I never ever imagined that the knick-knacks would fit such a bombastic degree scroll . But that's how it is. Let me tell you...

Walter Mischel, more than fifty years ago, devised an experiment with a cumbersome academic degree scroll : "The paradigm of the self-imposed delay of immediate satisfaction in preschoolers in order to obtain delayed but more valued rewards". Mischel, in the areas of psychology, falls within the cognitivist orientation; which means: pure and hard experimentation. Well, now he reappears in a book, with a certain novelty publishing house, with a more suggestive degree scroll : The candy test. degree scroll which, it seems, makes the experiment more attractive and closer.

In spite of the decades that have passed, he is commented, remembered and disseminated in the psychological and pedagogical literature; and the object of a numerous and avant-garde research, especially in the first decade of this century. It has also been quoted and praised in Emotional Intelligence, that book of almost universal reading. It migrated frequently on YouTube and is still visible in several directions; it was even the plot of an episode of Sesame Street... And this enormous notoriety has me quite perplexed...

The experiment was practiced in the surprise room at Stanford University. There, a student preschooler (four or five years old) was offered a bunch of sweets to choose the most appetizing one. Once chosen, the researcher would tell him that he could eat it, but since he had to leave for a few minutes, if he waited for him to return, he would get two treats instead of one. He would leave the conference room and watch the child through a semi-transparent glass. The reactions were most colorful and amusing: some ate it gluttonously as they went along; others succumbed soon after; others looked at it and pinched it discreetly, and after a while pinched it again; others withdrew it from their sight, so as not to faint; others hid it; and some even spoke to it... The group that waited for the return of the researcher received the two promised treats; these, without pressure, ate them greedily.

Researchers measured the waiting time of each student, and that score was scored as the delaying ability of gratification. And delay capacity was a very accurate indicator of self-control staff.

The experiment did not end there. When those preschoolers reached adolescence, data and psychological parameters were compared with the results on the candy test (programs of study longitudinal). The group who waited for researcher, who delayed gratification, scored average higher on the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT), test of aptitude academic for apply for the Admissions Office at a U.S. university; they presented greater resistance to stress and more mature behaviors. The comparison was repeated at early maturity (ages 27 to 32) and, again, the group able to delay gratification scored higher score on a scale of perceived self-worth; greater strengths in the face of stress, disappointment and frustration; emotional stability and perseverance to achieve long-term goals deadline.

Mischel interprets these results as the logical consequence of greater self-control. To make the notion of self-control understandable, he resorts to the traditional expression of willpower; other authors equate it with firmness or training of character. And Goleman, in Emotional Intelligence, adds: "the capacity to delay gratification and to control and channel impulses constitutes another fundamental emotional skill which was formerly called willpower". It is worth adding one of the conclusions that Michel highlights in his work: "The capacity for self-control is essential to achieve our goals". With all of the above, anyone can intuit a clear and complete idea of what is at stake...

And here is where my perplexity arises... How, given the popularity and acceptance of this research, parents and educators are still determined to give priority to the child's motivation (in its vulgar meaning), to ensure that the child is not frustrated at all, to make soufflé with his self-esteem, to praise him for any little thing, to gratify him immediately for the smallest thing... At final, a tremendously well-known and verified research , but little used; a shame...

I will end with two observations. The first is from Mischel himself: "Correlations that are eloquent, consistent and statistically significant allow generalization to a large population, but do not necessarily serve to make predictions about an individual". In other words, self-control does not represent a prefixed element in the personality, it is modifiable and moldable. More precisely: self-control can be conquered and educated; it can even be self-managed.

The other, obvious reflection. If self-control is educable and moldable, a child without self-control is not an unmotivated child, unintegrated in the group, with leave self-esteem, or hyperactive. No. The opposite of a child without self-control is a capricious, lazy, rude, spoiled child?

Thank goodness that research confirms that self-control is modifiable and educable! Although the candy test suggests that it's best to start early...