FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2179396688> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2179396688 startingPage "13" @default.
• W2179396688 abstract "Previous research on delay of gratification indicates that people have a tendency to choose small rewards that are available immediately over more valuable rewards that are available after a certain amount of time. This ability to wait for the more valuable reward has been associated with a variety of positive outcomes, such as better self-regulation abilities, academic success, and reduced risk of addiction. One theory evoked to explain the inability to delay gratification states that an emotional, impulsive “hot” system overrides a rational, cognitive “cool” system and influences the person to act impulsively and choose the small immediate reward. Various factors affecting how the desired reward is presented can differentially activate the cool system to a greater extent that the hot system. The role of affect in this decision-making process is unclear as a result of contradicting evidence. The present study, using a between-subjects design, used a modification of the Velten mood statements to induce positive and negative affect, and attempted to activate the cool system to a greater extent than the hot system by presenting the choice in an impersonal manner. There were no significant differences between the different conditions. Methodological flaws of the study are discussed. Delay of gratification refers to the ability to wait a specified period of time for a large reward instead of receiving a smaller reward immediately (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). Delay discounting refers to the phenomenon in which the value of the larger reward decreases as the delay for obtaining that reward increases (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). Delay of gratification was first studied extensively in children (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999); in a typical paradigm, a child is presented with a reward such as candy or a toy, and informed that she can have two of the desired items if she waits a specified amount of time (e.g. 15 minutes), or can choose to stop waiting and receive the one item in front of her at any time (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). Typically, the child will choose to wait, as two rewards are preferable to one, but over the waiting period the temptation to receive a reward immediately often becomes overwhelming and CHOICE FRAMING AND AFFECT IN DELAY OF GRATIFICATION 182 many children eventually choose to take the single item immediately (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). In adults, the task is often modified to involve choices between hypothetical amounts of money (Green, Myerson, Lichten, Rosen, & Fry, 1996). The ability to delay gratification in this type of paradigm is thought to be reflective of broader competencies (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999), such as intelligence, resistance to temptation, and social responsibility (Mischel, Shoda, & Rodriguez, 1989). Delay of gratification in adults has been correlated with college GPA’s (Kirby, Winston, & Santiesteban, 2005) and SAT scores (Mischel et al., 1989), and negatively correlated with addictive behaviours (Bickel & Marsch, 2001; Kirby, Petry, & Bickel, 1999). The evidence that laboratory tests of delay of gratification have high relevance in real-world measures of self-regulation (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999) highlights the importance of gaining knowledge of the factors that affect people’s ability to wait for a more valuable outcome. Metcalfe and Mischel (1999) propose that this choice elicits competition between a “hot”, emotional, impulsive system and a “cool”, cognitive system. In delay of gratification tasks, the hot system influences the individual to act impulsively and select the immediate, less desirable reward, while the cool system influences her or him to act rationally and wait for the more desirable reward (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). Each system can dominate the other one, depending on various individual and situational factors (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). For example, how the stimulus of choice is presented can influence whether the hot or cool system is predominantly activated (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). In a cool presentation of the stimulus, the stimulus is presented in such a way that cool information about the object – for example, its colour, shape and name – is available, but the hot information – for example, the feelings elicited by eating it, if it is a food reward – is not as readily available (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). For example, presenting a picture of the stimulus (cool presentation) in the place of the actual CHOICE FRAMING AND AFFECT IN DELAY OF GRATIFICATION 183 stimulus (hot presentation); in such tasks, delay time is increased (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). Delay time is also increased when the reward is out of sight during the wait period (Mischel & Ebbesen, 1970), another situation in which the hot information is less accessibly (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). Activation of the hot system can also be inhibited when attention is focused elsewhere during the delay period (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). For example, children who were given a toy to play with during the delay were much more likely to wait for the larger reward than those without a toy (Mischel, Ebbesen, & Zeiss, 1972). Children who distracted themselves by decreasing attention to the reward and increasing attention elsewhere in the room were more successful at waiting than those who did not deploy attention elsewhere (Rodriguez, Mischel & Shoda, 1989). All of these are thought to be situations in which ability to delay gratification is enhanced due to greater activation of the cool system than the hot system (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). Although various individual and situational factors affecting the tendency to delay gratification have been studied (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999), there is a paucity of research on the role of affect. One study found that induced positive mood increased delay discounting in extroverts (Hirsh, Guindon, Morisano, & Peterson, 2010). The authors hypothesized that this was due to a preferential activation of the hot, emotional system in extroverts than in introverts (Hirsh et al., 2010). However, another study with children found that those in whom a positive mood was induced showed decreased discounting in comparison to negative-mood participants (Moore, Clyburn & Underwood, 1976). In this case, the effect was explained by the hypothesis that people in a positive mood are more likely to act rationally, while those in a negative affect will seek anything that will immediately alleviate the negative state (Moore et al., 1976). The CHOICE FRAMING AND AFFECT IN DELAY OF GRATIFICATION 184 effects of mood on delay discounting are unclear and the present study will attempt to elucidate this ambiguity. The purpose of the present study is to examine another possible mechanism of activating the cool system over the hot system, and to further elucidate the effects of mood states on delay of gratification. It was hypothesized that framing the delay task in a non-personalized manner (i.e. as a choice another individual must make rather than a choice the participant must make) will result in higher delay of gratification because this would result in preferential activation of the cool system and therefore increased ability to delay, as the non-personal presentation would elicit cool information about the stimulus without the corresponding hot information. Appetitive, hot information was hypothesized to be less available due to the removal of a personal perspective on the stimulus (rather than imagining themselves receiving the reward, the participants will be imagining a different person receiving it). In addition, the effects of positive and negative moods on delay of gratification will be examined. It was hypothesized that mood will have more of an effect on the participants who received the delay choice framed as a personal choice, because their hot, emotional systems will already be activated and therefore they will be more responsive to emotional cues. Furthermore, in keeping with Moore et al.’s (1976) theory, the positive mood was expected to produce greater delay of gratification than the negative mood due to greater ability to act rationally rather than emotionally and impulsively when in a positive mood. CHOICE FRAMING AND AFFECT IN DELAY OF GRATIFICATION 185" @default.
• W2179396688 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2179396688 creator A5035896927 @default.
• W2179396688 date "2014-01-01" @default.
• W2179396688 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2179396688 title "Effects of Choice Framing and Affect on Delay of Gratification" @default.
• W2179396688 cites W164964245 @default.
• W2179396688 cites W1971303577 @default.
• W2179396688 cites W1996942465 @default.
• W2179396688 cites W2004704125 @default.
• W2179396688 cites W2005019135 @default.
• W2179396688 cites W2011781973 @default.
• W2179396688 cites W2052532283 @default.
• W2179396688 cites W2053678997 @default.
• W2179396688 cites W2054512083 @default.
• W2179396688 cites W2066373232 @default.
• W2179396688 cites W2082508182 @default.
• W2179396688 cites W2103902275 @default.
• W2179396688 cites W2126953888 @default.
• W2179396688 cites W2157198497 @default.
• W2179396688 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W2179396688 type Work @default.
• W2179396688 sameAs 2179396688 @default.
• W2179396688 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2179396688 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2179396688 hasAuthorship W2179396688A5035896927 @default.
• W2179396688 hasConcept C138496976 @default.
• W2179396688 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2179396688 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W2179396688 hasConcept C169087156 @default.
• W2179396688 hasConcept C205649164 @default.
• W2179396688 hasConcept C2776035688 @default.
• W2179396688 hasConcept C2778772087 @default.
• W2179396688 hasConcept C3019428158 @default.
• W2179396688 hasConcept C46312422 @default.
• W2179396688 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2179396688 hasConceptScore W2179396688C138496976 @default.
• W2179396688 hasConceptScore W2179396688C15744967 @default.
• W2179396688 hasConceptScore W2179396688C166957645 @default.
• W2179396688 hasConceptScore W2179396688C169087156 @default.
• W2179396688 hasConceptScore W2179396688C205649164 @default.
• W2179396688 hasConceptScore W2179396688C2776035688 @default.
• W2179396688 hasConceptScore W2179396688C2778772087 @default.
• W2179396688 hasConceptScore W2179396688C3019428158 @default.
• W2179396688 hasConceptScore W2179396688C46312422 @default.
• W2179396688 hasConceptScore W2179396688C77805123 @default.
• W2179396688 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2179396688 hasLocation W21793966881 @default.
• W2179396688 hasOpenAccess W2179396688 @default.
• W2179396688 hasPrimaryLocation W21793966881 @default.
• W2179396688 hasRelatedWork W1534125023 @default.
• W2179396688 hasRelatedWork W179763876 @default.
• W2179396688 hasRelatedWork W1990364059 @default.
• W2179396688 hasRelatedWork W1996860683 @default.
• W2179396688 hasRelatedWork W2000967736 @default.
• W2179396688 hasRelatedWork W2007214586 @default.
• W2179396688 hasRelatedWork W2032697251 @default.
• W2179396688 hasRelatedWork W2050201821 @default.
• W2179396688 hasRelatedWork W2052052301 @default.
• W2179396688 hasRelatedWork W2054899647 @default.
• W2179396688 hasRelatedWork W2081412187 @default.
• W2179396688 hasRelatedWork W2111769240 @default.
• W2179396688 hasRelatedWork W2264239112 @default.
• W2179396688 hasRelatedWork W2510554048 @default.
• W2179396688 hasRelatedWork W2513867411 @default.
• W2179396688 hasRelatedWork W2580363391 @default.
• W2179396688 hasRelatedWork W273128460 @default.
• W2179396688 hasRelatedWork W2768837414 @default.
• W2179396688 hasRelatedWork W61296902 @default.
• W2179396688 hasRelatedWork W2188646951 @default.
• W2179396688 hasVolume "52" @default.
• W2179396688 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2179396688 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2179396688 magId "2179396688" @default.
• W2179396688 workType "article" @default.