delay of gratification: some longitudinal …psy2.ucsd.edu/~nchristenfeld/dog_readings_files/class...

Delay of Gratification: Some Longitudinal Personality Correlates

David C. FunderHarvard University

Jeanne H. Block and Jack BlockUniversity of California, Berkeley

Two brief laboratory tasks measuring delay of gratification in different ways wereadministered to 116 four-year-old children. Personality data were available onthese children separately at ages 3, 4, 7, and 11 years in the form of CaliforniaChild Q-Set ratings by independent sets of teachers and examiners. The two delay-of-gratification measures were standard scored and composited to generate a morebroadly based index of delay of gratification, and this index was correlated withthe personality ratings available at the four ages. Boys who delayed gratificationtended to be independently and consistently described as deliberative, attentiveand able to concentrate, reasonable, reserved, cooperative, and generally mani-festing an ability to modulate motivational and emotional impulse. Boys who didnot delay gratification, by contrast, were irritable, restless and fidgety, aggressive,and generally not self-controlled. Xjirls who delayed gratification were indepen-dently and consistently described as intelligent, resourceful, and competent. Girlswho did not delay tended to go to pieces under stress, to be victimized by otherchildren, and to be easily offended, sulky, and whiny. These findings were inter-preted in terms of the constructs of ego control and ego resiliency and the dif-ferential socialization of the sexes.

Unfortunately, it is rarely practical totranslate one's desires, urges, and impulsesimmediately and directly into action. Often,the behaviors that would be most immedi-ately gratifying are prohibited by higher au-thority or by society at large. The developingchild simply must learn to wait—reward mayindeed be forthcoming, but often only aftera delay. A key ability for persons in societyto develop, therefore, is the ability to delaygratification. Individuals differ in the degreeto which they possess this capacity (J. Block,1950; J. H. Block, 1951; J. H. Block & Mar-tin, 1955; Mischel, 1966, 1974).

This study was supported by National Institute ofMental Health Grant MH 16080 to Jack Block andJeanne H. Block and by a National Institute of MentalHealth Research Scientist Award to Jeanne H. Block.

Jeanne H. Block is now deceased.Requests for reprints should be sent to David C. Fun-

der, Department of Psychology and Social Relations,Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138or to Jack Block, Department of Psychology, Universityof California, Berkeley, California 94720.

Conceptually, the notion of delay of grat-ification can be subsumed by (but, in turn,cannot subsume) the more general constructof "ego control" (cf., e.g., J. Block, 1950; J.Block, 1965; J. Block & Turula, 1963; J. H.Block, 1951; J. H. Block & J. Block, 1980;J. H. Block & Martin, 1955). Ego controlrefers to the threshold or operating charac-teristic of an individual with regard to theexpression or containment of impulses, feel-ings, and desires and has been demonstratedto be a widely implicative aspect of person-ality structure (see preceding illustrative ref-erences). As conceptualized, ego control isassociated with the differentiation of psycho-logical subsystems within the individual.These subsystems are posited to be separatedby boundaries that can be more or less per-meable (see Lewin, 1935, 1951), that is, thatcan allow more or less communication acrossthem. This permeability property has severalgenerative implications, including the impli-cation that more boundary permeability leads

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1983, Vol. 44, No. 6, 1198-1213Copyright 1983 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1198

DELAY OF GRATIFICATION 1199

to greater susceptibility to environmental de-mands and distractions and to more imme-diate and untransformed manifestations ofinternal need states in behavior. Extremeboundary permeability produces the behav-ioral syndrome of ego undercontrol; extremeimpermeability, by contrast, leads to egoovercoiitrol.

Predictions for the personality character-istics of ego undercontrollers and overcon-trollers follow directly from this theoreticalformulation. The ego undercontroller shouldtend to translate needs and impulses directlyinto behavior—readily manifesting feelingsand emotional fluctuations; being distracti-ble; having a high level of behavioral activityand many but relatively short-lived relation-ships, enthusiasms, and interests—and shouldbe relatively unable to delay gratification.The ego overcontroller, by contrast, would beexpected to manifest clear and even excessiveseparation between need states and behav-ior—tending to be relatively constrained andinhibited; to show minimal expression ofemotion; to be perseverative, nondistractible,less exploring, relatively conforming, withnarrow unchanging interests; to be relativelyplanful; and to be organized—and should berelatively able to delay gratification.

A second conceptual property posited byJ. H. Block and J. Block (and Lewin) to char-acterize the boundaries that separate psycho-logical subsystems is their elasticity. Elasticityrefers to the capacity of a boundary to changeits characteristic level of permeability-im-permeability depending on temporary situ-ational demands. The formal property ofboundary elasticity underlies ego resiliency,the dynamic capacity of the individual tomodify his or her modal level of ego controlas a function of the demand characteristicsof the environment. Such resiliency is be-haviorally useful: The ego-resilient individualis characteristically described as competent,effectively intelligent, resourceful, and adap-tive under stress.

Ego control and ego resiliency are bothrelevant to delay of gratification. The rele-vance of ego control is obvious: Those indi-viduals who characteristically control andcontain impulse (perhaps even to excess)would be expected to delay gratification;

those who characteristically allow the expres-sion of impulse (perhaps to excess) wouldnot. The relevance of ego resiliency is moreindirect and likely to depend on specific, sit-uational factors: Particularly resilient indi-viduals might be able temporarily to increasetheir level of ego control in response to per-ceived situational demands and thus.delaygratification in certain directive or compen-sating contexts, even if their characteristiclevel of control is not high.

The purpose of the present study was toexamine the relation between delay of grat-ification, as measured by two brief and dif-ferent experimental procedures, and the in-dependently assessed personality character-istics and home environments of a sample ofchildren studied over time. The broad guid-ing hypothesis was that a child's orientationto delay or not to delay gratification even asmeasured in an abstracted laboratory situa-tion has useful and implieative connectionswith his or her personality characteristicsconcomitantly, earlier, and subsequently. Ofparticular concern was the relation betweendelay of gratification and the constructs ofego control and ego resiliency outlined above.Each construct was carefully specified inde-pendently and beforehand via "criterion" Q-sort personality descriptions^ of the prototyp-ical ego undercontroller and of the prototyp-ical ego-resilient individual. The present studyused these prototype descriptions to assessthe relevance of each construct to experi-mentally evaluated delay-of-gratification be-havior.

Past empirical research afforded hy-potheses regarding the environmental con-comitants of delay of gratification. The datacollected over many years in the Universityof California, Berkeley longitudinal studies(J. Block, 1971) suggests that ego controlmanifested by adults in their mid 30s waspositively associated with childhood familyenvironments emphasizing structure, order,and conservative values and was negativelyassociated with conflict in the home. Thedata gathered for the present study allowedfurther assessment of these relations betweenaspects of the home environment and delay-of-gratification behavior in a historically dif-ferent and younger cohort.

1200 D. FUNDER, J. H. BLOCK, AND J. BLOCK

MethodSubjects

The subject sample included 116 children—59 boysand 57 girls—participating in an ongoing longitudinalstudy of ego and cognitive development conducted at theUniversity of California, Berkeley by the second two au-thors. The exact number of subjects in any given analysisvaries somewhat. The children .live in an urban settingand are heterogeneous with respect to the socioeconomicand educational levels of their parents. Data collectionbegan when the children were 3 years old. Subsequentdata were gathered when the children were 4, 5, 7, and11 years of age.

Delay-of-Gratification Tasks

When the children were 4 years old, two proceduresassessing ability to delay gratification were administeredin separate sessions at least 1 week apart. Testing sessionsincluded, as well, a variety of other procedures tappingdifferent areas of functioning.

The gift-delay situation. The experimenter displayeda gift-wrapped package to the child and exclaimed,"Look what I found over here! It's a present for you! Iwonder what it could be? I'll put it over here [to the rightof the child, just out of his or her reach], and you canhave it as soon as you finish this puzzle." The experi-menter then proceeded to describe a "circus puzzle,"which was difficult and entailed loading animal figuresinto a toy cart. For the first 2 minutes, the child workedon this puzzle unaided; during the next 2 minutes, theexperimenter worked with the child to ensure comple-tion of the circus puzzle by the end of 4 minutes. Whenthe puzzle was completed, the examiner busied herselfwith papers for a 90-sec period. If the child did not takethe present spontaneously during the 90-sec delay fol-lowing completion of the puzzle, the examiner put herpapers aside and told the child, "Okay, you can haveyour present now." Both during the 4 minutes the childwas engaged with the puzzle and during the postcom-pletion delay period, the examiner noted all verbal be-haviors (e.g., talking about the present, wondering aboutits contents) and physical behaviors (e.g., reaching to-ward present, placing hand over present) directed towardthe present. The delay score represented a composite offour standardized behavioral indexes: (a) delay time(time until child reached for and took present), reflected;(b) number of verbal behaviors directed toward the pres-ent; (c) number of physical behaviors directed towardthe present; and (d) delay in present opening (whetherchild opened the present immediately, on way back tonursery school, or put it in a locker to take home), re-flected.

The resistance-to-temptation situation. For this situ-ation the child was brought into a small experimentalroom in which a set of attractive toys (including a dollhouse, doll and animal figures, a toy marina with boatsand a gas pump, and a tow truck) was laid out on thefloor. A set of unattractive toys (including a broken car,a comb, and a small, bent, green, plastic tree) was placedon a table, and the child's chair was arranged along theside of the table nearest the attractive toys. As they en-tered the room together, the experimenter explained tothe child, "Today we have to use this room. See all of

these toys over there (indicating the attractive toys)—they belong to a lady who is playing some different gameswith children and we can't play with them." The childwas then asked to sit. When the experimenter was surethe child had seen the toys, she announced that she had"forgotten" some materials in the next room and hadto leave for a few minutes. The experimenter told thechild that he or she could play with the (unattractive)toys on the table while she was gone and added, "WhileI am out, I'll see if I can find the lady who owns thesetoys (the attractive ..ones) and ask her if you might playwith them."

The experimenter then left the room but observed thechild's behavior through a one-way mirror. The natureof the child's approach to the forbidden toys during aperiod of up to 6 minutes was recorded on a 6-pointscale, where, for example, a score of 1 indicated that thechild completely ignored the attractive, forbidden toys;a score of 3 meant that the child moved toward the toysbut did not touch them; and a score of 6 indicated thatthe child actually reached to pick up one of the toys. Atthe end of the 6-minute interval, or as soon as the childreached for one of the toys, whichever was first, the ex-perimenter reentered the room and announced that per-mission had been received. The child was then alloweda few minutes to play with the attractive toys.

Intelligence Measures

The Wechsler Preschool Scale of Intelligence (WPSSI)and the Raven Progressive Matrices were administeredto all subjects by examiners who did not participate inthe collection of the delay-of-gratification data.

Personality Characteristics

Personality characteristics of the children were de-scribed by two independent sets of their nursery schoolteachers at ages 3 and 4 years, by their public schoolteachers at age 7 years, and by their (different) publicschool teachers at age 11 years, using the standard vo-cabulary of the California Child Q-Set (CCQ; J. Block,Block, & Harrington, 1974; J. H. Block & J. Block, Note1). The CCQ, an age-appropriate modification of theCalifornia Q-Set (J. Block, 1961/1978), consists of 100widely ranging statements about the psychological char-acteristics of children. At age 3 years and again, andindependently, at age 4 years, each child was describedby three nursery school teachers who had worked everyday with the children for at least 5 months before for-mulating their personality descriptions and who had re-ceived special training and calibration in the use of theCCQ. When the children were age 7 and 11 years andin public school, generally only one teacher was availableto describe each child. Teachers described each child byarranging the 100 Q-set items into a forced, nine-steprectangular distribution according to the salience of eachitem with respect to the particular child. The teachersworked entirely independently of one another, and noteacher provided a Q-sort description at more than oneage. When multiple Q-sort formulations were availablefor a child, they were averaged to form a composite Q-sort description. The CCQ descriptions were completedby 11 nursery school teachers when the children were3 years old, by an entirely different set of 9 teachers when


the children were 4 years old, by 67 different publicschool teachers when the children were 7 years old,and by 73 different teachers when the children were 11years old.

Operationalizing Ego Control andEgo Resiliency

The personality characteristics posited to be associatedwith the constructs of ego control and ego resiliency werespecified, beforehand, by three personality psychologistswho used the CCQ to describe, separately, a prototypicalego-undercontrolling child and a prototypical ego-resil-ient child. The criterion-definers showed high levels ofagreement, the reliabilities of the composited undercon-trol and ego-resilient criterion definitions being .91 and.90, respectively. The existence of these criteria or pro-totypical Q sorts allowed the level of ego control and egoresilience of each child to be assessed by calculating thesimilarity between the child's actual Q description andeach criterion description. A high correlation means thechild is similar or close to the prototype definition; a lowcorrelation means the child is dissimilar or far from thecriterion definition. The two similarity scores thus de-rived for each child can be taken as measures of his orher CCQ-defined level of ego undercontrol and ego re-silience. These measures, in turn, can be related to eachchild's experimentally assessed delay-of-gratification be-havior.

Environmental Characteristics

Characteristics of the child's home environment wereassessed with the California Environmental Q-Set (CEQS)adapted from J. Block (1971), which consists of 59 de-scriptive phrases, for example, "The family atmosphereseems calm and peaceful." When the children were ap-proximately 5'/2 years old, a home interview was con-ducted by one of two female interviewers, and the CEQSwas completed by the interviewer immediately after thehome visit. Neither interviewer participated in gatheringthe behavioral measures of delay of gratification nor inthe formulation of CCQ personality descriptions. Aforced, basically rectangular (8-8-9-9-9-8-8) distributionwas used, and the score on a given item reflected itscategory placement (1 through 7).

Results

The Composite Delay-of-Gratification Score

Instead of analyzing the implications ofeach of the delay-of-gratification proceduresseparately, as is common practice with lab-oratory experiments, the psychometric ap-proach of formulating a composite delay-of-gratification score was employed. This an-cient but powerful psychometric procedurelessens the impact of concept-irrelevantmethod and undependable error variancewhile tending to compound the dependableand concept-relevant variance common to

each of the experimental measures (see, e.g.,J. Block, Buss, Block, & Gjerde, 1981; J. H.Block & J. Block, 1980; Epstein, 1979; Spear-man, 1910).

The composite score for delay of gratifi-cation was computed by taking the averageof the standard score for the gift-delay mea-sure and the (reflected) standardized ap-proach score derived from the resistance-to-temptation procedure.

For the sample of girls, the correlation be-tween gift delay and resistance to temptationwas .24; for the sample of boys, the corre-lation was .15; for the combined sample, thecorrelation was .20 (p < .05, two-tailed). Toevaluate the internal consistency of the com-posite delay score, Guttman's (1945) Iambda4lower bound reliability coefficient (also knownas coefficient alpha) was calculated. For thesample of girls, this reliability is .39; for theboys, it is .26; across all subjects, it is .33.

The estimated reliability of this laboratory-based composite is far from high. We arequite cognizant of the insufficiency of thisparticular composite index as a concept-rep-resenting measure of the construct of delayof gratification and must observe that a psy-chological concept so behaviorally implica-tive cannot be fairly or broadly enough rep-resented by measures so few, so brief, and sonarrow.

Nonetheless, as will be seen shortly, despitethese measurement limitations, the networkof personality and environmental relationssurrounding this quick and narrowly basedindex is extensive, consistent over time, andpsychologically coherent. Indeed, the mag-nitudes of some relations are so high as tosuggest that our estimate of reliability—alower bound estimate—is a considerable un-derestimate. The usefulness of our compositeexperimental index of delay of gratificationresides, therefore, in the relations that thisweak measure generates, not in its own in-ternal reliability. We now turn to the report-ing of these relations.

Relations Between Delay of Gratificationand Intelligence

The correlations between the delay-of-grat-ification composite and three intelligencemeasures—the Wechsler Intelligence Scalefor Children (WISC) Verbal IQ, the WISC

1202 D. FUNDER, J. H. BLOCK, AND J. BLOCK.

Table 1Delay of Gratification and California Child Q-Set Ego Control and Ego Resiliency

Group

Age at personality assessment

* p < .10. **p< .05. *** p < .01. **** p< .001.

11

All subjectsUndercontrolResiliency

GirlsUndercontrolResiliency

BoysUndercontrolResiliency

-.28**.11

-.05.21

-.41****-.01

-.25***.23**

,-.17

42****

-.31**.02

-.46****.16

-.41***.35**

_-47****-.05

-.32***-.18*

-.11-.03

-.43***-.31**

Performance IQ, and the Ravens ProgressiveMatrices—are .11, .21, and -.08, respec-tively, for the boys and .02, .03, and .38, re-spectively, for the girls. Of these six correla-tions, only the last (Ravens matrices score forgirls) is statistically significant (p < .05, two-tailed), and the correlation between delay ofgratification and Ravens intelligence is sig-nificantly greater for girls than for boys(p < .02). The meaning and significance ofthis correlational difference will become moreapparent below, when sex differences in cor-relates of delay are considered more gener-ally.

Gender Differences in Delay of Gratification

The mean delay-of-gratification compositescores for girls and for boys are 2.45 and—2.14, respectively (the numbers representthe standardized T score for gift delay minusthe T score for degree of approach to theforbidden toys). The difference between thesemeans approaches statistical significance(t = 1.78, p <. 10). Although the distributionsof delay scores overlap considerably, the di-rection of this sex difference is consistent withwell-documented views on the differentialsocialization of the sexes (J. H. Block, 1979).The socialization of females in the culturetypically emphasizes control of impulses andlearning to fit into society, whereas the so-cialization of males is more likely to empha-size independent action and self-assertive be-havior (see, e.g., J. Block, Lippe, & Block,1973; J. H. Block, 1973; Carlson, 1971; Mac-

coby, 1966). These differences in socializa-tion are congruent with the present findingof (marginally) greater delay of gratificationby girls than by boys and with a variety ofother findings considered below.

Delay of Gratification Related to EgoControl and Ego Resiliency

The Q-sort-derived indexes of ego under-control and ego resiliency, based on indepen-dently obtained CCQ evaluations at ages 3,4,7, and 11 years, were correlated with delay-of-gratification scores. The results, for thesexes combined and considered separately,appear in Table 1.

For the sexes combined, the CCQ corre-lations with delay of gratification indicatethat, as expected on theoretical grounds, ex-perimentally evaluated delay of gratificationis negatively associated with ego undercon-trol. Indeed, each of the four correlationsacross the four ages attains the conventionallevel of statistical significance (p < .05, two-tailed). Ego resiliency does not appear, in thissexes-combined analysis, to be strongly orconsistently related to delay-of-gratificationbehavior.

However, when the sexes are consideredseparately, the picture becomes more com-plex. When only the boys are considered, therelations between ego undercontrol and delayof gratification become even stronger andmore consistent over time. However, withinthe sample of girls alone, these relations, al-though not disappearing entirely, become


considerably weaker. Although all of the fourindependent ego-control-relevant correla-tions for girls are in the theoretically expecteddirection, most of these correlations are quitesmall in magnitude. However, now loominglarge in importance, and at least as relevantas ego control to delay of gratification amonggirls, is ego resiliency, which is positively cor-related-,with delay of gratification at three ofthe four ages studied and significantly cor-related at two ages.

The correlations between delay-of-gratifi-cation behavior and the CCQ items consid-ered individually highlight this pattern.

Delay of Gratification Relatedto CCQ Items

The composite laboratory-based delay-of-gratification measure at age 4 years was cor-related, for the sexes separately, with each ofthe CCQ items as assessed independently atages 3, 4, 7, and 11 years. Of the 800 cor-relations calculated, 142 (17.8%) are signifi-cant beyond the .05 level; of these, 60 (7.5%)are significant beyond the .01 level; and of

these, 16 (2%) are significant beyond the .001level. To make this mass of data more man-ageable, the following arbitrary but reason-able criteria for dependable relations wereestablished:

1. For each CCQ item, the sign of all fourindependent correlations with the compositedelay-of-gratification measure had to be inthe same direction (it can be noted that theprobability of a given item meeting this cri-terion alone is '/i6 or .063).

2. At least one of the four correlations hadto achieve statistical significance beyond thelevel of p < .05 (two-tailed).

3. At least one additional correlation hadto attain significance beyond the level of p <.10 (two-tailed).

Table 2 presents the 16 CCQ items satis-fying these criteria for the girls; Table 3 pre-sents the 24 items meeting these criteria forthe boys. For additional perspective, Tables4 and 5 report the remaining items, those notmeeting these criteria. We remind the readerof four aspects of these data .worthy of par-ticular mention: (a) The delay-of-gratificationmeasure is based on very brief laboratory

Table 2Reliable California Child Q-Set (CCQ) Correlates of Delay of Gratification: Girls


Item

Note. See text for criteria of reliability." Reliable CCQ correlate in other sex.*p < .10. ** p < .05. *** p < .01. **** p < .001.

11

Appears to have high intellectual capacityCompetent, skillfulIs planful, thinks ahead"Attentive and able to concentrateDevelops genuine and close relationshipsReflective, thinks before acting"ResourcefulUses and responds to reason8

Has transient interpersonal relationshipsEmotionally labile"Victimized by other childrenTries to take advantage of othersGoes to pieces under stressSeeks reassurance from othersIs easily offendedTends to be sulky or whiny

Positive correlates' .27*

.37**

.38**

.19

.18

.22

.37**

.13

Negative correlates-.24-.39***-.19-.04-.25*-.02-.32**-.30**

.51****

.28**

.28**

.41***

.32**

.30**

.23*

.37***

-.30**-.24*-.17-.23-.25*-.39***-.25*-.26*

.27*

.39***

.32**

.43***

.35** '

.22

.18

.28*

-.31*-.43***-.35**-.33**-.30**-.12-.11-.02

.24

.19

.16

.07

.24

.29*

.18

.14

-.41**-.07-.39**-.44**-.14-.29*-.01-.09


samples of the behavior of 4-year-olds; (b) theteachers and examiners providing the per-sonality descriptions at the four different agesare nonoverlapping and operated strictly in-dependently of each other; <c) the relationsobserved span what are, for psychological re-search, long periods of time; (d) the obtainedcorrelations are attenuated appreciably as afunction of the unreliability, noted earlier, ofthe delay measures involved (J. Block, 1963,1964).

The definitive item, "Is unable to delaygratification," correlated with experimentaldelay-of-gratification scores in the appropri-ate direction at all four ages among boys, andat three of the four ages among girls, dem-onstrating appreciable cross-situational con-sistency and temporal implications of labo-

ratory delay-of-gratification behavior be-tween the experimental procedures used toindex delay of gratification and the differentbehavior settings independently observed bythe CCQ assessors across a time span of 8years. The other reliable correlates serve toelaborate the different links between ego con-trol, ego resiliency, and delay of gratificationalready demonstrated for the two sexes.Among boys, delay-of-gratification behaviorat age 4 years is positively associated withsuch characteristics of ego overcontrol as shy-ness, inhibition, indecisiveness, reflective-ness, planfulness, and caution and is nega-tively associated with characteristics of egoundercontrol such as high energy and activitylevel, emotional expressiveness, talkative-ness, curiosity, aggressiveness, and restless-

Table 3Reliable California Child Q-Set (CCQ) Correlates of Delay of Gratification: Boys


Item

Note. See text for criteria of reliability.* Reliable CCQ correlate in other sex.* p < .10. ** p < .05. *** p < .01. **** p < .001.

11

Positive correlatesIs shy and reservedKeeps thoughts and feelings to selfObedient and compliantPrefers nonverbal communicationReflective; thinks before acting0

Is inhibited and constrictedWithdraws under stressIndecisive and vacillatingIs physically cautiousUses and responds to reason"Fearful and anxiousPlanful, thinks ahead*

.40**

.41***

.24

.26

.32**

.38**

.31*

.14

.37**

.20

.32**

.30*

.36***

.32**

.25*

.08

.34***

.234 1 ****

'.35***.21.22*.02.26**

.42***

.35**

.53****

.47****

.36**

.25*

.18

.32**

.18

.36**

.21

.03

.51****

.51****

.34**

.53****

.30**

.46****

.42***

.45****

.39***

.19

.35**

.22

Negative correlatesVital, energetic, livelyTries to be the center of attentionIs physically activeSelf-assertiveRapid personal tempoCharacteristically stretches limitsIs emotionally expressiveTalkativeCurious and exploringEmotionally labile"Unable to delay gratificationIs restless and fidgety

-.39**-.37**-.34**-.25-.41***-.28*-.34**-.23-.21-.38**-.31*-.27*

-.32**-.23*-.15-.21-.28**-.16-.20-.10-.22*-.07-.30**-.20

-.44***-.39***-.51****-.36**-.22-.43***-.36**-.35**-.21-.39***-.17-.34**

-.40***-.46****-.29**-.45****-.38***-.31**-.29*-.47****-.39***-.12-.16-.16


ness. Among girls, delay is also associated, inthe appropriate directions, with some indi-cants of overcontrol and undercontrol. In-deed, those four correlates deemed "reliable"by our stringent criteria independently withineach sex are all relevant to ego control.

In general, however, the pattern of corre-lates among girls is rather different than thatamong boys, several of the CCQ correlatesof delay among girls being more relevant toego resiliency than to ego control. For ex-ample, long-delaying girls at age 4 years tendto be independently characterized in otherand much later settings as intelligent, com-petent, attentive, resourceful, and capable ofdeveloping genuine and close relationships.Those girls who were unable to delay grati-fication were independently characterized astending to go to pieces under stress; to beeasily offended, sulky, and whiny; to be vic-timized by other children; and so on.

Sex Differences in Correlates ofDelay of Gratification

Sex differences in correlates of delay ofgratification were directly examined by com-paring the correlation for girls with the cor-relation for boys on each CCQ item, at eachage, using the method described by Mc-Nemar (1969, p. 158). Of the 100 compari-sons made at each age level, 11 were signif-icant beyond the .05 level at age 3 years; 13were significant at age 4 years; 7 were signif-icant at age 7 years; and 8 were significantat age 11 years. To make this informationmore manageable, sex differences in CCQitem correlations were deemed reliable if (a)for each CCQ item, each sex difference thatapproached significance was in the same di-rection; (b) at least one of these differenceswas significant at p < .05 (two-tailed), and(c) at least one more of these differences wassignificant at p < .10 (two-tailed).

The CCQ items meeting these criteria, andtheir sex-separate correlations with delay, arepresented in Table 6. Two of the correlationsthat are more positive among girls than boyspertain to the ego-resilient traits of opennessand high intellectual capacity. The latter find-ing is consistent with the results of the RavenProgressive Matrices measure of intelligence,

which, it will be remembered, correlated sig-nificantly more highly with delay of gratifi-cation among girls than boys. The charac-teristic "tries to be the center of attention"might seem to contradict this pattern, butcloser examination reveals that the item ap-pears in the table because of its large andconsistently negative correlation with delayof gratification among boys rather than be-cause of any positive association among girls.In contrast, the correlations that are morepositive for the boys in the sample pertainto CCQ items that are relevant to the con-struct of ego overcontrol, such as "inhibitedand constricted," "indecisive and vacillat-ing," "fearful and anxious," and "victimizedby other children."

An explanation of the differential corre-lates of delay within the two sexes can beapproached through consideration of the dif-ferential socialization experienced by malesand by females. Traditionally, the socializa-tion of males has emphasized independentaction and self-assertion, a behavior style thathas been called "agency" by Bakan (1966;for empirical background see, e.g., J. Blocketal. 1973; J. H. Block, 1973; Carlson, 1971;Maccoby, 1966). The socialization of fe-males, by contrast, is more likely to empha-size the control of impulse and integrationinto the structure of society, a style called"communion" (cf. Bakan, 1966; J. H. Block,1973). As a result, a female who manifestsan ability and tendency to delay gratificationmay simply be responding in a modal and,in many respects, adaptive fashion to the so-cialization pressures impinging on her. Amale who delays gratification, however, is inmany cases not acting in the way society has,at least implicitly, tried to socialize him toact. Such an individual, therefore, may bederiving his tendency to delay gratificationfrom a more individual (and possibly mal-adaptive) psychological source, such as adeeply characterological tendency toward egoovercontrol.

The sex differences in the relevance of egocontrol and ego resiliency for delay-of-grati-fication behavior may stem directly fromthese differential socialization emphases. Theconstruct of ego control, it will be remem-bered, refers to the characteristic level of an


Table 4Other Correlates of Delay of Gratification: Girls


Item

Prefers nonverbal communicationConsiderate of other childrenWarm and responsiveGets along with other childrenAdmired and sought by other childrenHelpful and cooperativeSeeks physical contactKeeps thoughts and feelings to selfAttempts to transfer blameImmature under stressCharacteristically stretches limitsEager to pleaseHas concern for moral issuesProud of accomplishmentsSex typedExpresses negative feelings openlyOpen and straightforwardTries to be center of attentionTries to, manipulate through ingratiationFearful and anxiousBroods, ruminates, worriesPhysically activeVisibly deviantVital, energetic, livelyProtective of othersArouses liking in adultsEmpathicTends to give, lend, shareCries easilyRestless and fidgetyInhibited and constrictedLikes to competeUnusual thought processesRepetitive under stressCurious and exploringPersistentAn interesting childRecoups after stressGives in under conflictWithdraws under stressHigh standards of performance for selfHas mannerismsBodily symptoms from tensionAgile and well coordinatedPhysically cautiousIndecisive and vacillatingAfraid of being deprivedJealous and enviousDramatizes mishapsEmotionally expressiveNeat and orderlyAnxious when environment is

unstructuredTends to be judgmentalObedient ind compliantRapid personal tempo

3

-.15-.06-.06

.09

.18-.04

.00-.03

.01-.31**

.13-.21

.39***-.26*-.29*

.05-.04

.09

.05-.07-.08-.08

.21-.10

.18

.00

.19

.06-.35**-.16-.06

.02

.38**-.24

.09

.17-.17-,12-.23

.00,00

-.14.17.03

-.14-.07

.07

.01-.21-.09-.20

-.10.03

-.05-.04

4

-.14.16

-.05, .38***

.36***

.11-.21

.00-.08-.37***-.19

.08

.41***-.12-.03

.16

.35***-.14-.16-.04-.11-.10

.14

.12

.05

.27**

.21• .33**-.21-.10-.32**-.02

.08-.26**

.26*

.02

.11

.15

.06-.12

.22*-.03-.11

.07-.13-.23*-.40***-.38***-.10-.24*-.11

-.10.17.04

-.09

7

.13

.33**

.13

.31*

.24

.32**

.07

.25-.48***-.17-.45***

.24

.06-.01

.28*-.29*

.38**-.45***-.25

.14-.28*-.36**

.13-.16

.10

.28*

.32*

.21-.09-.46***

.38**-.06-.19-.22

.06

.30**

.13

.04

.16

.23

.26*-.07-.27*-.12

.31**

.03-.31*-.22-.43***-.13

.18

-.08-.30*

.39***-.13

11

.05

.28-.10-.01

.11

.03-.06

.13-.32*

.05-.11-.18-.03

.19

.23-.06

.20-.06-.05-.07

.24-.12-.14-.08-.10

.04

.29*-.15

.16

.04

.07

.05

.24

.10-.17-.11-.04

.04

.13

.12

.19

.21-.27-.17

.13-.08-.02-.10

.09-.09-.03

.01-.13

.00-.10


Table 4 (continued)


Item 11

Calm and relaxedUnable to delay gratification.Verbally fluentDaydreamsLooks to adults for helpReadiness to feel guiltyResponds to humorStrongly involved in what she or he doesIs cheerfulCan be trustedAppears to feel unworthyTends to be suspiciousTeases other childrenAcknowledges unpleasant experiencesIs self-assertiveSeeks independenceTalkative childAggressiveLikes to be aloneImitates those admiredSelf-reliantIs stubbornEmotions are inappropriatePhysically attractiveDominates othersEasily irritatedActive fantasy lifeShy and reserved

..19.02.20.03

-.25*.29*.04.34**.10

-.01.09

-.06.13

-.31**.18.15.10.03

-.06-.04

.31**

.00-.15-.12

.13-.14

.22-.19

.29**-.25*

.39***

.08-.27**

.19

.08

.27**

.11

.13-.04-.24*-.15

.13-.04

.23*

.07-,11

.09

.15

.17-.18-.28**

.13-.02-.46****

.17-.04

.15-.36**

.09-.33**

.17

.04-.07

.24

.12

.39**-.24-.12-.29*-.04-.38***-.29*-.27*-.51****-.04

.00

.02-.30**-.32*-.15-.20-.24-.07

.21

-.03-.25

.10-.14-.10

.33*-.14-.08-.06

.24

.18

.14-.26

.26-.10

.01,-.25-.07

.25-.15-.07

.04

.00

.01-.27

.10

.35*

.19

* p < .10. ** p < .05. *** p < .01. **** p < .001.

individual's impulse expression: Undue con-tainment of impulse is a manifestation of egoovercontrol; undue expression of impulse isa manifestation of ego undercontrol. In theabsence of relevant external environmentalpressures, then, the overcontroller would beexpected to delay gratification, and the egoundercontroller not to delay gratification.The social environment does not particularlyencourage (nor apparently does it discourage)the inhibition of impulse for males. In par-ticular, the experimental situations employedin the present study apparently were not per-ceived by boys as incorporating social pres-sures for them to delay gratification; the oneswho did delay, therefore, did so as a reflectionof their characteristic ego-control style ratherthan as a response to situational demands.Therefore, a rather "pure" pattern of per-sonality variables, all relevant to ego control

but not ego resiliency, can be associated withdelay of gratification among boys.

For females, however, the situation is dif-ferent. Surely, ego control is not inconsistentwith delay of gratification among females;overcontrolling females would be expected tomanifest more delay than undercontrollingfemales. We have seen empirically that theconstruct of ego control indeed appears to berelevant, in a small but consistent and theo-retically expected way, with delay amonggirls. However, the traditional existence ofstrong social pressure on females to modulateand contain impulse makes ego resiliency,defined as the capacity to change one's levelof ego control in accordance with contextualdemands, also and perhaps just as relevantto their delay of gratification. Ego-resilientfemales, sensitive and adaptive to contextualdemands, can be expected to manifest more


Table 5Other Correlates of Delay of Gratification: Boys


Item

Is considerate of other childrenIs warm and responsiveGets along well with other

childrenIs admired and sought out by

other childrenIs helpful and cooperativeSeeks physical contact with

othersDevelops genuine and close

relationshipsHas transient interpersonal

relationshipsAttempts to transfer blame to

othersReverts to immature behavior

under stressIs eager to pleaseShows concern for moral

issuesProud of accomplishmentsBehaves in a sex-typed mannerExpresses negative feelings

directly and openlyIs open and straightforwardTries to take advantage of

othersTries to manipulate others by

ingratiationTends to brood, ruminate, or

worryIs visibly deviant from peersIs protective of othersTends to arouse liking in

adultsIs empathicTends to give, lend, shareCries easilyIs resourceful in initiating

activitiesLikes to compete, test selfHas unusual thought processesTends to become immobilized

under stressIs persistentIs an interesting, arresting

childCan recoup or recover after

stressful experienceTends to give in, under conflictTends to go to pieces under

stressHas high standards of

performance for selfSeeks reassurance from othersHas mannerisms

3

.18-.29*

-.02

.18

.10

-.22

.07

-.04

-.17

-.02-.02

.19

.17-.10

-.24-.13

-.12

-.22

.27*-.22

.11

.05

.22

.12-.08

-.16-.09

.02

-.08.11

-.19

.06

.28*

-.18

.16-.17-.06

4

.14-.13

.13

.05

.16

-.24*

.23*

-.15

-.03

-.12.04

-.01.06

-.13

-.11-.18

-.03

.14

.04-.07

.10

-.09-.05

.12-.29**

-.10-.19

.12

-.10-.04

-.13

.02

.15

-.22

.05-.11

.12

7

.20-.10

.21

-.04.36**

-.07

.17

-.08

-.10

.03

.41***

.22

.05-.10

-.14-.10

-.25

-.27*

.15

.11

.21

.27*

.07

.08-.14

-.10-.14

.20

.22

.00

-.08

.01

.18

-.14

.09

.03

.09

11

.16-.16

.17

-.08.10

.02

.01

-.10

-.03

.09

.06

.17-.33**-.14

-.23.23

.09

-.40***

-.01.13

-.09

-.07-.01

.21

.07

-.01-.24*-.13

.36**

.07

-.38***

-.14.11

.15

-.13.08.14


Table 5 (continued)


Item

Bodily symptoms from tensionAgile and well coordinatedAfraid of being deprivedJealous and enviousDramatizes mishapsNeat and orderlyAnxious when environment is

unstructuredTends to be judgmentalIs calm and relaxedIs attentive and able to

concentrateAppears to have high

intellectual capacityIs verbally fluentDaydreamsLooks to adults for help and

directionHas a readiness to feel guiltyResponds to humorBecomes involved in what he

doesIs cheerfulCan be trusted, is dependableAppears to feel unworthyIs easily offendedTends to be suspicious and

distrustfulTeases other childrenAcknowledges unpleasant

experiencesSeeks to be independent and

autonomousIs aggressiveLikes to be aloneTends to imitate those he

admiresIs self-reliantIs competent, skillfulIs stubbornEmotional reactions are

inappropriateIs physically attractiveBehaves in a dominating

mannerTends to be sulky or whinyEasily irritatedIs creativeHas an active fantasy lifeVictimized by other children

3

-.04-.20-.18-.09-.28*

.19

.06-.15

.04

.27

.03-.12

.32**

.05

.02-.23

.29*-.39**

.19

.18

.04

.19

.05

-.02

-.04-.18

.34**

.16-.01

.06

.04

-.24-.12

-.18,17

-.27*.02

-.24.25

4

.13-.08-.05-.09-.04-.01

.00

.07

.21 -

.11

-.05-.04

.05

-.11-.09-.02

-.09-.05

.13-.02-.09

.19-.21

-.01

.04-.15

.17

.15

.02-.05-.20

-.07-.10

-.08-.07-.14

.07

.08-.14

7

.13-.05-.06-.03

.01

.05

.04-.29*

.43***

.16

-.06-.26*

.02

-.02-.09-.04

-.07.08.18.06

-.07

.07-.07

-.05

-.14-.48****

.22

.02-.12-.06-.27*

.20

.01

-.05-.14-.22-.08

.02

.18

11

.04

.04-.21

.04

.05

.26*

.36**-.13

.11

.00

-.12-.24

.05

.25*

.26-.39***

-.10-.28*

.20

.03

.08

.26*-.04

.19

-.18-.18

.02

.22-.21-.05-.05

.11

.13

-.10.18.14

-.32**-.10

.18

* p < .10. ** p < .05. *** p < .01. **** p < .001.

delay of gratification not necessarily because respond (perhaps at some personal cost) toof any general tendency toward overcontrol social pressures. The particular experimentalbut rather because of an ability to adaptively ,. situations employed here apparently were


perceived by girls as containing social pres-sures to delay gratification, as witness their(marginally) greater overall delay in thesecontexts. By this reasoning, the finding thatego resiliency as well as ego control is asso-ciated with delay-of-gratification behavioramong girls may be coherently rationalized.

Environmental Correlates of Delayof Gratification

The final step in data analysis was to cor-relate the composite delay-of-gratificationscore with independent assessments of thechildren's home environment, compiled by

Table 6Replicated Sex Differences in Correlates of Delay of Gratification

Item

Girls'Is open and straightforward

High intellectual capacity

Tries to be center of attention

Boys'Is shy and reserved

Victimized by other children

Is inhibited and constricted

Keeps thoughts and feelings to self

Indecisive and vacillating

Prefers nonverbal communication

Is fearful and anxious

Age

more positive347

11347

11347

11

more positive347

11347

11347

11347

11347

11347

11347

11

Girls

correlations-.04

.35***

.38**

.20

.27*

.51****

.27*

.24

.09-.14-.45***-.06

correlations-.19-.04

.21

.19-.19-.17-.35**-.39**-.06-.32**

.38**

.07-.03

.00

.25

.13-.07-.23*

.03-.08-.15-.14

.13

.05-.07-.04

.14-.07

Boys

-.13-.18-.10

.23

.03-.05-.06-.12-.37**-.23*-.39***-.46****

.40**

.36***

.42***

.51****

.25-.14

.18

.18

.38**

.23

.25*

.46****

.41***

.32**

.35**

.51****

.14

.35***

.32**

.45****

.26

.08

.47****

.53****

.32**

.02

.21

.35**

P

ns.01.05nsns

.01ns

.10

.05nsns

.05

.01

.05ns

.01

.05ns

.05

.01

.05

.01ns

.10

.05

.10ns

.05ns

.01ns

.01

.10ns

.10

.05

.10nsns

.05

Note. See text for criteria of reliability of sex differences.*p < .10. ** p < .05. *** p < .01. **** p < .001.


Table 7Environmental Correlates of Delay of Gratification

Item

Relatives play a role in child'ssocialization

Home orientation emphasizedfunction and practicality

Family atmosphere is calm and /peaceful

House is decorated in an ornate styleMother induces conflict in childrenMother discourages independenceMother's limitations are apparentChild is experiencing cultural conflicts

Girls

Positive

.15

.09

.29*

Negative

-.14-.24-.33**-.10-.30**

Boys

correlates

.34**

.28*

.10

correlates

-.32**-.23-.11-.29*-.06

Sexes combined p

.20*

.19*

.18*

-.23**-.22**-.21**-.19*-.18*

Home situation is child orientedMother enjoys her maternal role

Sex differences

-.20-.09

.33**

.35**.01.05

Note. The California Environmental Q-Set (CEQS) consists of 59 items.* p< .10. **/>< .05.

single examiners using the California Envi-ronmental Q-Set when the children were5'/2 years old. Of the 59 correlations calcu-lated for the entire sample, 8 were significantat p < .10 (two-tailed) and appear in Table7. The two items that manifested sex differ-ences in correlations significant at the .05level also appear in this table.

The environmental correlates, althoughrelatively small in number and magnitude,tend to repeat the association observed inprevious research (J. Block, 1971) betweenego control and orderly, practical, cohesivehome environments. Children who delayedgratification, relative to those who did not,tended to come from homes that were calmand peaceful, that emphasized function andpracticality, and in which relatives played arole in the child's socialization. Children whodid not delay gratification were more likelyto come from environments in which themother was relatively neurotic and in whichcultural conflicts were present.

Discussion

The correlates of delay of gratificationamong boys were highly congruent with the

theoretical link developed between delay ofgratification, ego control, and the perme-ability of boundaries between psychologicalsubsystems. Those 4-year-old boys who man-ifested the longest delay of gratification in thebrief laboratory situations were indepen-dently assessed in different life settings—andup to 7 years later—as capable of the controlof emotional and motivational impulse, beingattentive and able to concentrate, reflective,deliberative, dependable, and so on. The 4-year-old boys who manifested the least delayof gratification were independently assessedas exhibiting many aspects of the syndromeof undercontrol—they were restless and fid-gety; were emotionally expressive; had arapid personal tempo; and were aggressive,irritable, unstable, and immature under stress.

Among girls, the pattern of personality cor-relates surrounding delay of gratification wasmore complex. Ego control had pertinenceto delay of gratification among 4-year-oldgirls in that several ego-control-relevant per-sonality variables were identified, indepen-dently and by stringent criteria, as reliablyassociated with delay of gratification withineach sex. However, just as relevant as ego


control to delay among girls was the constructof ego resiliency. The longest delaying 4-year-old girls were independently characterized asintelligent, competent, resourceful, and at-tentive; the shortest delaying girls tended togo to pieces under stress, to be victimized byother children, and to be easily offended,sulky, and whiny.

Sex differences in the correlates of delayof gratification can be viewed as reflecting thedifferential socialization of the sexes. A largeliterature indicates that socialization is morelikely to emphasize the control and inhibitionof emotional and behavioral impulse amonggirls than among boys. This idea is also con-gruent with the finding in the present studythat girls were (marginally) more likely todelay gratification than were boys. Ego resil-iency, defined as the ability to adjust one'slevel of ego control in accordance with sit-uational demands, is, therefore, relevant todelay of gratification among girls: Resilientgirls seem to be able to adjust their controlin accordance with society's demands to sodelay, which they apparently perceived to bepresent in our experiments as in the worldat large, whereas unresilient girls are less ableto delay gratification in response to such de-mands.

Boys in the society do not experience thesame socialization emphasis on impulse con-trol as do girls. One result appears to be thatthey do not perceive our experimental situ-ations as demanding such control. Therefore,their delay of gratification is likely to be arather direct function of their general, dis-positional level of ego control. The overallresult is a strong relation between ego controland delay of gratification among boys4 aweaker relation between ego control and de-lay of gratification among girls, but a fairlystrong relation among girls between delay ofgratification and ego resiliency.

The multiple observers and multiple meth-ods used here developed a clear picture of theassociation between the constructs of egocontrol and ego resiliency and of the behaviorof delay of gratification as measured in abrief, somewhat artificial laboratory context.Moreover, the associated personality dispo-sitions could be reliably detected at any ofseveral points across a time span of 8 years

(from ages 3 to 11 years). This research, then,is another contribution to the growing bodyof knowledge attesting to the appreciable co-herence of personality discernible when do-main-specifying, domain-spanning, and mul-tiple-measurement techniques are employed.

Reference Note

1. Block, J. H., & Block, J. The California Child Q-Set.Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology,University of California, Berkeley, 1969.

ReferencesBakan, D. The duality of human existence. Chicago:

Rand McNally, 1966.Block, J. An experimental investigation of the construct

of ego control. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Stanford University, 1950.

Block, J. The equivalence of measures and the correctionfor attenuation. Psychological Bulletin, 1963,60, 152-156.

Block, J. Recognizing attenuation effects in the strategyof research. Psychological Bulletin. 1964,62, 214-216.

Block, J. Challenge of response sets. New York: Apple-ton-Century-Crofts, 1965.

Block, J. Lives through time. Berkeley, Calif.: Bancroft,1971.

Block, J. The Q-sort method in personality assessmentand psychiatric research. Palo Alto, Calif.: ConsultingPsychologists Press, 1978. (Originally published, 1961.)

Block, J., Block, 3. H., & Harrington, D. M. Some mis-givings about the Matching Familiar Figures Test asa measure of reflection-impulsivity. DevelopmentalPsychology, 1974, JO, 611-632.

Block, J., Buss, D. M., Block, J. H., & Gjerde, P. F. Thecognitive style of breadth of categorization: The lon-gitudinal consistency of personality correlates. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 1981, 40, 770-779.

Block, J., Lippe, A. von der, & Block, J. H. Sex-role andsocialization patterns; Some personality concomitantsand environmental antecedents. Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology, 1973, 41, 321-341.

Block, J., & Turula, E. Identification, ego-control andadjustment. Child Development, 1963, 34. 945-953.

Block, J. H. An experimental study of a topological rep-resentation of ego structure. Unpublished doctoral dis-sertation, Stanford University, 1951.

Block, J. H. Conceptions of sex role: Some cross-culturaland longitudinal perspectives. American Psychologist,1973,28, 512-526.

Block, J. H. Another look at sex differentiation in thesocialization behaviors of mothers and fathers. InF. L. Denmark & J. Sherman (Eds.), Psychology ofwomen: Future directions for research. New York: Psy-chological Dimensions, 1979.

Block, J. H., & Block, J. The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the organization of behavior. In W. A.


Collins (Ed.), Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychol-ogy (Vol. 13). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1980.

Block, J. H., & Martin, B; Predicting the behavior ofchildren under frustration. Journal of Abnormal andSocial Psychology, 1955, 51, 281-285.

Carlson, R. Sex differences in ego functioning. Journalof Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1971,37, 267-277.

Epstein, S. The stability of behavior: I. On predictingmost of the people much of the time. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 1979,37, 1097-1126.

Guttman, L. A basis for analyzing test-retest reliability.Psychomelrika, 1945, 10, 255-282.

Lewin, K. A dynamic theory of personality. New York:McGraw-Hill, 1935.

Lewin, K. Field theory in social science. New York: Har-per, 1951.

Maccoby, E. Sex differences in intellectual functioning.

In E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differ-ences. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press,1966.

McNemar, Q. Psychological statistics. New York: Wiley,1969.

Mischel, W. Theory and research on the antecedents ofself-imposed delay of reward. In B. A. Maher (Ed.),Progress in experimental personality research (Vol. 3).New York: Academic Press, 1966.

Mischel, W. Processes in delay of gratification. In L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psy-chology (Vol. 7). New York: Academic Press, 1974.

Spearman, C. Correlation calculated from faulty data.British Journal of Psychology, 1910,5, 271-295.

Received December 21, 1981

Instructions to AuthorsAPA policy prohibits an author from submitting the same manuscript for concurrent con-

sideration by two or more journals. Authors should prepare manuscripts according to thePublication Manual of the American Psychological Association (3rd edition). All manuscriptsare subject to editing for sexist language. Manuscripts must include an abstract of 100-150words. Instructions on tables, figures, references, metrics, and typing (all copy must be double-spaced) appear in the Manual. Articles not prepared according to the Manual will not bereviewed. For further information on content, authors should refer to the editorial in theMarch 1979 issue of this journal (Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 468-469).

The reference citation for any article in any JPSP section follows APA's standard referencestyle for journal articles; that is, authors, year of publication, article title, journal title, volumenumber, and page numbers. The citation does not include the section title.

Manuscripts should be submitted in quadruplicate (the original and three photocopies) tothe appropriate section editor. All copies should be clear, readable, and on paper of goodquality. Editors' addresses appear on the inside front cover of the journal. Authors shouldkeep a copy of the manuscript to guard against loss.

Blind review is optional and must be specifically requested when a manuscript is firstsubmitted. In those cases, authors' names and affiliations must appear only on a separate titlepage, included with each copy of the manuscript. Footnotes containing the identity of authorsor their affiliations must be on a separate sheet.

Section editors reserve the right to redirect papers among themselves as appropriate unlessan author specifically requests otherwise. Rejection by one section editor is considered rejec-tion by all, therefore a manuscript rejected by one section editor should not be submitted toanother.

delay of gratification: some longitudinal …psy2.ucsd.edu/~nchristenfeld/dog_readings_files/class...

Documents