovitz K, Dweck CS, Walton GM. Preschoolers find ways to resist temptation after learning that willpower can be energizing. Dev Sci. 2020;23:e12905. https​://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12905​ Copyright of Developmental Science is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order