gratification factor of fifteen minutes. We then repeated the test with
twenty-five children, ages three, four, and five, all former PDF babies
who developed healthy sleep habits. For our three-year-olds, we set the
gratification factor at ten minutes. But we extended Dr. Mischel’s time
by five minutes for the four- and five-year-olds, making the children wait
twenty minutes. This is what we found:
• Of the 5 three-year-olds tested: all waited for the second
marshmallow.
• Of the 15 four-year-olds tested: all waited for the second
marshmallow.
• Of the 5 five-year-olds tested: all waited for the second
marshmallow.
Dr. Goleman’s research focused on the result of delayed gratification,
but not on the method of achievement. Yet obviously all the children we
studied demonstrated a conscious choice for delayed gratification for the
greater gain. Could something as basic as an infant feeding routine,
healthy naps, continuous nighttime sleep, definite boundaries, and a
healthy dose of “otherness” training be the channel for success? We
believe so.
- Caring for Your Baby, p. 36.
- Ibid., pp. 188-89.
- Ibid., p. 189.
Chapter Eleven
(^) 1. Michael E. Lamb, Ph.D., from the Department of Pediatrics at the
University of Utah Medical School, summarizes our position: “The
preponderance of the evidence thus suggests that extended contact [the
bonding theory] has no clear effects on maternal behavior.” Michael E.
Lamb, Ph.D., in Pediatrics, 70, no. 5 (November 1982), p. 768.
- For an excellent challenge to the myth of bonding please see Diane
Eyer, Mother Infant-Bonding: Scientific Fiction, (New Haven: Yale
University Press. 1992). - Pediatrics (August 1997), p. 272.