A famous marshmallow study has taken a new twist, as new research conducted at Cornell University used the concept to test the theory of self-control and its effects on a person’s overall well-being.

In the late 1960s, researchers tested the willpower of 4-year-olds by individually placing them in a room in front of a marshmallow, according to a Time magazine article published online Sept. 6.

The children were told that if they didn’t eat the marshmallow for 15 minutes, they would receive two instead of one. The study followed these children into adulthood and found that those who waited did better on their SAT scores and were significantly less likely to have behavioral problems such as drug addiction or obesity by the time they entered high school, according to the article.

Instead of marshmallows and children, the latest study conducted at Cornell used computer tasks and adults to determine if those who could control internal impulses were also more successful in life.

The more recent study conducted by B.J. Casey, a professor of developmental psychobiology at Cornell, used the same principles with individuals in their 40s, according to the Time article.

The purpose was to find out whether the kids who couldn’t wait to get the treat — the ‘low delayers’ — would possess an inability to show self-control in adulthood, or whether their self-discipline failed only in certain, emotionally charged cases, according to the Time article.

The scientists also wanted to see if the low-delaying adults showed differences in brain activity compared with those who had greater self-control, according to the article.

Two types of computer tests were involved in the study. In one test, the participants had to press a button when they saw a picture of either a female or male face bearing a neutral expression.

Those who were first asked to identify male faces were switched to identifying female faces and vice versa, according to the article. The first test version gauged the participants’ ability to apply self-control when emotional material is absent.

The second test asked people to press a button in response to a happy or fearful face instead of a neutral expression. It was found that the high delayers, or those who controlled their impulses, were significantly better at not pressing the button when smiling faces appeared on the screen, according to the article.

‘Low delayers don’t have a general impulsivity problem, as they don’t differ from high delayers on neutral or ‘cold’ impulsivity tasks, but when they have to stop themselves in the presence of an alluring cue (‘hot’ impulsivity task), they have difficulty,’ said Casey, professor of psychobiology and the study’s conductor, in an email.

In terms of society, the test results can help predict people’s risk or even treatment options for obesity and addictions.

Casey said associations have been found between the delay scores of test subjects at 4 years old and their later substance use and body mass index, which was higher in adults who had trouble delaying their reactions as children.

Casey said in the Time article that it was important to understand that the low delayers do not lack general intelligence or are irresponsible, but have qualities that are valuable to society.

At a point in our country where many things are uncertain, delaying gratification can be the wrong choice, while those who choose to follow emotional impulses can become great entrepreneurs — like Steve Jobs — according to the Time article.

James Byrne, a professor at the David B. Falk College of Sport and Human Dynamics, who has had extensive experience in substance abuse counseling, said in an email that he is skeptical of the results.

Byrne said he doesn’t feel the test in preschool predetermines anything.

Said Byrne: ‘Impulsive youngsters have always been seen as high-risk for any number of future disorders related to immediate gratification at the risk of longer term rewards.’

[email protected]

Published on September 12, 2011 at 12:00 pm