The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification.
Abstract
Three experiments investigated attentional and cognitive mechanisms in delay of gratification In each study preschool children could obtain a less preferred reward immediately or continue waiting indefinitely for a more preferred but delayed reward Experiment I compared the effects of external and cognitive distraction from the reward objects on the length of time which preschool children waited for the preferred delayed reward before forfeiting it for the sake of the less preferred immediate one. In accord with predictions from an extension of frustrative nonreward theory, children waited much longer for a preferred reward when they were distracted from the rewards than when they attended to them directly Experiment II demonstrated that only certain cognitive events (thinking fun things) served as effective ideational distractors Thinking sad thoughts produced short delay times, as did thinking about the rewards themselves In Experiment III the delayed rewards were not physically available for direct attention during the delay period, and the children's attention to them cogmtively was manipulated by prior instructions While the children waited, cognitions about the rewards significantly reduced, rather than enhanced, the length of their delay of gratification Overall, attentional and cognitive mechanisms which enhanced the salience of the rewards shortened the length of voluntary delay, while distractions from the rewards, overtly or cogmtively, facilitated delay The results permit a remterpretatio n of basic mechanisms in voluntary delay of gratification and self-control
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Emotion regulation: current status and future prospects
Gross, J. J. (2015) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/1047840x.2014.940781 · Cited by 5,229
Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle?
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.247 · Cited by 4,510
The Intuitive Psychologist And His Shortcomings: Distortions in the Attribution Process
Ross, L. (1977) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60357-3 · Cited by 4,170
Delay of gratification in children.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (1989) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.2658056 · Cited by 3,397
Self-citationToward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality
Mischel, W. (1973) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0035002 · Cited by 3,181
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Mischel, W., Ebbesen, E. B., & Raskoff Zeiss, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 1972
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 204-218
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2126953888
- Cited by
- 1,345
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 20.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/h0032198
- The paper
- Mischel, W., Ebbesen, E. B., & Raskoff Zeiss, A. (1972). Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032198
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.