Behavioral and neural correlates of delay of gratification 40 years later

Sackler Institute for Developmental Psychobiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY 10065, USA.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Impact Factor: 9.67). 09/2011; 108(36):14998-5003. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1108561108
Source: PubMed


We examined the neural basis of self-regulation in individuals from a cohort of preschoolers who performed the delay-of-gratification task 4 decades ago. Nearly 60 individuals, now in their mid-forties, were tested on "hot" and "cool" versions of a go/nogo task to assess whether delay of gratification in childhood predicts impulse control abilities and sensitivity to alluring cues (happy faces). Individuals who were less able to delay gratification in preschool and consistently showed low self-control abilities in their twenties and thirties performed more poorly than did high delayers when having to suppress a response to a happy face but not to a neutral or fearful face. This finding suggests that sensitivity to environmental hot cues plays a significant role in individuals' ability to suppress actions toward such stimuli. A subset of these participants (n = 26) underwent functional imaging for the first time to test for biased recruitment of frontostriatal circuitry when required to suppress responses to alluring cues. Whereas the prefrontal cortex differentiated between nogo and go trials to a greater extent in high delayers, the ventral striatum showed exaggerated recruitment in low delayers. Thus, resistance to temptation as measured originally by the delay-of-gratification task is a relatively stable individual difference that predicts reliable biases in frontostriatal circuitries that integrate motivational and control processes.

Download full-text


Available from: Ian H Gotlib,
  • Source
    • "Inhibitory control has been found to predict cognitive abilities and academic performance (Harnishfeger & Bjorklund, 1994). Impaired inhibitory control, on the other hand, is associated with mental health problems such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and drug addictions (Casey et al., 2011; Perez-Edgar et al., 2010). Therefore, understanding the underlying cognitive and neural mechanisms of inhibitory control is important for both educational and clinical purposes. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Mounting evidence suggests that response inhibition involves both proactive and reactive inhibitory control, yet its underlying neural mechanisms remain elusive. In particular, the roles of the right inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) and inferior parietal lobe (IPL) in proactive and reactive inhibitory control are still under debate. This study aimed at examining the causal role of the right IFG and IPL in proactive and reactive inhibitory control, using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and the stop signal task. Twenty-two participants completed three sessions of the stop signal task, under anodal tDCS in the right IFG, the right IPL, or the primary visual cortex (VC; 1.5 mA for 15 min), respectively. The VC stimulation served as the active control condition. The tDCS effect for each condition was calculated as the difference between pre- and post-tDCS performance. Proactive control was indexed by the RT increase for go trials (or preparatory cost), and reactive control by the stop signal RT. Compared to the VC stimulation, anodal stimulation of the right IFG, but not that of the IPL, facilitated both proactive and reactive control. However, the facilitation of reactive control was not mediated by the facilitation of proactive control. Furthermore, tDCS did not affect the intraindividual variability in go RT. These results suggest a causal role of the right IFG, but not the right IPL, in both reactive and proactive inhibitory control.
    Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 10/2015; · 4.09 Impact Factor
    • "Furthermore, studies have shown differential relations with child outcomes, with hot, affective self-regulation tasks being a stronger predictor of children's socio-emotional outcomes, and cool self-regulation tasks being better predictive of children's academic outcomes (Kim et al., 2013; Willoughby et al., 2011). Moreover, several studies indicate that low levels of child affective self-regulation can be seen as an indicator for genetic risk or endophenotype for developing serious behavior problems (Casey et al., 2011; Gagne, Saudino, & Asherson, 2011; Utendale & Hastings, 2011). Because of these stronger relations of hot, affective selfregulation to children's later socio-emotional development, the current study will focus specifically on child affective selfregulation skills. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The current study investigated whether the relation between child care quality and children's socio-emotional behavior depended on children's affective self-regulation skills and gender. Participants were 545 children (Mage=27 months) from 60 center-based child care centers in the Netherlands. Multi-level analyses showed that children with low affective self-regulation skills or who were male demonstrated less teacher-rated social competence when exposed to relatively low quality child care. In addition, children with low affective self-regulation skills also showed more social competence in the case of relatively high quality child care, suggesting mechanisms of differential susceptibility. No main effects of child care quality or interactions were found for teacher- and parent-rated externalizing behavior. These findings emphasize the importance of considering children's affective self-regulation skills and gender in understanding the effects of child care quality. High quality child care can be a means to strengthen children's social development. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Infant behavior & development 07/2015; 40:216-230. DOI:10.1016/j.infbeh.2015.06.009 · 1.34 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Among others, Go/No-Go tasks have been used to investigate inhibitory control (e.g., Cragg, Fox, Nation, Reid, & Anderson, 2009). Converging findings highlight the structural and functional aspects of prefrontal brain regions playing a role in this type of inhibitory control of actions (Casey et al., 1997; Munakata et al., 2011). Often, joint action situations share the same characteristics with Go/No-Go tasks; for instance, turn-taking interactions require refraining from acting when it is the action partner's turn. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: From early in life, young children eagerly engage in social interactions. Yet, they still have difficulties in performing well-coordinated joint actions with others. Adult literature suggests that two processes are important for smooth joint action coordination: action prediction and inhibitory control. The aim of the current study was to disentangle the potential role of these processes in the early development of joint action coordination. Using a simple turn-taking game, we assessed 2½-year-old toddlers' joint action coordination, focusing on timing variability and turn-taking accuracy. In two additional tasks, we examined their action prediction capabilities with an eye-tracking paradigm and examined their inhibitory control capabilities with a classic executive functioning task (gift delay task). We found that individual differences in action prediction and inhibitory action control were distinctly related to the two aspects of joint action coordination. Toddlers who showed more precision in their action predictions were less variable in their action timing during the joint play. Furthermore, toddlers who showed more inhibitory control in an individual context were more accurate in their turn-taking performance during the joint action. On the other hand, no relation between timing variability and inhibitory control or between turn-taking accuracy and action prediction was found. The current results highlight the distinct role of action prediction and inhibitory action control for the quality of joint action coordination in toddlers. Underlying neurocognitive mechanisms and implications for processes involved in joint action coordination in general are discussed. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 07/2015; 139:203-220. DOI:10.1016/j.jecp.2015.06.005 · 3.12 Impact Factor
Show more