The Importance Of The Marshmallow Experiment

During one’s childhood, time is spent envisioning life as an adult. After all, as one matures, their rights expand to include the ability to drive, find a job and buy a home. I have always wondered what prevented them from being suitable for what adults considered unalienable. This heavily contested question has led criminal justice practitioners and policymakers to question the extent of juvenile rights. Why are adolescents seen as ill-equipped to handle such responsibilities? Should this be available to the collective? In addition to a juvenile’s capability, one must also consider their culpability. Can adolescents be held accountable the same way adults are? These inquiries tend to be justified by the premise that children lack the same

The typical reasoning behind these regulations is that it prevents accidents from inexperienced, underage drivers. This can further derive from the idea that children are not ready to drive because they are incompetent or of a diminished capacity. However, these reasons are rooted in decades of research that range from unruly impulsivity to brain maturity and cognitive abilities. An experiment that encompasses these topics is the Marshmallow Experiment. Throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s, researchers focused on preschoolers who were given a marshmallow and were told that, if they waited until the adult came back, they would receive an extra ‘treat’ as a reward for waiting. This test of delaying gratification for a short period showed mixed results, where some could wait the time for their reward, while others could not delay it for the required time (Mischel, Ebbesen, and Zeiss, 1972). Despite this, individuals walked away with one generalization: an adolescent’s recklessness inspires certainty that children should not drive until they can mature and keep their impulses under control. Following this experiment, other researchers examined these children grow up to understand the extent of impulsivity in relation to their overall development and success. Each subsequent study focused on a different aspect of the individual, whether it was academic

However, as we have seen previously, there is more to understand. Although real estate serves as the one thing children can transfer or negotiate, this is often seen as a transfer kept in a trust until the child is ‘old enough.’ In addition, the guardians are generally given decision-making power for the time being. This issue can be seen in the movie Richie Rich, where a child is left with his parent’s fortune and candy company (IMDb, 1994). The antagonist strives to gain custody of the child to acquire ownership of the estate and become sole owner of the business. While children can hold property in their name, they may still be unduly influenced by adults. This mentality also makes us question a child’s capability of making their own