儿童的偶发未来思维和延迟满足:想象回报是否有用?

IF 2.6 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL British Journal of Developmental Psychology Pub Date : 2024-02-20 DOI:10.1111/bjdp.12477
Ciarán Canning, Teresa McCormack, Eirinn Clifford, Ciara Donnelly, Erinn Duffy, Samuel Hickland, Agnieszka J. Graham
{"title":"儿童的偶发未来思维和延迟满足:想象回报是否有用?","authors":"Ciarán Canning,&nbsp;Teresa McCormack,&nbsp;Eirinn Clifford,&nbsp;Ciara Donnelly,&nbsp;Erinn Duffy,&nbsp;Samuel Hickland,&nbsp;Agnieszka J. Graham","doi":"10.1111/bjdp.12477","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Previous studies have failed to show an effect of episodic future thinking (EFT) on children's delay of gratification (DoG), contrasting strikingly with adult findings. Recent findings from a sample of 8–11-year-old children by Canning et al. (<i>J. Exp. Child Psychol.</i>, <i>228</i>, 2023, 105618) indicate that EFT cueing is not effective compared to a no-cue control even when it is reward related. Canning et al. suggest children's DoG performance, unlike that of adults, may be negatively affected by the cognitive load of cueing, but this leaves unexplained why EFT reward-related cueing produced significantly better performance than cueing that did not involve EFT in their study. The current study attempted to further delineate the importance of linking future thinking cues to rewards. A reward-related EFT condition was compared to a reward-unrelated EFT condition and a no-cue control on a delay choice task. No significant differences were observed between the three conditions. This suggests that even reward-related future thinking is ineffective at improving children's delayed gratification. Further research is needed to determine why children struggle to benefit from EFT cues.</p>","PeriodicalId":51418,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Developmental Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bjdp.12477","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Episodic future thinking and delay of gratification in children: Is imagining reward pay-off helpful?\",\"authors\":\"Ciarán Canning,&nbsp;Teresa McCormack,&nbsp;Eirinn Clifford,&nbsp;Ciara Donnelly,&nbsp;Erinn Duffy,&nbsp;Samuel Hickland,&nbsp;Agnieszka J. Graham\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bjdp.12477\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Previous studies have failed to show an effect of episodic future thinking (EFT) on children's delay of gratification (DoG), contrasting strikingly with adult findings. Recent findings from a sample of 8–11-year-old children by Canning et al. (<i>J. Exp. Child Psychol.</i>, <i>228</i>, 2023, 105618) indicate that EFT cueing is not effective compared to a no-cue control even when it is reward related. Canning et al. suggest children's DoG performance, unlike that of adults, may be negatively affected by the cognitive load of cueing, but this leaves unexplained why EFT reward-related cueing produced significantly better performance than cueing that did not involve EFT in their study. The current study attempted to further delineate the importance of linking future thinking cues to rewards. A reward-related EFT condition was compared to a reward-unrelated EFT condition and a no-cue control on a delay choice task. No significant differences were observed between the three conditions. This suggests that even reward-related future thinking is ineffective at improving children's delayed gratification. Further research is needed to determine why children struggle to benefit from EFT cues.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51418,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Developmental Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bjdp.12477\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Developmental Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjdp.12477\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Developmental Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjdp.12477","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

以往的研究未能显示外显未来思维(EFT)对儿童延迟满足(DoG)的影响,这与成人的研究结果形成了鲜明对比。最近,Canning 等人从 8-11 岁儿童样本中得出的最新研究结果(《儿童心理学杂志》,228, 2023, 105618)表明,与无提示对照组相比,EFT 提示即使与奖励有关也无效。Canning等人认为,与成人不同,儿童的DoG表现可能会受到提示认知负荷的负面影响,但这无法解释为什么在他们的研究中,与奖励相关的EFT提示会比不涉及EFT的提示产生明显更好的表现。本研究试图进一步阐明将未来思维线索与奖励联系起来的重要性。在延迟选择任务中,将与奖励相关的EFT条件与与奖励无关的EFT条件和无提示对照进行了比较。在这三种条件之间没有观察到明显的差异。这表明,即使是与奖励相关的未来思维也无法有效改善儿童的延迟满足能力。还需要进一步研究,以确定为什么儿童难以从 EFT 提示中获益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Episodic future thinking and delay of gratification in children: Is imagining reward pay-off helpful?

Previous studies have failed to show an effect of episodic future thinking (EFT) on children's delay of gratification (DoG), contrasting strikingly with adult findings. Recent findings from a sample of 8–11-year-old children by Canning et al. (J. Exp. Child Psychol., 228, 2023, 105618) indicate that EFT cueing is not effective compared to a no-cue control even when it is reward related. Canning et al. suggest children's DoG performance, unlike that of adults, may be negatively affected by the cognitive load of cueing, but this leaves unexplained why EFT reward-related cueing produced significantly better performance than cueing that did not involve EFT in their study. The current study attempted to further delineate the importance of linking future thinking cues to rewards. A reward-related EFT condition was compared to a reward-unrelated EFT condition and a no-cue control on a delay choice task. No significant differences were observed between the three conditions. This suggests that even reward-related future thinking is ineffective at improving children's delayed gratification. Further research is needed to determine why children struggle to benefit from EFT cues.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
British Journal of Developmental Psychology
British Journal of Developmental Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Developmental Psychology publishes full-length, empirical, conceptual, review and discussion papers, as well as brief reports, in all of the following areas: - motor, perceptual, cognitive, social and emotional development in infancy; - social, emotional and personality development in childhood, adolescence and adulthood; - cognitive and socio-cognitive development in childhood, adolescence and adulthood, including the development of language, mathematics, theory of mind, drawings, spatial cognition, biological and societal understanding; - atypical development, including developmental disorders, learning difficulties/disabilities and sensory impairments;
期刊最新文献
Emotion understanding among institutionalized preschool children in India: A visual-based approach. Menstruation experiences and its association with psychological distress among school-going adolescent girls of Nepal: A cross-sectional study. Attrition in a large-scale habituation task administered at home. The influence of valence and relationship on children's verification of gossip. The Joint Media Engagement Scale (JMES): An instrument for measuring shared media use with children aged 1 to 5 years old.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1