the second marshmallow

By now, everyone is familiar with the Marshmallow Test, I hope. If not, here’s a summary:

The Marshmallow Test is also referred to as the Stanford Marshmallow Experiment. It was first conducted in 1968 by Dr. Walter Mischel et al. at —no surprise —Stanford University. It covered delayed gratification; the children in the study could receive one marshmallow now or wait for two marshmallows. The mythology around the experiment is considerable, with people asserting that it proved that the ability to delay gratification at a young age (they were preschoolers in the study) correlated with increased achievement and success later. All of this naturally correlated with intelligence. There was even a study later that correlated delayed gratification with lower body mass index. This was something that was drilled into us in beginning psychology: for a child to be successful, they needed to learn to delay gratification. When I took those courses, I never questioned it —just absorbed it like a sponge and thought of ways to help kids work on it.

What the experiments did not address was the elephant in the room: socioeconomic status. Getting out into the real world, the non-controlled experiment that is society in the US, I’ve had the opportunity to witness firsthand how that factors into kids’ decision making. I am haunted by one girl in particular.

She joined us when she was placed with a foster family. Her background was significant for neglect, and she was an emergency placement but she had been there for a month or so when I started working with her. When I work with kids, I generally work on things that are hard for them to do, so I do use prizes. I don’t center everything around tangible reinforcement (fancy speak for bribes or rewards), but they’re there if I need them. Everyone has chance to work towards different levels of rewards. A long time ago, I set it up so that the less desired prizes were easier to obtain than the more desired prizes which required a longer wait. Sound familiar? Yup. The Marshmallow Test.

She didn’t wait, though. She wanted Play-Doh (a need to wait item), but opted for crayons (a shorter wait item).

“Are you sure?” I asked her.

Yes, she said, the crayons now instead of the Play-Doh in two weeks. I never force the issue, and she got her crayons.

And she was moved to another foster placement by the end of the week.

Was she wrong to take the crayons? I don’t think so. One of the things the Marshmallow Test doesn’t consider is the element of trust that needs to occur between the person with the prizes and the person trying to earn them. Is it worth it to take the chance that the more highly-desired item will be both available and obtainable at a later time? Sure it’s been promised, but will it be there? Will you actually receive two marshmallows for waiting?

The longer I live, the more I wonder if that young lady is far wiser than I am. It’s maladaptive (fancy speak for dumb) to continue to have faith in waiting for something when all you’ve been shown is that waiting is a way to lose opportunities rather than gain them. “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” became a cliché for a reason —it contains an element of truth.

I find myself thinking about her lately, and I hope, wherever she ended up, that she’s okay and that the crayons brought her some joy. I’m really glad she didn’t wait.

passive-aggressive blogpost

It’s not what you think.

I’m not writing this blogpost as a comment on anyone else. It’s not a guilt trip. It probably won’t even be lucid, so it’s hard to imagine it’ll be planned out and malicious in intent.

I’m perplexed by the concept of ‘passive-aggressive’.

In full disclosure, I probably engage in passive-aggressive behaviors. I’ve been called that on occasion, and when I examine my behavior, I do err on the side of avoiding direct conflict (more on that in a bit). If I start overthinking, which I am prone to do, I’ll start wondering if maybe this blogpost is, in fact, passive-aggressive. I will then tie myself into emotional pretzel knots and apologize profusely and delete it if anyone ends up challenging me on it —I’ve been through therapy for it, and it’s a pattern.

‘Passive-aggressive’ as a descriptor started life in a technical document from the US War Department during World War II (click for link to an interesting source article). A Colonel Menninger mentioned how, although soldiers weren’t defiant per se, they seemed to be engaging in behaviors that were counterproductive for the people in charge. Listed were “passive measures, such as pouting, stubbornness, procrastination, inefficiency, and passive obstructionism.” In the beginning, passive-aggressive behavior was something that was used to describe the behavior of service members lower down the chain of command that were interfering with the efficiency of the plans of those higher up the chain who weren’t necessarily being put in immediate danger. After World War II, it was added to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the first DSM) and made available to the wider community who happened to come into contact with psychologists and psychiatrists. From there, it entered popular culture, with a tendency to be applied to groups who were dissatisfied with their station but who felt they couldn’t do anything about it.

I knew none of that information before I started writing that paragraph. I didn’t set out to be passive-aggressive, but I’m beginning to feel cynical. The behaviors originally described as ‘passive-aggressive’ served the purpose of men in combat not wanting to die but also not being allowed to directly challenge orders.

There are many reasons to avoid conflict, the main one being you can get hurt —killed even.

Personally, I’ve done a lot of thinking about the concept of being passive-aggressive because, as I’ve said, I’ve received that label before. What I’ve noticed is, when I think about the behaviors mentioned, I have the benefit of knowing what’s going on in my own head —other people might not. Here are the reasons I have behaved in ways that might be characterized as ‘passive-aggressive’:

• Work: I need to get along and maintain working relationships. I will advocate for myself directly, but what comes up is that people are not satisfied with what I have to say (no, I cannot cure your child) or there are rules which are actually codified into law. I am professional. I try to avoid drama because the job is hard enough as it is. Not everything is personal.

• Personal: I need to get along and maintain personal relationships. I am an avoidant personality —not to pathologize it, but I am. I need to do a better job about advocating for myself directly. I am doing better, but it requires effort.

Sometimes, I am genuinely trying to not lose my shit because I value the relationship —me losing my shit looks very, very scary. I get over things quickly but have an explosive temper. In this case, I go passive in order to avoid becoming aggressive.

Sometimes, I’m not certain how I feel about things until later, when I realize I was angry.

Sometimes, I’m trying to give the other person the benefit of the doubt.

Sometimes, I know from experience what I’m saying won’t be received at all, so why bother trying?

Sometimes, it takes me a while to process what’s happening and what was said.

Sometimes, I’m just biding my time to get out of the situation and it doesn’t feel like it’s worth the effort to become angry or try to salvage the interaction.

Sometimes, I am genuinely trying to be okay with what is going on because I understand I might be overreacting or irrational (I can decide this for myself, but lord help you if you decide that for me!).

If I’m in a situation with a stranger, I don’t know what they’re bringing to the table, and is it worth it to find out? Violence bad.

These are all I could come up with. Maybe there are more?

What do you think?