Effects of Ethnicity, Income, and Daily Routine on

Delay of Gratification
As a Possible Indicator of Academic Success (GPA)



SARA BERLOWE
NILES NORTH HIGH SCHOOL
Berlowe, S.

1



Table of Contents


Acknowledgements.2

Purpose, Hypothesis, Rationale3

Review of Literature.6

Materials...12

Procedure.13

Experimental Design..14

Charts, Graphs, & Data Analysis.................................................................................15

Conclusion29

Reference List..............................................................................................................32

Appendix...34








Berlowe, S.

2

Acknowledgements


I would like to thank all the subjects who made this experiment possible, and also a big thanks
to the teachers who were more than willing to take class time and promote science by
distributing my survey.

Thanks to my Coach, Mr. Klamm, the AP Chemistry instructor at Niles North, for his great
amount of assistance during my research analysis, and also for his insight on the utilization of
Microsoft Excel.

Thanks to my SIRS (STEM Inquiry and Research) instructor, Ms. Posnock, for her continuous
guidance and advice throughout my researching and experimenting.

Thanks to my Dad, for his undying enthusiasm for my research, and also for his help during the
data analysis process.

Finally, thanks to my family and friends for their continuous support as I researched and
experimented on the phenomenon of delayed gratification.

Berlowe, S.

3

Purpose
The purpose of this experiment is to analyze the effects of Ethnicity, Socioeconomic Status, and
Daily Routine/Household Chaos on ones ability to defer gratification. After, I will determine if
there is a correlation between the ability to defer gratification and academic success (measured
through weighted GPA).

Hypothesis
If one has a lower socioeconomic status/income and an unstable daily routine/great chaos
within their living environment, then they will have a lesser ability to defer
gratification. Additionally, this lesser ability will be used as an indicator of academic success.
(Meaning, they will have a lower grade point average than those with a higher ability to delay
gratification).
***Ethnicity will be measured and evaluated, as well, just not hypothesized.

Rationale
Ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and daily routine will be investigated in this experiment. Once
the subjects with the greater ability to delay are found, then the correlation with grade point
average will be investigated.
Intelligence evidently plays role in deferred gratification due to the higher SAT results of
the subjects who were able to resist temptation. (Lickerman, 2012). Additionally, a study on the
association between academic delay of gratification, future time perspective, and self-regulated
learning found that successful test performance and earning high grades are believed to be
related to valuable educational outcome that are temporally and psychologically
remote. Meaning, individuals who have difficulty understanding the association between delay
of gratification and future time perspective in a learning context primarily have lower academic
outcomes. (Lower delay ability=Lower GPA). There is clearly a correlation between delay
Berlowe, S.

4

tendencies/abilities and academic motivation as well as self-regulated learning. (Bembenulty
and Karabenick, 2004). Another study, which attempted to investigate the delayed gratification
advantages and disadvantages in a college setting, found that that 50% of those who had a
greater frequency of deferring gratification from social sources were more satisfied with their
academic performance in college. On the other hand, only 21% of those deferring less
frequently were satisfied. (Phillips, 1966). Seemingly, there is a correlation between ability to
delay instant gratification and academic success/performance.
Ethnicity has also been linked to an individuals ability to delay gratification. In a study
done by Stanford School of Medicine, Western Americans and Eastern Koreans were compared
on the basis of cultural differences in delay discounting by contrasting behavior and brain
activity. It was found that brain activity in the groups differed greatly, indicating a strong link
between ethnic cultural bearing and impulse control. Western Americans displayed much
greater discounting (they chose immediate reward) than Eastern Koreans (Kim, Sung, &
McClure, 2012). Another article written on the importance of possessing the triple package
(having a superiority complex, IMPULSE CONTROL, and a sense of inferiority) as a vehicle for
success proves statistically that ethnicity plays an immense role in developing this triple
package (and therefore having the ability to delay gratification) (Chua and Rubenfeld, 2014).
Daily Routine/household chaos and socioeconomic status go hand in hand when it
comes to affecting the ability to delay gratification/practice impulse control. According to an
experiment that tested household chaos and control of five year olds, children with a lack of
routine showed a greater disability to delay gratification. (Martin, Razza, & Brooks-Gunn,
2012). According to another study that was investigating the environment of poverty and
multiple stressor exposure, those who self-reported psychological distress caused by
environmental stressors (household chaos) such as substandard housing, noise, and crowding
as well as family turmoil, early childhood separation, and community violence, had greater
difficulties in delaying gratification. (Evans and English, 2002).
Berlowe, S.

5

This same study also provided facts that income level (socioeconomic status) plays an immense
role in exposure to these household stressors as well a role in ability to delay. In fact, lower
income children were unable to delay 32% of the time, whereas middle income children were
only unable to delay 19% of the time. (Evans and English, 2002).

Berlowe, S.

6


Review of Literature


Neuroeconomics is the field of science that combines bioeconomics and behavioral economics,
as well as cognitive and social psychology. Bioeconomics aims to predict human behavior, and
behavioral economics utilizes cognitive psychology to explain human decision
making. Together, these two progenitors combine and form the largely emerging field of
science that utilizes neuroscience techniques in order to study human decision making and the
evaluation of other alternatives. Put simply, neuroeconomics is the study of decision making,
something that is ever present in our lives. (Zak, 2004). Within this field of science is a theory
known as delayed gratification, also called delayed discounting, which measures the tendency
of an individual to be driven to choose an immediate, mediocre gratification, also known as
instant gratification or to wait for a delayed but superior reward. (Weller, Cook, Avsar, & Cox,
2008).
Weighing about three and a half pounds and composed of minute structures, all with
different functions, the human brain is like no other organ. The brain is divided into two cerebral
hemispheres which both consist of four lobes, separated by sulci (grooves), and gyri (bumps).
(Carter, 2009.) The frontal lobe is located at the front of the brain, and its functions involve
reasoning, decision making, planning, speech, movement, emotions, and problem
solving. Located on the top of the brain is the parietal lobe, which controls body sensation such
as touch, pressure, temperature, and pain. Under the other lobes of the brain is the temporal
lobe, whose auditory functions include recognizing sound and memory. Dealing with many
properties of vision is the role of the occipital lobe (Chudler, 1996; Carter, 2009). Evidently, the
human brain is an incredible organ capable of performing endless tasks that even we are, to this
day, unaware of. The mind is still being vigorously studied through neuroscientific
investigations, and advancements and discoveries continue to be made to this
day. Interestingly, some scientists even believe that we will never fully know and understand
Berlowe, S.

7

the extent of the brains capabilities. (Carter, 2009). Nevertheless, one known fact about that
way the brain functions is that not one task is assigned to one brain region or lobe; this would
simply be impossible, considering were talking about an organ that completes an endless
amount of tasks on a daily basis. (Myers, 2011).
In terms of delayed gratification, there is still controversy as to which part of the brain is
active when evaluating and deciding between two alternatives. According to a newer study
performed in the Brain and Spine Institute in Paris, the hippocampus was found to be active
when dealing with visualizing future rewards and fighting the urge for instant gratification. The
hippocampus is primarily known for storing vivid details about memories, but scientists are now
discovering that by using these details and prior knowledge, information about the rewards
(whether it be instant or delayed) can be imagined. In order to further understand the
hippocampus role in delayed gratification, the scientists at this Institute in Paris conducted an
experiment in which the subjects were given two options: a beer today (instant reward) which
was offered visually, or a champagne (delayed reward) which was offered verbally. By means
of some brain imaging technique, the researchers found that that ability to resist the beer and
wait for the superior reward (champagne) spurred activity in the hippocampus. In order to
further this experimentation and really observe the hippocampus function in delayed
gratification, the researcher then performed this same experiment on subjects with Alzheimers
Disease, whose hippocampus had been destroyed, and on subjects with frontotemporal
dementia, whose frontal lobes had been deteriorating (these people were primarily used as a
control group). The scientists found that the subjects with Alzheimer's most often acted on
impulse and chose the instant gratification (beer), therefore concluding that the hippocampus
aids in the ability to resist instant temptation. (Ability to Delay Gratification Linked with Brains
Hippocampus, 2013). Another experiment performed by scientists Joseph Kable and Paul
Glimcher at the Center for Neural Science at New York University in order to determine active
brain regions found that neural regions called the ventral striatum, medial prefrontal cortex and
Berlowe, S.

8

posterior cingulate cortex were active when subjects were determining the value of each
alternative. (Kable and Glimcher, 2007). Obviously, when one is faced with delayed
gratification, there are at least two (or more) alternatives to choose from. On a daily basis, we
are confronted with choices that require us to evaluate these options. Researchers Jamil P.
Bhanji and Jennifer S. Beer from the Department of Psychology at the University of Texas
experimented with mindset influences (what predisposes the choices that we make) and the
neural regions associated with the value of the choice. For example, take food. When deciding
what to eat, we naturally take into consideration taste, health, cost, and numerous other
factors. The scientists tested subjects primarily on health and taste mindsets, and found that
the medial orbitofrontal cortex tracked value in terms of taste, and some regions in the left
lateral prefrontal cortex tracked value in terms of health. Conclusively, these researchers found
that based on the mindset/perspective you have when making a decision, the brain regions that
are active will differ. (Bhanji and Beer, 2011). When it comes to the neuroanatomical structures
involved in decision making (regardless of it involving delayed gratification or not), there are a
couple elemental brain parts that are functioning: the orbitofrontal cortex and the anterior
cingulate. The orbitofrontal cortex (located in the prefrontal cortex) processes, evaluates, and
filters social and emotional information vital to the decision making process. In addition, this
brain structure deals with linking a stimulus with its reinforcing properties. The anterior cingulate
cortex controls appropriate behavior and corrects inappropriate responses. Dr. Melissa Lamar,
from the Psychology Department and Section of Brain Maturation at Kings College in London
discovered the importance of these two regions to decision making through lesioning as well as
neuroimaging techniques. Her studies also suggest that other prefrontal cortex regions are
involved with the decision making process. (Lamar, 2006).
One of the most fundamental experiments ever performed in the area of delayed
gratification is known by most simply as the marshmallow experiment. In 1960, a psychologist
and professor at Stanford University known as Walter Mischel wanted to study the
Berlowe, S.

9

willpower/self-control of humans over the span of a lifetime. This revolutionary yet simple test
was designed in order to test preschoolers ability to resist temptation by having them choose
between an instant gratification (one marshmallow), or wait to be rewarded later on with two
marshmallows. However, this paradigm turned into a much more complex longitudinal study in
which the current social, economic, and health outcomes of these original subjects are being
analyzed. This longitudinal study suggests that overall, the preschoolers with the stronger
ability to delay gratification scored approximately 210 points higher on the SATs (Lickerman,
2012), had better educational achievements, had better stress coping mechanisms, possessed
higher senses of self-worth, and had an overall lower cocaine use. From this test, hundreds of
experiments have been designed in order to test numerous factors and their effects on the
humans ability to delay gratification. (Mischel, Ayduk, Berman, Casey, Gotlib, Jonides, Kross,
Teslovich, Wilson, Zayas, Shoda 2009).
From the hundreds of tests designed to test delayed discounting, a few will soon be
discussed in order to preview the wide range of factors that play a role in our ability to delay
gratification. Through many experiments, it has been proven that trustworthiness/social trust
plays a role in this ability. Most prominent theories focus on the roles of self control,
hypersensitivity to instant rewards, and the cost as well as time spent waiting. This results in
most people thinking that one who is more impulsive and lacks self control is more likely to
choose the instant gratification; however, experiments prove that this is not only the case. After
reading the profiles of three (fictional) characters as well as viewing a picture of these people
and rating them based on trustworthiness, the subjects were to choose between a hypothetical
instant and small amount of money or a delayed reward of a greater amount of money, if being
provided by each of these faces. The researchers from the Department of Psychology and
Neuroscience at the University of Colorado discovered that the subjects were less likely to delay
gratification when they distrusted the reward provider. (Michaelson, Vega, Chatham, &
Munakata, 2013).
Berlowe, S.

10

There have been numerous studies performed involving delayed gratification in order to
enhance the ability to delay. At The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a study was
done in order to see the effects of instrumental vs. moralistic self-verbalizations. First graders
who had chosen to wait 45 min. for a superior reward rather than an instant one were assigned
to four different groups. The first group was to perform instrumental self-verbalizations (i.e. Ill
get another cookie if I wait) and the second group was to perform moralistic self-verbalizations
(i.e. Its good to wait). The next two groups were controls, the first being task irrelevant
verbalizations (i.e. singing) and the second control group simply waiting. The researchers
discovered that the subjects in the instrumental self-verbalizations group waited significantly
longer than those in the moralistic self-verbalizations group. However, both of these groups
waited longer than the subjects in either control group. (Anderson and Moreland, 1982)
According to Walter Mischel (Standard Marshmallow Psychologist), there is a two-step
process when it comes to deferred gratification. A dichotomous choice between an immediately
available but less desired reward and a later but superior reward is the first step. Once the
decision has been made to delay the gratification, the next step occurs, something known as the
bridging of the delay interval. During this stage, attentional factors are applied to the cognitive
processes involved with waiting. This includes distractions, verbalizations, motivations, etc.
(Anderson and Moreland, 1982). Another theory as to why humans struggle with the ability to
defer gratification is known as implicit risk. A delayed reward is often devalued (and the
instant reward is chosen instead) because its receival is less secure than that of the immediate
reward. And so, discounting a delayed reward can be attributed to the natural response to
uncertainty in ones environment. (Green, Fry, & Myerson, 1994).
Neuroeconomics, derived from bioeconomics, which focuses primarily on causes of
behavior, and behavioral economics, which studies evolved psychology after decisions, aims to
discover choices for behavior and decisions. (Zak, 2004). This emerging field of science can
Berlowe, S.

11

be associated with delayed gratification and the reasonings for humans natural tendency to
discount delayed gratification and choose the immediate instant gratification.

Berlowe, S.

12

Materials

1. Create survey to distribute to all subjects. Survey contains a total of 29 questions. 12 of
these questions concern questions regarding delay of gratification. 14 are questions regard
ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and daily routine/household chaos. The final three
questions concern GPA (weighted and unweighted), teacher, and class level.

2. 20 Freshman Biology Classes in which to distribute the survey. The class levels that took
the survey were ELL, 13-22, 12-22 (Regulars), and 11-21 (Honors).

3. Computer program through which data analysis can be done. Microsoft Excel was utilized.
***See appendix for survey.

Berlowe, S.

13

Procedure

1. Create survey that investigates the effects of ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and daily
routine/household chaos on ones ability to defer gratification. After, investigate
correlation between ability to delay (which will be acquired from the above three factors)
and weighted grade point average.

2. Send form to twenty of the designated levels of Freshman Biology Classes.

3. Analyze the results through Microsoft Excel Software.

Berlowe, S.

14

Experimental Design

1. Independent Variable(s): Ethnicity, Socioeconomic Status, Daily Routine/Household
Chaos, and weighted GPA of Student.

2. Dependent Variable(s): Ability to Delay Gratification; Correlation between ability to delay
and GPA of student.

3. Constant(s): Same survey distributed to all classes.

4. Control Group: None. (Comparative study of 20 classes of students.)

5. Experimental Error: Sampling error could have occurred. However, this was avoided by
use of representative sample; a wide range of class levels were given the survey in
order to get an accurate representation of the population. Measurement error (i.e. poorly
worded questions, etc.) could have occurred; however, the survey was reviewed multiple
times in order to reduce this type of error. Lastly, the environment in which the survey
was completed by the students could have differed in each of the classrooms. In order
to receive accurate results, personal questions (i.e. GPA, questions regarding family life
and income, etc.) were placed at the end of the survey. (Regardless, survey was still
completely anonymous.)

Berlowe, S.

15

Results & Data Analysis


According to the data, there is a noticeable correlation between ethnicity and ones ability to delay, as
well as grade point average. As can be seen from the data in the above graph, Asians (1.742) and
Caucasians (1.745) had a greater ability to defer gratification compared to those of the African American
(1.682) and Hispanic students (1.678). From the bottom graph as well, one can see that Asians (3.330)
and Caucasians (3.342) had significantly higher GPAs than African Americans (2.59) and Hispanics
(2.762). Both this data and the graphs that follow show the trend that in the case of ethnicity, a greater
ability to delay directly correlates with a higher GPA.
1.65
1.67
1.69
1.71
1.73
1.75
Asian African
American
Caucasian Hispanic Other
Ethnicity and Ability to Delay
2.25
2.45
2.65
2.85
3.05
3.25
3.45
Asian African
American
Caucasian Hispanic Other
Ethnicity and GPA
ETHNICITY OVERALL AVERAGE ABILITY TO
DELAY
AVERAGE WEIGHTED GPA
Asian 1.741909 3.330291
African American 1.681818 2.59
Caucasian 1.745704 3.342083
Hispanic 1.678922 2.762813
Other 1.684524 3.107619
Berlowe, S.

16

Mother Born in America OVERALL AVERAGE ABILITY TO
DELAY
AVERAGE WEIGHTED GPA
Mother born in America 1.730241 3.265435
Mother not born in America 1.720149 3.1579



The data in both cases shows that there is no appreciable difference based on whether the students
mother was born in America or not. Their abilities to delay (1.73 and 1.72) were nearly identical, as were
their weighted GPAs (3.27 and 3.16).
1.65
1.7
1.75
Mother born in America Mother not born in
America
Mother Born in America and
Ability to Delay
2.25
2.45
2.65
2.85
3.05
3.25
3.45
Mother born in America Mother not born in
America
Mother Born in America and GPA
Berlowe, S.

17

Father Born in America OVERALL AVERAGE ABILITY TO
DELAY
AVERAGE WEIGHTED GPA
Father Born in America 1.722222 3.231412
Father Not Born in America 1.723958 3.175507





Here too, the data in both cases shows that there is no appreciable difference based on whether the
students father was born in America or not. Their abilities to delay (1.72 and 1.72) were identical, and
their weighted GPAs were almost identical, as well (3.23 and 3.18).
1.65
1.7
1.75
Father Born in America Father Not Born in
America
Father Born in America and Ability to
Delay
2.25
2.45
2.65
2.85
3.05
3.25
3.45
Father Born in America Father Not Born in
America
Father Born in America and GPA
Berlowe, S.

18

Student Born in America OVERALL AVERAGE ABILITY TO
DELAY
AVERAGE WEIGHTED GPA
Student born in America 1.730208 3.18188
Student not born in America 1.695402 3.231724




According to the data, there was a considerable correlation between the student being born in America
and their ability to defer gratification. Those who were born in America had an average ability of 1.730
to delay gratification, whereas those not born in America had a lesser ability of 1.695. In regards to
GPA, there was no significant correlation between being born in America and weighted GPA. Thus,
there is no direct correlation between ability to delay and GPA with respect to country of origin.

2.25
2.45
2.65
2.85
3.05
3.25
3.45
Student born in America Student not born in
America
Student Born in America and GPA
1.67
1.69
1.71
1.73
1.75
Student born in America Student not born in
America
Student Born in America and Ability
to Delay
Berlowe, S.

19

Recipient of Free/Reduced
Lunch
OVERALL AVERAGE ABILITY TO
DELAY
AVERAGE WEIGHTED GPA
Not Recipient of F/R Lunch 1.739097 3.334834
Recipient of F/R Lunch 1.683532 2.819136



From the graph above, a substantial correlation can be seen between being a recipient of free or
reduced lunch and the ability to delay gratification. Those who did not receive discounted/free meals
had an average ability to defer gratification of 1.739, whereas those who did receive discounted only
had an average ability to delay of 1.684. In terms of weighted GPA, there was also a noteworthy
correlation. Those without discounted meals had an average GPA of 3.35, and those with reduced
prices had a lower average of 2.819. When one looks at the trends in the two charts above, it can be
inferred that there is a direct correlation between receiving discounted lunches and weighted GPA.

1.65
1.7
1.75
Not Recipient of F/R
Lunch
Recipient of F/R Lunch
Recipient of Free/Reduced Lunch and
Ability to Delay
2.25
2.75
3.25
Not Recipient of F/R
Lunch
Recipient of F/R Lunch
Recipient of Free/Reduced Lunch and
GPA
Berlowe, S.

20

Owned or Rented Living Space OVERALL AVERAGE ABILITY TO
DELAY
AVERAGE WEIGHTED GPA
Own 1.737923 3.367512
Rent 1.690476 2.777701



From the data above, one can see a correlation between owning versus renting a home and ability to
delay and between weighted GPA. Those who owned their homes had an average of 1.738 for ability to
delay and an average of 3.368 for weighted GPA. Those who rented their homes, however, had
significantly lower abilities to delay and significantly lower GPAs (1.690 and 2.777). Thus, from the
noticeable trends in the two charts above, ability to delay and GPA are directly correlated when it comes
to renting and owning the living space.
1.65
1.7
1.75
Own Rent
Rent vs. Own Home and Ability to
Delay
2.25
2.45
2.65
2.85
3.05
3.25
3.45
Own Rent
Rent vs. Own and GPA
Berlowe, S.

21


Home or Apartment OVERALL AVERAGE ABILITY TO
DELAY
AVERAGE WEIGHTED GPA
Home 1.733631 3.318649
Apartment 1.692568 2.789429



According to the data, there was a considerable correlation between the student living in an apartment
or home and their ability to defer gratification. Those living in a home had an average ability of 1.734 to
delay gratification, whereas those living in an apartment had a lesser ability of 1.693. In regards to GPA,
those living in homes had an average GPA of 3.319, and those living in apartments a lower average of
2.789. Thus, there is evidently a direct correlation between ability to delay and weighted GPA with
respect to the students home environment.

1.66
1.68
1.7
1.72
1.74
Home Apartment
Apartment vs. Home and Ability to
Delay
2.25
2.45
2.65
2.85
3.05
3.25
3.45
Home Apartment
Apartment vs. Home and GPA
Berlowe, S.

22

Number of Siblings OVERALL AVERAGE ABILITY TO
DELAY
AVERAGE WEIGHTED GPA
Zero 1.73913 2.982727
One 1.730971 3.414206
Two 1.70679 3.165063
Three or More 1.723881 2.863846



According to this data, the amount of siblings one has somewhat correlates with their ability to delay,
and same goes with the correlation to weighted GPA. In terms of ability to delay, those with zero
siblings had an average ability of 1.739, those with one sibling 1.731, and those with two siblings 1.707.
As the number of siblings increased, the ability decreased, except for those with three or more siblings.
In terms of GPA, there was no evident correlation; those with one sibling had a higher average than
those with zero. However, those with zero did score higher than those with three or more siblings.
Based on looking at the trends in these two graphs above, there is no significant correlation between
ability to delay and GPA with respect to number of siblings.

1.66
1.68
1.7
1.72
1.74
Zero One Two Three or More
Siblings and Ability to Delay
2.25
2.45
2.65
2.85
3.05
3.25
3.45
Zero One Two Three or More
Siblings and GPA
Berlowe, S.

23


Household Stability OVERALL AVERAGE ABILITY TO
DELAY
AVERAGE WEIGHTED GPA
Both Parents 1.727041 3.302615
One Parent 1.70283 2.802245
Remarried 1.7125 3.025789
Other 1.744253 3.213448



According to the data, household stability does correlate with ability to delay, as well as with weighted
GPA. The higher ability to delay went from students with both parents (1.727), to students with
remarried parents (1.713), and lastly, to students with only one parent (1.703). In regards to household
stability, the same exact pattern occurred. The highest average GPA went from students with both
parents (3.303), to students with remarried parents (3.026), and lastly, to students with only one parent
(2.802). Based on the trends in the above graphs, ability to delay and weighted GPA directly correlate
with respect to household stability.
1.66
1.68
1.7
1.72
1.74
1.76
Both Parents One Parent Remarried Other
Household Stability and Ability to
Delay
2.25
2.45
2.65
2.85
3.05
3.25
3.45
Both Parents One Parent Remarried Other
Household Stability and GPA
Berlowe, S.

24

Divorce OVERALL AVERAGE ABILITY TO
DELAY
AVERAGE WEIGHTED GPA
Parents Not Divorced 1.730349 3.290658
Parents Divorced 1.700483 2.839531



Based on the collected data, divorce in the students family correlates substantially with both their
ability to delay as well as their weighted GPA. Those with parents who were not divorced had an
average ability to delay of 1.730 and an average weighted GPA of 3.291. Those with parents who were
divorced had an average ability to delay of only 1.700 and an average GPA of only 2.840. Evidently,
based on the above charts and graphs, there is therefore a direct correlation between ability to delay
and weighted GPA with respect to divorce in the students family.

1.66
1.68
1.7
1.72
1.74
Parents Not Divorced Parents Divorced
Divorce and Ability to Delay
2.25
2.45
2.65
2.85
3.05
3.25
3.45
Parents Not Divorced Parents Divorced
Divorce and GPA
Berlowe, S.

25

Shared Time OVERALL AVERAGE ABILITY TO
DELAY
AVERAGE WEIGHTED GPA
Parents are Together 1.734145 3.3013
Don't Share Time 1.700758 2.668537
Share Time 1.672619 3.085714



According to the data, one can see that there is a noteworthy correlation between whether or not the
student shares time with each parent (if divorced) and ability to delay. Those who do not share time
had an average delaying ability of 1.701, whereas those who do share time had a lower average of
1.673. Additionally, those whose parents are together had the highest delaying ability of all: 1.734.
When it comes to the effects of sharing time on GPA, there is no significant correlation, aside from the
students with parents who are together, whose average GPA (3.301) is significantly higher than both the
students who do and do not share time. There is no correlation between ability to delay and weighted
GPA, aside from the students whose parents are still together, who had the highest ability to delay and
the highest GPA.
1.64
1.66
1.68
1.7
1.72
1.74
Parents are
Together
Don't Share Time Share Time
Shared Time and Ability to Delay
2.25
2.45
2.65
2.85
3.05
3.25
3.45
Parents are
Together
Don't Share Time Share Time
Shared Time and GPA
Berlowe, S.

26

Consistency of Routine OVERALL AVERAGE ABILITY TO
DELAY
AVERAGE WEIGHTED GPA
One 1.718553 3.293269
Two 1.769231 3.311553
Three 1.689498 3.001857
Four 1.683333 3.2544
Five 1.722222 2.753529



According to the data, there is no notable correlation between ability to delay and consistency of daily
routine. However, there is somewhat of a correlation between GPA and routine consistency. Those
who had more consistent routines (scored as 1 and 2) had higher GPAs. Also, when comparing the GPAs
of those who rated their routine most consistent (1) versus those who rated it least consistent (5), the
students with more consistent routines had a much higher GPA average (3.293 vs. 2.754). However, a
four was also an indication of a moderately high GPA average, therefore throwing off the correlation.
There is no direct correlation based on these trends between GPA and ability to delay gratification.
1.66
1.71
1.76
1.81
One Two Three Four Five
Consistency of Daily Routine
(1=Most Stable) and Ability to Delay
2.25
2.45
2.65
2.85
3.05
3.25
3.45
One Two Three Four Five
Consistency of Daily Routine and GPA
Berlowe, S.

27

T.V. Hours on School Night OVERALL AVERAGE ABILITY TO
DELAY
AVERAGE WEIGHTED GPA
One 1.723958 3.335132
Two 1.74435 2.983448
Three 1.705882 2.7475
Three or more 1.688889 2.91931



According to the data, there is somewhat of a correlation between the students hours of television on
school nights and its effect on delaying ability. Those who had watched about one hour of T.V. had a
greater average ability to delay compared to the average ability of those who watched three or more
hours (1.724 vs. 1.689). When it comes to the correlation between hours of television and weighted
GPA, again, there was somewhat of a correlation. Those who watched one hour of T.V. on school nights
had a higher average GPA (3.335) than the average GPA of those who watched two hours (2.983) and
compared to those who watched three hours (2.748). There was no correlation between ability to delay
and weighted GPA, however.
1.66
1.68
1.7
1.72
1.74
1.76
One Two Three Three or
more
T.V. Hours on School Night and Ability
to Delay
2.25
2.45
2.65
2.85
3.05
3.25
3.45
One Two Three Three or more
T.V. Hours on School Night and GPA
Berlowe, S.

28

T.V. Hours on Weekend Night OVERALL AVERAGE ABILITY TO
DELAY
AVERAGE WEIGHTED GPA
One 1.711905 3.218841
Two 1.689153 3.325397
Three 1.771212 3.181296
Three or more 1.726515 3.100094



According to the data collected, there is no significant correlation between the students hours of
television on weekend nights and its effect on delaying ability. In terms of GPA, there is no appreciable
difference based on the hours of television watched on weekends and its effect on weighted GPA.
There is therefore no correlation between ability to delay and weighted GPA with respect to hours of
television watched on weekend nights.



1.6
1.65
1.7
1.75
1.8
One Two Three Three or
more
T.V. Hours on Weekend Night and
Ability to Delay
2.25
2.75
3.25
One Two Three Three or
more
T.V. Hours on Weekend Night and
GPA
Berlowe, S.

29



Conclusion
I researched and performed this Delayed Gratification experiment in order to see the
effects of Ethnicity, Socioeconomic Status, and Daily Routine/Household Chaos on ones ability
to delay gratification. After, I was going to determine the correlation (if present) between the
ability to delay gratification and academic success (weighted GPA). I hypothesized that that
those with a lower socioeconomic status and a more inconsistent routine would have a lesser
ability to delay gratification. I thought this way because based on prior research performed,
income levels and household chaos (leading to presence of societal stressors) seemed to
greatly affect ones ability to put off instant gratification.
Based on the collected results and data after experimenting, it can be seen that my
hypothesis was mostly supported. However, in some areas it was refuted, as well. Conclusions
will now be drawn on each of the four factors: Ethnicity, Income, Daily Routine/Household
Chaos, and finally, weighted GPA.
I did not hypothesize in regards to Ethnicity. However, based on prior research, I knew it
was an active factor when it comes to ability to delay, and I therefore used it as one of the
factors to be investigated. From the results collected and from the charts and graphs, it can be
inferred that Ethnicity contributes a large role with respect to ability to defer. Caucasians and
Asians had significantly higher GPAs as well as significantly higher abilities to delay compared
to those of African Americans and Hispanics. Interestingly, however, the mother and fathers
birthplace had no significant effect on the students ability to delay or on their weighted GPA.
However, the actual individuals birthplace did affect their ability to delay, but not their GPA.
Therefore, with respect to ethnicity, there is a direct correlation to ability to delay as well as
GPA, thus giving us insight into the role of ethnicity in the educational system.
Berlowe, S.

30

With respect to socioeconomic status (income levels), my hypothesis was completely
supported. Those who received free or reduced lunch at school, who rented their living spaces,
and who lived in apartments had lower average abilities to delay as well as lower weighted
GPAs. I think that this was the case because those who received free/reduced lunch, etc. may
have been exposed to more societal stressors (according to prior research), thus causing them
to have impaired future time perspectives and higher tendencies to choose the immediate
reward.
With respect to daily routine (amount of siblings, household stability, divorce, shared
time, consistency of daily routine, and T.V. hours), my hypothesis was supported in some areas
and refuted in others. In terms of both household stability and divorced parents, both cases
showed that students with non-divorced parents and both parents present had the highest
GPAs and the highest delay abilities. In terms of shared time and ability to delay, those whose
parents were together or who did not share time between homes had a better delay ability
compared to that of students who did share time. This may be the case because there was
less fluctuation in their daily routine, which, according to research, is a cause of greater ability to
delay. In terms of shared time, those whose parents were together and who did share time had
higher average GPAs. In respect to the consistency of daily routine aspect, students self-
selection of delay routine consistency in the survey led to inaccuracies in the data. With respect
to ability to delay, those who rated their routine a two scored higher than those who rated it a
one, thus countering the consistent routine theory. With respect to routine consistency and
GPA, those who rated their routines as one or two had higher GPAs compared to those who
rated it as three or five, but not four. In order to next time accurately collect this data, I would,
instead of a general scale, give scenarios varying in consistency that the students would select
as most similar to their daily routines. In general, households that the data deemed more stable
and consistent had higher abilities to delay gratification. Overall, regarding these cases that did
Berlowe, S.

31

suggest more consistent routines as a basis for greater delaying ability, this may be the case
because a consistent routine causes the student to be exposed to less environmental stressors,
and thus a greater delay ability.
Once this data was collected, my final objective was to determine if there was a
correlation between overall delaying ability and weighted GPA. In terms of ethnicity and
socioeconomic status, there was a correlation between these two factors. Finally, in terms of
daily routine, there were correlations in some areas, but not in others.
For potential future experimentation, there are a couple ways to ameliorate this test. I
can rewrite this survey using more specific options instead of scales. For example, with respect
to the routine consistency question, I will give varying scenarios that are more specific and
therefore will collect more accurate data. In terms of the delay gratification questions, I will,
instead of giving only two options, give multiple choices that have more variation. By improving
and specifying the survey, the data collection and interpretation process will be even more
accurate, thus enabling even more conclusions to be drawn.
From my experimentation, one can see the importance of the future time
perspective/delaying gratification ability, whose presence can be based on certain factors in the
students life, and see how this affects academic success. By determining and understanding
these effects, one can gain insight into the educational system.

Berlowe, S.

32

References List
Ability To Delay Gratification Linked With Brains Hippocampus. (1920, October 1020). Huffington Post.
Retrieved January 8, 2014, fromhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/24/delay-gratification-brain-
hippocampus_n_4144613.html
Ability to Delay Gratification May be Linked to Social Trust, New CU-Boulder Study Finds.
(2013).University of Colorado Boulder. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2013/09/04/ability-delay-gratification-may-be-
linked-social-trust-new-cu-boulder-study
Bhanji, J. P., & Beer, J. S. (2012). Taking a different perspective: Mindset influences neural regions that
represent value and choice. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(7), 782793.
doi:10.1093/scan/nsr062
Carter, R. (2009). The Human Brain Book (First American ed.,). New York, NY:DK Publishing.
Chua, A., & Rubenfeld, J. (2014). What drives success?. Sunday Review.
Chudler, E. H. (1996). Lobes of the brain. In Neuroscience For Kids`. Retrieved November 7, 2012, from
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/lobe.html
Derek L. Phillips Social Problems , Vol. 13, No. 3 (Winter, 1966) , pp. 333-343
Gary W. Evans and Kimberly English, Child Development, Vol. 73, No. 4 (Jul. - Aug., 2002) , pp. 1238-1248
Hfer Bembenutty and Stuart A. Karabenick Educational Psychology Review , Vol. 16, No. 1, Effects of Time
Perspective on Student Motivation. Part 1 (2004) , pp. 35-57, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23363946
Kable, J. W., & Glimcher, P. W. (2007). The neural correlates of subjective value during
intertemporal choice.Nature neuroscience,10(12), 16251633. doi:10.1038/nn2007
Kim, B., Sung, Y. S., & McClure, S. M. (2012). The neural basis of cultural differences in delay discounting.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1589), 650656.
doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0292
Leonard Green, Astrid F. Fry and Joel Myerson, Psychological Science , Vol. 5, No. 1 (Jan., 1994) , pp. 33-
36, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40062338
Li-Grining, C. P. (2007). Effortful control among low-income preschoolers in three cities: Stability,
change, and individual differences.Developmental psychology,43(1), 208221.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.1.208
Martin, A., Razza, R., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2012). Specifying the Links Between Household Chaos and
Preschool Childrens Development. Early child development and care,182(10), 12471263.
doi:10.1080/03004430.2011.605522
Melissa, L. (2006). Neuroscience and Decision Making.Triarchy Press. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.triarchypress.com/pages/articles/Neuroscience_and_Decision_Making.pdf
Berlowe, S.

33

Michaelson, L., Vega, A. de la, Chatham, C. H., & Munakata, Y. (2013). Delaying gratification depends on
social trust. Frontiers in Cognition, 4, 355. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00355
Mischel, W., Ayduk, O., Berman, M. G., Casey, B. J., Gotlib, I. H., Jonides, J., Shoda, Y. (2011).
Willpower over the life span: decomposing self-regulation. Social Cognitive and Affective
Neuroscience,6(2), 252256. doi:10.1093/scan/nsq081
Myers, D. (2011). Myers' Psychology for AP. New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
The Power Of Delaying Gratification. (n.d.). Retrieved January 9, 2014,
fromhttp://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/happiness-in-world/201207/the-power-delaying-gratification
Weller, R. E., Cook, E. W., 3rd, Avsar, K. B., & Cox, J. E. (2008). Obese women show greater delay
discounting than healthy-weight women.Appetite, 51(3), 563569. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2008.04.010
William H. Anderson Jr. and Kevin L. Moreland, Merrill-Palmer Quarterly (1982-) , Vol. 28, No. 2 (April 1982),
pp. 291-296, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23086081
Zak, P. J. (2004). Neuroeconomics.Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences,359(1451), 1737
1748.Retrieved fromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4142158