Individual and Situational Characteristics as Determinants of Delay of Gratification!

Gisela Trommsdorff and Martin Schmidt-Rinke

Technische Hochschule Aachen, Universitat Miinchen

Abstract. This investigation deals with the influence of situational variables and indi-vidual differences (internal versus external locus of control and achievement motiva-tion) on self-imposed gratification delay. The sample consisted of 243 male and female high school students. Subjects who only had to wait for the delayed reward (Group 1) chose the delayed reward significantly more frequently than subjects who had to wait and complete either a routine task (Group 2) or a difficult task, the successful comple-tion of which was uncertain (Group 3). Groups 2 and 3 did not differ significantly. Per-sons with internal as compared to external socus of control chose the delayed reward less often in the difficult and uncertain condition (Group 3). Girls chose the delayed reward significantly more often than boys in all conditions. Several interactions be-tween sex and achievement motivation occurred. The results are discussed in respect to decision-making and interaction theories.

Key words: Delay, Locus of control, Achievement-motivation

Individuelle und situative Merkmale als Determinanten VOB Belohnungsaufschub

Kurzfassung: Diese Untersuchung beschaftigt sich mit dem EinfluB von situativen Variablen und individuellen Differenzen (internale vs. externale Kontrolltiberzeu-gung; Leistungsmotivation) auf selbstgewahlten Belohnungsaufschub. Die Stichprobe bestand aus 243 mannlichen und weiblichen Gymnasiasten. Proband en, die nur auf die verziigerte Belohnung zu warten hatten (Bedingung 1), wahlten die verziigerte Beloh-

1 This study was conducted at the Sonderforschungsbereich 24, Sozial- und wirtschaftspsychologische Entscheidungsforschung Universitat Mannheim (West Germany), financed by the Deutsche For-schungsgemeinschaft, with support from the Government of Baden-Wiirttemberg. We have to thank Wolfgang Woerner for his helpful comments on the manuscript.

264

nung signifikant haufiger als Probanden, die warten und entweder eine langweilige Routineaufgabe (B edingung 2) oder eine schwierige Aufgabe mi t unsicherem Uisungs-erfolg (Bedingung 3) zu erledigen hatten. Die Bedingungen 2 und 3 unterschieden si ch nicht signifikant voneinander. Probanden roit internal er im Vergleich zu externaler Kontrolliiberzeugung wahlten in der schwierigen, unsicheren Aufgaben-Bedingung (3) die verziigerte Belohnung weniger haufig. Madchen wahlten in alien Bedingungen die verziigerte Belohnung insgesamt haufiger als Jungen. Es zeigten sich weiter einige interessante Interaktionen zwischen den Variablen Geschlecht und Leistungsmotiva-tion. Die Ergebnisse werden unter entscheidungs- und interaktionstheoretischen Aspekten diskutiert.

Stichworter: Belohnungsaufschub, Locus of control, Leistungsmotivation

Delay of gratification has been regarded as a function of personality traits (cf. Rapa-port, 1961), or - according to the behaviorist position - as a function of situ ationa I char-acteristics (cf. Rachlin, 1973). Both approaches have been refuted in their one-sided view of the problem by the cognitive social learning theory ofMischel (1973) and the so-cial interaction theory (Argyle and Little, 1972; Magnusson and Endler, 1977).Accord-ing to the interactionist view, individual behavior is a function of learned individual cognitive schemata and biases which serve to interpret the various behavioral situa-tions; situational characteristics - on the other hand - activate certain cognitive-moti-vational schemata and preconceptions such as certain attributions and subjective goals. When behavior is assumed to be a resultant of person and situational variables and their reciprocal interactions, it is important to study the way how "objectively" identical situations are cognitively processed in different ways by different people and lead to different types of behavior.

In the present study delay of gratification will be predicted and explained by assum-ing an interactive effect of situational and cognitive factors on the choice of delayed re-wards.

Situational factors

Lefcourt (1972) has complained that the situational conditions of the preference for de-layed reward have been neglected in previous research. In order to reduce the artificial quality of the laboratory situation, it would seem appropriate to investigate those situa-tional conditions that have real consequences for decision-making. These consequen-ces are not only dependent on chance but also on personal effort and activity. Mischel and Staub (1965) demonstrated that such situational characteristics have considerable influence on delay: When the delayed reward could only be obtained after successfully completing a task, previous experience of success in a similar task encouraged children to choose the delayed reward more frequently than the experience of failure or no infor-mation about success or failure. These results could be interpreted as supporting the following general hypothesis: The greater the subjective probability that one can fulfill the necessary contingencies for receiving the delayed reward, the more likely that de-layed reward will be chosen. The perceived difficulty of reaching the goal depends on

265

the previous experience and the quality of the task. In real life, goal achievement not only depends on effort but frequently also on the persistency with which (boring) rou-tine tasks are completed. Thus, an increase in realism in the delay paradigma could be achieved by varying contingencies for the delayed reward, such as the successful com-pletion of difficult or routine tasks.

In the present study, the following situational conditions will be analysed for their ef-fects on delay of gratification: (a) waiting only, (b) waiting and completion of a routine task, and (c) waiting and successful completion ofa difficult task, According to the gen-eral assumption ofMischel, in the delay paradigm the immediate reward will be chosen more often the greater the subjective difficulty of the contingencies for the larger but delayed reward. Persons who only have to wait for a delayed reward are expected to choose the delayed reward more often than persons who have to complete a routine or difficult task during the waiting period (hypothesis 1).

Whether or not delayed reward is more or less frequently chosen in the routine task condition as opposed to the difficult task condition cannot be predicted easily because, a priori, a routine task is neither more nor less "costly" than completion of a difficult and uncertain task. The "cost" of such tasks probably varies individually: The situational conditions presumably are interpreted differently according to individual differences in achievement motivation and locus of control.

Personal characteristics

Individual differences as well as situational conditions can influence the decision to de-lay gratifications (cf. reviews by Mischel, 1974; Nadler, 1975). Especially important are variables such as locus of control (internal versus external control) (cf. Rotter, 1966; Lefcourt, 1972; Mischel, Zeiss and Zeiss, 1974), and achievement motivation (cf. Mi-schel, 1966; Mendell, 1967; Whipple, 1972).

Locus of control. The interpretation of the decision situation depends - among other factors - on the subjective expectation of actually receiving the delayed reward and on general expectations such as the belief in personal (as opposed to external) influence (internal locus of control). This general expectation implies the belief that positive ex-periences are primarily a consequence of one's own behavior rather than a consequence of external influences.

Rotter, Chance and Phares (1972) assume that individuals believing in internal locus of control are more willing to delay gratification than externally controlled persons. In-ternally controlled persons believe themselves to be more cap1\ble of attaining the lar-ger postponed reward at a later time.

However, previous data do not support such a simple relationship. Bialer (1961) found a positive relationship between internal-external locus of control and choice of the delayed reward (in hypothetical and actual decision situations) with retardates; Zyt-koskee, Strickland and Watson (1971) when using Bialer's scale and Shybut (1970) when using Rotter's scale did not find such a relationship, Strickland (1972) found this rela-tionship only for white, but not for black children. In his review of studies on the re-lationship between delay of gratification and locus of control, Lefcourt (1972) showed that some studies found a postitive while others found no relationship at all between these variables. The validity of the instruments used may be a reason for such results: In

266

most studies subjects were asked to simply wait for the larger reward instead of persist-ing in some effort directed towards obtaining the distant goal.

Lefcourt (1972) suggests that an association between belief in internal control and delay behavior should occur only in such situations where the person's behavior is in-strumental for attaining a valuable but delayed reward. In line of this reasoning Mi-schel, Zeiss and Zeiss (1974) found that belief in control for positive events (but not for negative events) was related to delay behavior when an instrumental activity would result in a positive outcome.

This result questions the use oflocus of control instruments which do not differenti-ate between the expectation of positive and negative outcomes. However, in this study, delay behavior was measured as the length of actual waiting time in the laboratory--a paradigm which probably presented the child with temptation and measured the ability to resist temptation (cf. critical comments by Miller and Karniol, 1976). In the studies of Miller and Karniol (1976) and Miller (1978) where delay is measured by a time estama-tion index during the waiting period, the person has no choice - the waiting period is externally imposed. A more adequate paradigm for the study of delay behavior as a de-cision with consequences beyond the mere laboratory situation seems to be the method of Strickland (1972, 1973). Here, the person has to decide whether he/she is willing to wait for the delayed reward for several weeks.

However, for this kind of paradigm, the relationship between locus of control and de-lay behavior under varying situational contingencies (where instrumental activities for gaining the reward/goal have to be performed) has not yet been studied in detail. One can assume that a generalized belief in internal/external control determines the per-son's interpretation of the contingency situation and his/her subsequent decision. Em-pirical results of Liverant and Scodel (1960), EI-Gazzar, Saleh and Conrath (1976), Du Cette and Wolk (1972), and Julian, Lichtman and Ryckman (1968) generally support this reasoning.

Liverant and Scodel (1960) found that persons with internal as opposed to external locus of control bet less money in chance situations with a 50-50 probability of winning. Persons with internal locus of control apparently try to control the chance situation by placing their bets cautiously. Persons with external locus of control, however, tend to make riskier decisions (cf. EI-Gazzar et aI., 1976). When the successful completion of the task depends on personal ability, persons with internal as compared to external 10-cus of control should favor the alternative with the higher probability of success. Julian, Lichtman and Ryckman (1968) confirmed this hypothesis empirically. "Externals" pre-ferred alternatives with lower probabilities of success. Presumably, personal abilities are considered as being rather irrelevant by "externals". Furthermore, "externals" are not likely to attribute success to personal abilities. Du Cette and Wolk (1972) gave sup-port to this hypothesis by demonstrating that persons believing in external control choose situations that permit only minimal feedback of their personal performance ca-pacities.

As a result of these empirical findings, we expect that persons with internal locus of control prefer the immediate and smaller reward if the delayed and larger reward can only be obtained under uncertainty--e.g. when a difficult task with uncertain success is to be completed. Under such a condition, persons with external locus of control should choose the delayed reward more often than internals (Hypotheses 2).

267

Achievement motivation. An essential characteristic of delay of gratification in real sit-uations is the persistence in actively pursuing a previously chosen goal (cf. Lefcourt, 1972). Similarly, Heckhausen (1974) views delay of reward as a component of a superor-dinate construct--that is achievement motivation. This assumption is supported, to some extent, empirically.

Significant relationships between delay of gratification and achievement motivation were demonstrated when achievement motivation was measured using the TAT (Whipple, 1972), and when persistence and level of aspiration were measured using a standardized test (rating scales) (Mendell, 1967). A relationship between delay of grati-fication and test anxiety (as a possible indicator of fear and failure) was demonstrated by Mischel (1966). In contrast, Fink (1976) could not establish a significant relationship between actual delay of gratification and achievement motivation in children. As a re-sult of these findings, F ink posited that delay of gratification is more likely a component of planning behavior and has no direct relationship to achievement motivation.

These contradictory results on the relationship between achievement motivation and delay of gratification can be interpreted in line with Nadler (1975) as follows: Only in situations that activate achievement motivation a relationship between achievement motivation and delay of gratification occurs. Under such conditions, significant differ-ences between persons motivated by hope for success or by fear of failure should re-sult. According to Nadler (1975), persons motivated by hope for success will choose de-layed rewards if the situation activates achievement motivation, and if achievement is defined by an explicit criterion. In contrast, persons motivated by fear offailure should choose immediate rewards under this condition (hypothesis 3).

Sex differences. Owing to the present state of research on sex-differences it is not pos-sible to derive clear-cut predictions with respect to delay of gratification. Research find-ings on sex differences in delay of gratification have been contradictory (cf. Brannigan and Tolor, 1971; Trommsdorff, Burger, Ftichsle and Lamm, 1978). If effects of this vari-able would occur, they could only be interpreted post-hoc.

Method

Subjects

The sample consisted of243 students from two West German (single-sex) high schools (114 girls and 129 boys); subjects were between 16 and 19 years of age.

Instruments

Locus of control (internal versus external control) was measured using the LOC-E ques-tionnaire for adults by Schneewind (1976), a German version of the questionnaire developed by N owicki and Duke (1974). The LOC-E consists of 26 items and has satis-factory psychometric characteristics (split-half coefficient, rtt = .73). An investigation of the construct validity of the LOC-E using a sample of 96 first semester university stu-dents showed a statistically significant correlation with a German version of Rotter's (1966) scale of locus of control (r = .40) (cf. Schneewind), 1976).

268

There is a lack of standardized instruments to measure achievement motivation other than by TAT. A test which is theoretically well founded and of high methodologi-cal quality is the "LM -Gitter" of Schmalt (1976); however this achievement-motivation test can only be used for younger children.2 We therefore had to look for a test which takes into account the basic development of achievement-motivation theory (cf. Heck-hausen, 1967), which fulfills the requirements of classical testing criteria, and which is standardized for the age group of young adolescents.

For this reason, achievement motivation was measured with a questionnaire devel-oped by Braune (1975). This questionnaire consists of 48 items which encompass three factors (components) of achievement motivation - factor I: fear of failure (item 10: If something goes wrong, I tend to give up); factor II: striving for success (item 2: I try to do my work at least better than I am expected by others); factor II: hope for success (item 5: I try to solve problems where other people have failed).

The test criteria of the questionnaire have proven to be satisfactory (Braune, 1975). For data analysis, the sample was divided by median split on the basis of scores for (a) locus of control and (b) 3 factors of achievement motivation.

The situational variables used here did not have to serve the goal to distract the sub-jects from frustrations during the waiting period (cf. Mischel, 1974). The contingency conditions here should represent different decision situations in the delay paradigm. These decision situations were induced by first dividing the subjects randomly into three groups.

Each group received a different set of instructions outlining the contingency condi-tions for receipt of the delayed reward. in Group 1, subjects had to choose between an immediate reward or a larger reward in eight weeks. In Group 2, a boring task had to be completed during the eight weeks waiting period before subjects could receive the lar-ger reward; subjects were asked to cut the 26 letters of the alphabet out of a newspaper three times. Here, subjects should espect successful task completion only it they per-sisted. Subjects in Group 3 were told that they would receive the larger reward at the end of the eight weeks only if they had successfully completed a difficult task which usually is solved by 50 % of students of their age group. This contingency should induce uncer-tainty of success. (This task is otherwise used to test cognitive abilities related to con-centration: "d2" by Brickenkamp, 1968).

The dependent variable was the self-imposed delay of gratification. This variable was measured using a questionnaire on several real decisions between immediate and de-layed rewards, adapted from Fiichsle (1975). In 11 decision situations subjects had to choose between an immediately available but smaller reward and a more valuable one available in eight weeks. The values for delay of gratification (1 = no delay; 2 = delay) of the 11 situations were added together. The reward values of the items and the delay time for the larger reward were pretested in a group of comparable subjects for appropri-ate variance. Examples of the 11 different rewards are: 1 record (oil-lamp; book) now, or two in eight weeks; Deutsche Mark 7,50 in eight weeks or Deutsche Mark 5.-- now.

2 In a recent, unpublished study on the relationship between delay of gratification and achievement mo-tivation we tested a much younger age group (children between the ages of 9 and 11) and successfully used the questionnaire of Schmalt (1976).

269

Procedure

Subjects participated within their school class (all-girl and all-boy classes). Psychology students conducted the experiment in the presence ofthe teacher. Subjects first provid-ed some biographical information, and then completed the achievement motivation questionnaire, the internal/external locus of control questionnaire, and the delay of gratification questionnaire, Subjects were then told that they would be given only one of the 11 different rewards which had already been selected by the experimenter. Sub-jects who did not choose the delayed reward in this particular decision alternative were given the smaller reward immediately following the experiment. The remaining sub-jects who had chosen the delayed reward received the particular reward eight weeks later. In addition to the reward (and independent of their choice) all subjects received DM 6,-, which had been promised to them before they agreed to participate in the in-vestigation.

Results

The predicted situational influence on delay of gratification (hypothesis I) as well as the predicted influence oflocus of control (hypothesis 2) and the impact of sex were tested by analyses of variance with unequal cell frequencies in a 2 x 3 x2 design. The three fac-tors were: A= sex; B = situation; C = personality (locus of control/achievement moti-vation). The three levels of the factor "situation" were: I = waiting only; 2 = waiting and completion of a boring task with certain success; 3 = waiting and completion of a diffi-cult task with uncertain success. The subjects had been randomly assigned to the 3 con-tigency situations; for further analysis they were grouped according to their scores on (a) locus of control and (b) three components of achievement motivation, for each of which median splits were computed (for the total sample). This procedure accounts for the unequal cell frequencies.

Situation. Main effects for the factor "situation" were significant (see Table 1). If a task had to be done during the waiting period, the immediate reward was chosen more often. A comparison of the three situations for delay of gratification showed significant differences only between conditions 1 and 2 (t= 3.23; df =J57; p < .001), and between 1 and 3 (t= 3.28; df= 161; p < .001). Thus, hypothesis 1 was supported.

Locus of control. The factor "locus of control" differentiated between delay of gratifi-cation in the expected direction but this effect was only marginally significant (F = 2.74; df= 1/231; p < .10). However, the interaction between delay condition and locus of control was significant (F=4.24; df=2/231; p < .02). In condition 3 (waiting and un-certain completion of a difficult task), persons believing in external locus of control chose the delayed reward more often than persons with internal locus of control (t= 2.23; df=82; p < .025). This result supports hypothesis 2.

A decline in delay behavior over the three delay conditions was highly significant for the subjects who believed in internal control (simple effects for males: Fs = 6.60; df = 21 231; p < .01; for females: Fs=3.32; df=2/231; p < .05).

Sex. In general, girls chose more delay than boys in all situations (F=20.52; df= 1/ 231; p < .01). However, a test for simple effects in each of the three delay conditions

Tabl

e 1.

M

eans

for

Situ

atio

nal

and

Pers

onal

ity V

aria

bles

: D

elay

of G

rati

fica

tion

'

Situ

atio

nal

Wai

ting

only

W

aitin

g an

d co

ndit

ion

com

plet

ion

of

Sex

Mal

es

Fem

ales

M

ales

Fe

mal

es

X

N

X

N

x N

x

N

Locu

s of

con

trol

in

tern

al

16.9

4 (1

7)

18.1

4 (2

2)

14.2

7 (1

1)

1633

(24)

ex

tern

al

15.2

4(21

) 18

.95(

19)

14.9

6 (2

6)

15.8

4 (1

9)

Ach

ieve

men

t m

otiv

atio

n 1.

fear

of

failu

re

low

15

.69(

16)

18.0

0(15

) 14

.57

(14)

15

.80

(25)

hi

gh

16.2

3 (2

2)

18.8

1(26

) 14

.87

(23)

16

.56

(18)

2. st

rivi

ng f

or s

ucce

ss

low

16

56(1

6)

18.9

6 (2

3)

15.3

5 (2

3)

16.0

5(21

) hi

gh

15.5

9 (2

2)

17.9

4(18

) 13

.79(

14)

16.1

8 (2

2)

3. ho

pe f

or s

ucce

s lo

w

16.5

4 (1

3)

17.9

5(21

) 15

.45

(20)

16

.04

(23)

hi

gh

15.7

2 (2

5)

19.1

0 (2

0)

13.9

4 (1

7)

16.2

0 (2

0)

Wai

ting

and

com

plet

ion

of

diff

icul

t ta

sk

(unc

erta

in s

ucce

s)

Mal

es

Fem

ales

x

N

x N

12.0

8 (1

2)

15.6

7 (2

7)

13.4

2 (2

4)

16.4

0(15

)

14.4

7 (1

5)

14.6

3 (2

4)

14.6

2(16

) 14

.52

(23)

15.5

2 (2

7)

17.3

9(18

)

1729

(24)

15

.10

(21)

16.3

4 (2

9)

16.1

3 (1

6)

15.9

2(26

) 16

.74(

19)

a Su

m o

f de

lay

scor

es f

or 1

1 si

tuat

ions

(sc

ale

rang

ing

from

11

to 2

2) (

for

each

situ

atio

n: 1

= no

del

ay;

2= d

elay

).

b FA

= s

ex;

FS =

del

ay c

ondi

tion;

Fe

= pe

rson

alit

y va

riab

le.

*p <

.10;

Hp

< .0

5; *

**p

< .0

1.

F-va

lues

b (N

= 2

43)

FA

20.5

2***

FE

8.

47**

* F

e 2.

74*

FE

e 4.

24**

FA

13.3

4***

FE

5.

52**

* F

AE

e 3.

90**

FA

15.0

7***

FS

6.

90**

*

FA

15.0

9***

FS

6.

82**

*

N --.l o

271

showed that in the "waiting only" condition (1) this was the case only for subjects believ-ing in external control (Fs = 10.68; df = 11231; p < .01), and in condition 3 (waiting and successful completion of a difficult task) for subjects believing in internal control (Fs = 7.65; df=I1231; p < .01).

Achievement motivation. To test hypothesis 3, three analyses of variance were com-puted for each of the "components" of achievement motivation (Braune, 1975). Hypo-thesis 3 was not confirmed. The success-oriented subjects did not choose the delayed reward significantly more frequently in any of the delay of gratification conditions.

However, simple effects showed, that in condition 3 (waiting and completion of a dif-ficult task), low fear of failure males chose the delayed reward less frequently than fe-males lowin fear offailure (Fs = 13.83; df= 11231; p < .01). Furthermore, in this special condition (3), males low as compared to males high in fear offailure chose the delayed reward less frequently (Fs = 6.31; df = 11231; p < .025); but females low as compared to females figh in fear of failure chose the delayed reward more frequently in this condi-tion (3) (Fs=4.13; df= 11231; p < .05) (simple effects).

Males chose the delayed reward less frequently than females in condition 1 (wainting only) only when fear of failure was high (Fs = 6.10; df = 11231; p < .025) (simple ef-fects).

Discussion

Situational factors

The results of this investigation show that self-imposed delay of gratification varies ac-cording to the particular decision situation. This is in line with the general assumption of Mischel (1974) that delay of gratification is dependent upon the specific situation. Delay of gratification is chosen more often when the delayed reward is associated only with waiting and not with some boring of difficult task (contingency) (hypothesis 1). One can assume, that - depending upon the situation - the perceived attractiveness of delay varies. When further contingencies ware associated with waiting, the willingness to delay is inhibited significantly, irrespective of the nature of the task (routine or diffi-cult). Obviously, our manipulation was not successful to induce people to differentiate between different tasks with respect to their delay decision. In future research, one should try to vary systematically the certainty ofthe anticipated future reward and its at-tractveness (subjective value) by using different contingencies. This would allow to predict the choice of delay by the expectation-x-value model (cf. Mischel, 1974). How-ever, variations in certainty and attractiveness must not necessarily induce different choices in the delay paradigm.

Starting from another theory of decision-making, one could assume that the cogni-tive structuring offuture consequences rather that the type of decision situation is the necessary condition of choices under uncertainty (cf. Slovic, Fischhoff and Lichten-stein, 1977). According to these authors, risky decisions are made when the situation has not yet been structured adequately. Cognitive structuring implies that the conse-quences of the decision and the necessary conditions for successfully dealing with the situation are taken into account.

272

Some cognitive structuring might have been induced by our manipulation: The bar-riers to goal achievement were specified, that is, the task to be completed was described in detail (see conditions 2 and 3). At least in comparison to the unspecific waiting-only condition (1), a much more detailed structuring offuture outcomes was manipulated in conditions 2 and 3. This kind of cognitive structuring might have served as "cognitive clarifyer" and made the individual aware of disturbing and unpleasant future conse-quences (cf. Trommsdorff, 1978), such as the possibility offailling to receive the post-poned larger reward. This anticipation should be rather similar for condition 2 and 3.

Not only the anticipation of unplessant consequences, but also the relevant precon-ditions for goal achievement should be thought about similarly in conditions 2 and 3: In both conditions, one had to think about the barriers to the goal (the postponed re-ward). Such cognitive structuring could have reduced expectation of success (cf. Trommsdorff, 1978) and the motivation to wait and to overcome these obstacles.

Person and situation factors

Locus of control. The findings pertaining to hypothesis 2 indicate that inter-individual differences in delay behavior are dependent on situational characteristics. The general hypothesis that persons with internal locus of control choose the delayed reward in the delay paradigms more often cannot be maintained because it does not take into ac-count the effect of situational factors. Belief in internal! external control influences the descision to delay gratification only in certain situations where the particular belief in control is functional for the interpretation of the decision-making situation. Presumbly, persons believing in internal locus of control attempt to control ambiguous and uncer-tain situations by choosing the immediate reward. In contrast, persons believing in ex-ternallocus of control are willing to accept uncertain outcomes; that is, they choose the uncertain but more attractive alternative.

Individual differences in delay occur only in situations which activate different be-liefs about the origin of outcomes. Further research should differentiate between the belief in control of negative and positive outcomes in relation to delay. Furthermore, the contingency situations should vary systematically according to the certainty of out-comes and to the period of delay (waiting).

Sex and locus or control. The generally greater willingness of girls to delay gratifica-tion as compared to boys may be a result of specific situational conditions in the present study. In an earlier investigation (cf. Trommsdorff et aI., 1978) that was conducted in the absence of the teacher in mixed classes, no sex-specific differences in delay behavior occurred. If one can assume that delay is a socially valuable behavior, and girls are more prone to behave in a socially desirable manner than boys, the girls' greaterwil-lingness to delay gratification (as compared to boys) could be interpreted as a result of sex-specific sensitivity to socially desirable behavior. Social desirability tendencies may have been induced by the presence of the teacher.

However, these assumptions would have to be empirically tested before such an in-terpretation is acceptable. From our data one can conclude that situational and person-ality variables modify the simple relation between sex and delay of gratification, and that person variables can have situation-specific effects, independent of the person's sex.

273

A person's sex influences the way he/she interprets a decision situation: Delay condi-tion 3 differs significantly only between females and males who believe in internal con-trol; here males delay less frequently than females. This result is in accordance with the general result that males choose the delayed reward less frequently than females. How-ever, in delay condition 3, this general sex difference does not hold for persons believ-ing in external control; in condition 1 (waiting only) it does not hold for persons believ-ing in internal control. Here males delay less than females only when they believe in ex-ternal control.

The traditional study of delay behavior resembles our "waiting-only" condition. Sex differences do not occur here if persons believe in internal control. S ex differences in delay of gratification seem to depend on cognitive factors - the way a person attributes his/her outcomes (belief in internal or external control).

Sex and achievement motivation. Achievement motivation does not influence the choice for delayed rewards in the predicted way (hypothesis 3), but it mediates between sex and situational conditions. In delay condition 3 (waiting and completion of difficult task), boys with high fear offailure delay more than boys with low fear offailure. This is in contrast to females.

Boys with fear offailure may prefer the risky decision alternative because they tend to avoid a self-concepts of a fearful person. To behave and to decide like a person low in fear of failure is probably still more highly valued for males than for females in our cul-ture.

When choices in uncertain conditions are to be made (condition 3) and fear of failure is low, males as compared to females delay less; however, when fear offailure is high in this condition, no sex-specific differences occur.

The structure of the sex differences in delay of gratification becomes rather clear now: In the waiting-only condition (1) both, belief in internal control and low fear of failure, are conditions which reduce sex-typed choices of delay, while external control and high fear of failure induce sex differences in delay.

However, in condition 3, where a difficult task with uncertain success has to be com-pleted in the waiting period, sex differences in delay only occur for people with internal control and low fear of failure.

These findings demonstrate clearly that - contrary to Fink's (1976) assumption and in line with Heckhausen (1974) - some relation between achievement motivation and delay of gratification exists but has certainly to be more carefully investigated, obvious-ly, by also taking into consideration the effect of sex and of situational conditions which should clearly activate different levels of achievement-motivation.

Conclusions

It has been shown here that neither personality nor situational variables alone can satis-factorily predict the decision to delay gratification. Situations are subjectively interpret-ed, depending upon the cognitive schemata and motivational structure of the person. Accordingly, people differ in their choice of the delay alternative.

On the other hand, situational conditions such as facing a task-contingency in a delay paradigm can activate very different people to choose the same alternative. This task

274

may induce people to structure the preconditions and consequences of the delay in such a way that the anticipated attractiveness of the delayed reward reduces the wil-lingness for delay.

Delay of gratification (even the type of behavior used here) itself could be under-stood as a personality variable (Mischel and Gilligan, 1964). However, we would predict from our present theorizing and results that persons high or low on this personality vari-able would probably not choose the delayed or immediate reward consistently in differ-ent situations: Such persons probably will interpret these choice situations not only ac-cording to their preference for delayed or immediate rewards, but also according to their achievement motivation and their generalized attribution tendencies (belief in in-ternal or external control of events). Furthermore, one might assume that the individ-ual difference in future-oriented structuring of the decision-making situation and its outcomes in more or less detail (with respect to preconditions for and consequences of the goal attainment) is a factor that contributes to the subjective interpretation of the decision-making situation and the subsequent decision for delay.

It will not be easy to activate a personality variable such as future-oriented cognitive structuring in the laboratory. It seems to be worthwhile, however, to focus on the ques-tion to what extent situational variables and person variables - such as achievement motivation, attributional preferences and future orientation - and their interactions can explain the decision for delayed gratification.

References

Argyle, M., Little, B. R.: Do personality taits apply to social behaviour? Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 2, 1-35 (1972).

Bialer, 1.: Conceptualization of success and failure in mentally retarded and normal children. Journal of Personality 29, 303-320 (1961).

Brannigan, G. G., Tolor, A.: Sex differences in adaptive styles. Journal of Genetic Psychology 119,143-149 (1971).

Braune, P: Zur Beziehung von Leistungsmotivation und allgemeiner Sebsteinschatzung: Mitteilung iiber einen Fragebogen zur Messung von Leistungsmotivation. Universitat Erlangen-Niirnberg, SFB 22, 1975.

Brickenkamp, R.: Aufmerksamkeits-Belastungs-Test. Gottingen: Hogrefe 19682

Du Celte, J., Wolk, S.: Locus of control and extreme behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-ogy 39, 253-258 (1972).

El-Gazzar, S. R., Saleh, S. R. & Conrath, D. W.: Situational and individual difference variables in chance determined activities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 34, 951-959 (1976).

Fink, E. H.: Zukunftsorientierung, Leistungsmotivation und Planungsverhalten bei 10-14jahrigen Schii-lern. Dissertation, Universitiit Marburg, 1976.

Fiichsle, T.: Soziale und situative Determinanten des Aufschubverhaltens und der Selbst- vs. AuBende-termination zukiinftiger Ereignisse. Unpublished Diplom thesis, Universitat Mannheim, 1975.

Heckhausen, H.: The anatomy of achivement motivation. New York: Academic Press, 1967. Heckhausen, H.: Leistungs-Wertgehalt und Wirksamkeit einer Handlungsmotivation und eines Zutei-

lungsprinzips. In: H. Heckhausen, Sinn und Unsinn des Leistungsprinzips. Stuttgart: Dtv 1974. Julian, J. w., Lichtman, C. M. & Ryckman, R. M.: Internal-external control and need to control. Journal of

Social Psychology 76, 43-48 (1968). Lefcourl, H. M.: Recent developments in the study oflocus of control. In: B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in

experimental personality research. (Vol. 6). New York: Academic Press 1972. Liverant, S., Scodel, A.: Internal and external control as determinant of decision making under conditions

of risk. Psychological Reports 7, 59-67 (1960).

275

Magnusson, D., Endler, N. S. (Eds.): Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychol-ogy. New York: Wiley 1977.

Mendell, D.: Relating delay of gratification to achievement in young children. Dissertation Abstracts In-ternational 28-3, 1169-B (1967).

Miller, D. T. Locus of control and the ability to tolerate gratification delay: When it is better to be an ex-ternal. Journal of Research in Personality 12, 49-56 (1978).

Miller, D. T, Karniol, R.: The role of rewards in externally and self-imposed delay of gratitication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 33, 594-600 (1976).

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

Mischel, W.: Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review 80, 252-283 (1973).

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

Mischel, W., Gilligan, c.: Delay of gratification, motivation for the prohibited gratification, and responses to temptation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 69,411-417 (1964).

Mischel, W., Staub, E.: Effects of expectancy on working and waiting for larger rewards. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology 2, 625-633 (1965).

Mischel, W., Zeiss, R. & Zeiss, A.: Internal-external control and persistence: Validation and implications of the Stanford Preschool Internal-External Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 29, 265-278 (1974).

Nadler, A.: Delay of gratification: Review and suggestions for future research. ISAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 5279, Ms. No. 1010 (1975).

Nowicki, S., Duke, M. P.: A locus of control scale for college as well as noncollege adults. Journal of Personality Assessment 38, 136-137 (1974).

Rachlin, H.: Self control. Paper presented at PSICHI Symposium, APA, 1973. Rapaport, D.: Die Struktur der psychoanalytischen Theorie. Stuttgart: Klett 1961. Rotter, J. B.: Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychologi-

cal Monographs 80, Whole No. 609 (1966). Rotter, J. B., Chance, 1. E. & Phares, E. J.: Applications of a social learning theory of personality. New

York: Holt 1972. Schmalt, H.-D.: Das LM-Gitter. Handanweisung. Gottingen: Hogrefe, 1976. Schneewind, K. A.: EntwickJung eines Fragebogens zur Erfassung internaler versus external er Kontroll-

bedingungen bei Erwachsenen (LOC-E). Universitat Trier, EKB-Projekt, Arbeitsbericht 15 (1976). Shybut, J.: Internal vs. external control, time perspective and delay of gratification of high and low ego

strength groups. Journal of Clinical Psychology 26, 430-431 (1970). Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. & Lichtenstein, S.: Behavioral decision theory. Annual Review of Psychology 28,

1-39 (1977). Strickland, B. R.: Delay of gratification as a function of race of the experimenter. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology 22, 108-112 (1972). Strickland, B. R.: Delay of gratification and internal locus of control in children. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology 40, 338 (1973). Trommsdorff, G.: Gruppeneinfiiisse auf Zukunftsbeurteilungen. Meisenheim: Hain, 1978. Trommsdorff, G., Burger, c., Fiichsle, T & Lamm, H.: Erziehung fUr die Zukunft. Diisseldorf: Schwann

1978. Whipple, D. W.: A study of the relationship among ethnic social class, intelligence, achievement motiva-

tion and delay of gratification. Dissertation Abstracts International 33-6, 3028-A (1972). Zytkoskee, A., StrickJand, B. R. & Watson, J.: Delay of gratification and internal vs. external control

among adolescents of low socioeconomic status. Developmental Psychology 4, 93-98 (1971).