Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Edited* by Michael Posner, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, and approved July 26, 2011 (received for review May 27, 2011)
We examined the neural basis of self-regulation in individuals had more difculty suppressing inappropriate actions than did
from a cohort of preschoolers who performed the delay-of- their low-temptation-focus counterparts, especially for the most
gratication task 4 decades ago. Nearly 60 individuals, now in difcult trials. Difculty was manipulated by increasing the num-
their mid-forties, were tested on hot and cool versions of a go/ ber of go trials preceding a nogo trial, thus making the go
nogo task to assess whether delay of gratication in childhood response more salient and automated. Differences between the
predicts impulse control abilities and sensitivity to alluring cues high- and low-temptation-focus groups increased as the number of
(happy faces). Individuals who were less able to delay gratication preceding go trials increased, with the high-temptation-focus
in preschool and consistently showed low self-control abilities in group having more difculty, reected in slower response times,
their twenties and thirties performed more poorly than did high suppressing responses. These ndings suggest that performance
delayers when having to suppress a response to a happy face but in preschool delay of gratication may predict the capacity, in
not to a neutral or fearful face. This nding suggests that sensi- adulthood, to control thoughts and actions, as reected in per-
tivity to environmental hot cues plays a signicant role in individ- formance on cognitive control tasks, and that the ability to control
uals ability to suppress actions toward such stimuli. A subset of ones thoughts and actions can vary by the potency of interfering
these participants (n = 26) underwent functional imaging for the information (12). Likewise, alluring or social contexts can diminish
rst time to test for biased recruitment of frontostriatal circuitry self-control (4, 13, 14).
when required to suppress responses to alluring cues. Whereas the Early experiments on delay of gratication demonstrated that
prefrontal cortex differentiated between nogo and go trials to part of the contextual effect was due to the different cognitive
a greater extent in high delayers, the ventral striatum showed strategies that individuals used. For example, cooling the hot,
exaggerated recruitment in low delayers. Thus, resistance to temp- appealing, or appetitive features of tempting stimuli by reap-
tation as measured originally by the delay-of-gratication task is
praisal or reframing strategies to focus on their cool, cognitive
a relatively stable individual difference that predicts reliable biases
features (e.g., to envision the marshmallow as a cloud or a little
in frontostriatal circuitries that integrate motivational and control
cotton ball, rather than as a sweet, delectable treat) has been
processes.
shown to be highly effective in enhancing delay of gratication
(e.g., 1, 1517). The same preschool child who yielded immedi-
| | |
reward behavioral suppression functional MRI inferior frontal gyrus | ately to the temptation by representing the hot, appetitive fea-
longitudinal
tures of the reward (e.g., its yummy, sweet, chewy taste) could
wait for long periods for the same tempting stimulus by focusing
T he ability to resist temptation in favor of long-term goals is an
essential component of individual, societal, and economical
success. Developmentally, this ability has been assessed by
on its cool qualities (e.g., its shape). At the same time, there
seem to be important, naturally existing individual differences in
the spontaneous use of such strategies (e.g., 5, 18).
measuring how long a young child can resist an immediate re- Indeed, Metcalfe and Mischel (2) proposed cool and hot
ward (e.g., a cookie) in favor of a larger, later reward (e.g., two systems to explain the dynamics of resisting temptation during
cookies) (1). Even as adults we vary in our ability to resist the delay-of-gratication task. These two interacting neuro-
temptations. Alluring situations can diminish our control (24); cognitive systems are implicated in self-control. Whereas the
what serves as an alluring situation that requires a capacity to rst, a cool system, involves cognitive control-related neural
control our impulses, however, changes as a function of age (e.g.,
circuitry, the second, a hot system (19), involves desires and
from cookies to social acceptance). In the present study we ex-
emotions that are under stimulus control and are associated with
amined the extent to which individual differences in delay of
emotional brain regions. Recent brain imaging studies have
gratication assessed when participants were in preschool and in
provided evidence for dissociable brain systems related to im-
their 20s and 30s predict control over impulses and sensitivity to
mediate over long-term choice behavior consistent with the no-
social cues at the behavioral and neural level when the partic-
ipants were in their 40s.
Delay of gratication depends importantly on cognitive con-
Author contributions: B.J.C., O.A., J.J., M.G.B., N.L.W., G.G., V.Z., W.M., and Y.S. designed
trol (5). Cognitive control refers to the ability to suppress com- research; I.H.G., O.A., M.K.A., J.J., M.G.B., N.L.W., W.M., and Y.S. performed research; B.J.C.,
peting inappropriate thoughts or actions in favor of appropriate N.L.W., T.T., G.G., V.Z., W.M., and Y.S. contributed new reagents/experimental tools; B.J.C.,
ones (611). Previously, we have shown that performance on the L.H.S., N.T.F., N.L.W., T.T., W.M., and Y.S. analyzed data; and B.J.C., L.H.S., I.H.G., O.A., J.J.,
delay-of-gratication task in childhood predicts the efciency M.G.B., N.L.W., V.Z., W.M., and Y.S. wrote the paper.
with which the same individuals perform a cognitive control task The authors declare no conict of interest.
(the go/nogo task) as adolescents and young adults (5). Indi- *This Direct Submission article had a prearranged editor.
viduals who as preschoolers directed their attention toward re- Freely available online through the PNAS open access option.
warding aspects of the classic delay-of-gratication situation, 1
To whom correspondence may be addressed. E-mail: bjc2002@med.cornell.edu, wm@
such as focusing on the cookies (high-temptation-focus group), psych.columbia.edu, or yshoda@u.washington.edu.
Accuracy. Participants performed with a high level of accuracy for Right). This performance difference, however, did not reach
correctly responding to go trials during both the cool (99.8% statistical signicance [t(24) = 1.08, P = 0.29, d = 0.44], likely
Experiment 1 sample
High delaying 32 20 44.6 2.1 332.3 147.0 7.61 0.54
Low delaying 27 16 44.3 1.6 284.2 145.2 5.91 1.04
Experiment 2 sample
High delaying 15 10 44.8 1.8 304.2 145.2 7.39 0.45 25.5 5.0
Low delaying 11 4 44.2 1.8 222.8 145.3 6.18 0.58 22.9 4.6
Signal Change
0.2
15%
False Alarm Rate
Low delayers
10% 0
Go Nogo
L Trial Type
5%
B z = 46 Motor Cortex
0.6
Cool Task Hot Task Hot Task
Signal Change
0.4
Fig. 1. Left: Experiment 1 (outside the scanner). High and low delayers do
not differ in performance on a go/nogo task when cues are cool stimuli 0.2
(neutral facial expressions), but low delayers make more errors when the
0
cues are hot (emotional faces). Right: Experiment 2 (inside the scanner). A Go Nogo
similar pattern is observed. Error bars denote SEM. L Trial Type
owing to fewer data points given the smaller sample and fewer
C z = -19 Cerebellum
Signal Change
0.5
nogo, go) 2 (emotion: happy, fear) voxelwise ANOVA was
conducted to identify brain regions differentially active by task 0.25
1. Mischel W, Shoda Y, Rodriguez MI (1989) Delay of gratication in children. Science 26. Galvan A, et al. (2005) The role of ventral frontostriatal circuitry in reward-based
244:933e938. learning in humans. J Neurosci 25:8650e8656.
2. Metcalfe J, Mischel W (1999) A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratication: 27. Casey BJ, et al. (1997) A developmental functional MRI study of prefrontal activation
dynamics of willpower. Psychol Rev 106:3e19. during performance of a go-no-go task. J Cogn Neurosci 9:835e847.
3. Somerville LH, Casey BJ (2010) Developmental neurobiology of cognitive control and 28. Durston S, Thomas KM, Worden MS, Yang Y, Casey BJ (2002) The effect of preceding
motivational systems. Curr Opin Neurobiol 20:236e241. context on inhibition: An event-related fMRI study. Neuroimage 16:449e453.
4. Hare TA, Tottenham N, Davidson MC, Glover GH, Casey BJ (2005) Contributions of 29. Ochsner KN, et al. (2004) For better or for worse: Neural systems supporting the
amygdala and striatal activity in emotion regulation. Biol Psychiatry 57:624e632. cognitive down- and up-regulation of negative emotion. Neuroimage 23:483e499.
5. Eigsti IM, et al. (2006) Predicting cognitive control from preschool to late adolescence 30. Delgado MR, Nystrom LE, Fissell C, Noll DC, Fiez JA (2000) Tracking the hemodynamic
and young adulthood. Psychol Sci 17:478e484. responses to reward and punishment in the striatum. J Neurophysiol 84:3072e3077.
6. Kahneman D, Treisman A, Burkell J (1983) The cost of visual ltering. J Exp Psychol 31. Ayduk O, et al. (2000) Regulating the interpersonal self: Strategic self-regulation for
Hum Percept Perform 9:510e522. coping with rejection sensitivity. J Pers Soc Psychol 79:776e792.
7. Allport A (1987) Selection for action: Some behavioral and neurophysiological con- 32. Ayduk O, et al. (2008) Rejection sensitivity and executive control: Joint predictors of
siderations of attention and action. Perspectives on Perception and Action, ed borderline personality features. J Res Pers 42:151e168.
Sanders HHAF (Laurence Erlbum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ), pp 395e419. 33. Mischel W, Shoda Y, Peake PK (1988) The nature of adolescent competencies pre-
8. Cohen JD, Servan-Schreiber D (1992) Context, cortex, and dopamine: A connectionist dicted by preschool delay of gratication. J Pers Soc Psychol 54:687e696.
approach to behavior and biology in schizophrenia. Psychol Rev 99:45e77. 34. Kubzansky LD, Martin LT, Buka SL (2009) Early manifestations of personality and
9. Casey BJ, et al. (2000) Dissociation of response conict, attentional control, and ex- adult health: A life course perspective. Health Psychol 28:125e130.
pectancy with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97: 35. Posne MI, Rothbart MK (2000) Developing mechanisms of self-regulation. Dev
8727e8733. Psychopathol 12:427e441.
10. Casey BJ, Tottenham N, Fossella J (2002) Clinical, imaging, lesion, and genetic ap- 36. Carlson SM, Moses LJ (2001) Individual differences in inhibitory control and childrens
proaches toward a model of cognitive control. Dev Psychobiol 40:237e254.
theory of mind. Child Dev 72:1032e1053.
11. Jonides J, Nee DE (2006) Brain mechanisms of proactive interference in working
37. Rothbart MK, Ahadi SA (1994) Temperament and the development of personality.
memory. Neuroscience 139:181e193.
J Abnorm Psychol 103:55e66.
12. Shoda Y, Mischel W, Peake PK (1990) Predicting adolescent cognitive and self-regu-
38. Moftt TE, et al. (2011) A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth,
latory competencies from preschool delay of gratication: Identifying diagnostic
and public safety. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:2693e2698.
conditions. Dev Psychol 26:978e986.
39. Dalley JW, Everitt BJ, Robbins TW (2011) Impulsivity, compulsivity, and top-down
13. Somerville LH, Hare T, Casey BJ (2011) Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive
cognitive control. Neuron 69:680e694.
control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents. J Cogn Neurosci 23:2123e2134.
40. ODoherty JP, Buchanan TW, Seymour B, Dolan RJ (2006) Predictive neural coding of
14. Gardner M, Steinberg L (2005) Peer inuence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky
reward preference involves dissociable responses in human ventral midbrain and
decision making in adolescence and adulthood: An experimental study. Dev Psychol
ventral striatum. Neuron 49:157e166.
41:625e635.
41. Bechara A (2005) Decision making, impulse control and loss of willpower to resist
15. Mischel W, Ebbesen EB, Zeiss AR (1972) Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in
drugs: A neurocognitive perspective. Nat Neurosci 8:1458e1463.
delay of gratication. J Pers Soc Psychol 21:204e218.
42. Galvan A, et al. (2006) Earlier development of the accumbens relative to orbitofrontal
16. Mischel W, Underwood B (1974) Instrumental ideation in delay of gratication. Child
Dev 45:1083e1088. cortex might underlie risk-taking behavior in adolescents. J Neurosci 26:6885e6892.
17. Mischel W, Ayduk O (2004) Willpower in a cognitive-affective processing system: The 43. Chein J, Albert D, OBrien L, Uckert K, Steinberg L (2011) Peers increase adolescent risk
dynamics of delay of gratication. Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory, taking by enhancing activity in the brains reward circuitry. Dev Sci 14:F1eF10.
and Applications, eds Baumeister RF, Vohs KD (Guilford, New York), pp 99e129. 44. Mischel W, et al. (2011) Willpower over the life span: Decomposing self-regulation.
18. Rodriguez ML, Mischel W, Shoda Y (1989) Cognitive person variables in the delay of Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 6:252e256.
gratication of older children at risk. J Pers Soc Psychol 57:358e367. 45. Block J, Block JH (1980) The California Child Q-set (Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo
19. Abelson RP (1963) Computer simulation of hot cognition. Computer Simulation of Alto, CA).
Personality, eds Tomkins SS, Mesick S (Wiley, New York), pp 277e302. 46. Hare TA, et al. (2008) Biological substrates of emotional reactivity and regulation in
20. McClure SM, Ericson KM, Laibson DI, Loewenstein G, Cohen JD (2007) Time dis- adolescence during an emotional go-nogo task. Biol Psychiatry 63:927e934.
counting for primary rewards. J Neurosci 27:5796e5804. 47. Tottenham N, Hare TA, Casey BJ (2011) Behavioral assessment of emotion discrimi-
21. Rangel A, Camerer C, Montague PR (2008) A framework for studying the neurobi- nation, emotion regulation and cognitive control in childhood, adolescence, and
ology of value-based decision making. Nat Rev Neurosci 9:545e556. adulthood. Front Psychol 2:39.
22. Sanfey AG (2007) Social decision-making: Insights from game theory and neurosci- 48. Tottenham N, et al. (2009) The NimStim set of facial expressions: Judgments from
ence. Science 318:598e602. untrained research participants. Psychiatry Res 168:242e249.
23. Ochsner KN, Gross JJ (2005) The cognitive control of emotion. Trends Cogn Sci 9: 49. Glover GH, Thomason ME (2004) Improved combination of spiral-in/out images for
242e249. BOLD fMRI. Magn Reson Med 51:863e868.
24. Heatherton TF, Wagner DD (2011) Cognitive neuroscience of self-regulation failure. 50. Cox RW (1996) AFNI: Software for analysis and visualization of functional magnetic
Trends Cogn Sci 15:132e139. resonance neuroimages. Comput Biomed Res 29:162e173.
25. Aron AR, Robbins TW, Poldrack RA (2004) Inhibition and the right inferior frontal 51. Talairach J, Tournoux P (1988) Co-planar Stereotaxic Atlas of the Human Brain
cortex. Trends Cogn Sci 8:170e177. (Thieme Medical Publishers, New York).
PSYCHOLOGICAL AND
COGNITIVE SCIENCES