What would happen if you placed a marshmallow in front of a child and offered them a choice: eat one marshmallow now, or wait a little longer and receive two instead?
It sounds like a simple choice, but this question became the basis of one of the most famous experiments in psychology, and it continues to shape how we think about children, decision-making, and even money.
In the late 1960s, psychologist Walter Mischel and his colleagues at Stanford University invited young children into a room, placed a treat in front of them, and explained the rules. The children could ring a bell and eat the marshmallow whenever they wanted, or they could wait for the researcher to return and receive two marshmallows instead.
Some children ate the marshmallow almost immediately. Others found creative ways to distract themselves; covering their eyes, turning away, singing songs, or talking to themselves while they waited.
Researchers were fascinated by what these choices might reveal. Early follow-up studies suggested that children who were able to delay gratification often performed better later in life on measures such as academic achievement, planning, and self-regulation. The marshmallow test quickly became part of popular culture, often presented as a lesson in willpower, discipline, and future success.
For many years, the message seemed straightforward: children who could wait had stronger self-control.
But over time, researchers began asking a more important question: Is delayed gratification really just about willpower, or does a child’s environment matter too?
In 2018, researchers including Tyler Watts revisited the marshmallow experiment using a much larger and more diverse sample of children. Their findings challenged the simple story that had become so popular.
The relationship between waiting for the marshmallow and later academic success became much smaller once researchers accounted for factors such as family income, home learning environments, early language development, and cognitive skills. In other words, a child’s ability to wait was not simply a reflection of self-control. It was also shaped by the world around them.
This makes intuitive sense. If children grow up in environments where promises are usually kept, routines are stable, and resources feel secure, waiting may feel worthwhile. But if life feels uncertain, or if rewards do not always arrive when promised, taking the immediate reward may actually be a rational choice.
This shift in thinking changed how psychologists interpret the marshmallow experiment. Rather than seeing it as a simple test of “good” or “bad” self-control, researchers now understand delayed gratification as something influenced by trust, experience, learning, and opportunity.
And that has important lessons for financial education. Saving money often requires exactly the same kind of thinking.
When children decide not to spend their pocket money immediately so they can buy something bigger later, they are practising delayed gratification. They are weighing present wants against future goals. They are learning to pause, plan, and make choices that align with something bigger than the moment.
But just like the marshmallow experiment, those choices do not happen in isolation.
Children learn money habits from the people and systems around them. They watch how adults spend, save, borrow, and talk about money. They learn whether goals are celebrated, whether plans are followed through, and whether patience usually leads to positive outcomes.
Try it at home or in the classroom:
Educators can use a version of the marshmallow experiment to introduce saving, goal setting, and delayed gratification.
Offer students a simple choice:
- Receive one token, sticker, or marshmallow now
- Or receive two if they wait until the end of the lesson
After the activity, invite students to reflect:
Why did you choose to wait, or not wait?
What made waiting difficult?
Did seeing other people’s choices influence you?
How is this similar to saving money for something bigger in the future?
These conversations help children connect psychology with everyday money decisions; whether it’s saving pocket money, resisting impulse purchases, or working toward a larger goal.