Walter Mischel: Biography Of This Psychologist And Researcher
Walter Mischel (1930-2018) was a psychologist of Austrian origin who developed important research on stimulus control, delayed reinforcement and self-control, especially in childhood and adolescence. He is considered one of the leading clinical psychologists in the cognitive behavioral approach and one of the most cited authors of the 20th century.
We’ll see now a biography of Walter Mischel as well as some of his main contributions to psychology.
Walter Mischel: life and work of this clinical psychologist
Walter Mischel was born on February 22, 1930 in Vienna, Austria. Eight years later, he and his family moved to the United States due to the recent Nazi occupation. He was the youngest of three brothers, children of businessman Salomón Mischel and Lola Leah Schreck who was a housewife.
Mischel grew up in Brooklyn, New York since 1940, where he attended high school, as well as college at the state university, while working in his family’s business. Despite having begun his studies in the medical area, Mischel ended up becoming interested in psychology, especially its clinical application.
Thus, in 1956, Mischel earned a doctorate degree in clinical psychology from Ohio State University, where he trained under one of the most recognized psychologists in the cognitive behavioral clinic, George Kelly. Likewise, Julian Rotter, a psychologist remembered for laying the foundations for locus of control theories, was decisive in his professional training.
Thereafter he served for two years as a professor and researcher at the University of Colorado, for two years at Harvard University, and for the same time at Stanford University.
In 1983, Mischel was a professor at Columbia University, and in 1991 he was elected as a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Later, in 2004, he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences, and From 2007 to 2008 he was president of the Association for Psychological Science
Finally, in 2011 he received the Grawemeyer Psychology Prize from the University of Louisville, for his work in stimulus control, delayed reinforcement, self-control, and willpower. In 2002, Mischel was classified by the American Psychological Association in 25th place on the list of the most cited psychologists in this discipline during the 20th century.
The marshmallow experiment (Marshmallow Test)
In the late 1960s, Mischel conducted an experiment in which he wanted to observe the effects of delayed reinforcement, also called delayed gratification
The latter is the ability to refrain from receiving a rewarding item immediately, in order to receive another more desired item even though it involves a longer wait. We will see below what this experiment was about and the implications it had for cognitive-behavioral psychology.
Does self-control influence learning?
This experiment consisted of the following: boys and girls between four and six years old were selected, and they were taken to a room where there was only a table and a chair. On the table there was a marshmallow, oreo cookie, or some other candy previously selected by the child.
The researchers left the child alone in the room, after giving him the following options: ring a bell to call the researcher and eat the candy upon his return, or wait until the researcher’s voluntary return and receive one more candy. Evidently, the second option implied an immediate rewarding experience, while the second implied a delayed rewarding experience. For this reason, the terms “delayed gratification” or “delayed reinforcement” are used.
As a result of the experiment, some children decided to wait up to 20 minutes and receive two treats instead of one. These were called “high retarders.” Besides, To endure the wait, they developed several distraction techniques, such as covering your eyes with your hands, singing or shouting, looking around the chair to avoid turning towards the marshmallow, among others. On the other hand, other children decided to avoid the long wait (they waited less than 1 minute to call the researcher) and preferred to eat just one. The latter were called “low retarders.”
But the experiment did not end there. Under a longitudinal design, which allowed us to know the effects of waiting over time, the same children (now adolescents) were studied again. In this new study, a relationship was found between the ability to wait (delayed reinforcement) and greater school performance in numerical terms (that is, better scores or grades on academic tests). Similarly, delayed gratification was linked to greater resistance to substance abuse and greater satisfaction in interpersonal relationships.
Not only that, but subsequent research with the same participants has linked high delayed reinforcement with greater activity in the prefrontal cortex, which is the anterior part of the brain’s frontal lobes and is related to complex planning, decision making, and social adaptation.
Broadly speaking, these studies conclude that self-control and willpower are one of the keys to academic and personal achievements. The marshmallow test or experiment has subsequently been replicated with some variants that allow in-depth analysis of the mechanisms of self-control and its implications for learning.
Likewise, they have allowed us to analyze some dilemmas and complexities of self-control related to the immediate pleasures offered by impulsive decisions, and the difficulties that arise when prolonged waits are not finally gratified.
Some gender differences in the Marshmallow Test
Another question that has been possible to analyze through this experiment and some of its replicas is The cultural interpretation of delayed gratification based on gender
When a girl decided to wait to receive gratification, this behavior was interpreted by adults as “great intellectual capacity”, “high competence”, “ingenuity”. On the other hand, those who opted for immediate gratification were understood as “emotionally labile”, “moody” or “complaining” (Conti, 2018).
On the other hand, children who delayed gratification were described as “shy”, “reserved”, “obedient” or “eager”, while those who decided to obtain reinforcement immediately were described as “vital”, “energetic”, “animated”, “self-affirming” (ibid.).
The above may be a reflection of the values associated with self-control within American culture. For example, it may indicate a greater acceptance of impulsivity among children, and greater approval of tolerant behaviors among girls The latter can generate guidelines to explain differentially reinforced learning and behavioral patterns depending on gender.
