Printable View
The question is;
"In your opinion, are todays teenagers from the USA likely to require more, the same, or less, instant gratification than teenagers from the 1970's"?
Sorry no "rats ring" response available because we found that last month.
If you know the research please don't reveal it until we get a decent response.
Thanks
In an age of Internet, iPhones and copious Social Media outlets, isn't it like asking if motor vehicles are more sophisticated now than in the 1970s?
For the above stated reasons pretty much every age group demands instant gratification these days. Not just teenagers.
BibL, what's the purpose of your question?
are you trying to confirm your bias?
It will come out in due time.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
:aro-u: This.Quote:
Originally Posted by dubrosa22
I guess that in my day we still wanted instant gratification... it just wasn't anywhere near as readily accessible so we were less inclined to demand it.
E-mail thru fidonet servers took a day each way for the rare few who actually understood the tech. Mobile telephony on one's person was not an option, you had to use hardwired devices. Online shopping? *SNRK* Etc., etc.
I think so but I wouldn’t just limit it to teenagers. Instant gratification is everywhere these days from the food we eat to entertainment. I honestly think the digital age has been a pretty huge double edged sword, we’ve seen huge advancements but at what cost? Despite us being more connected than ever there is very little sense of being part of a community and I feel like we probably socialise less than we used to just because we feel that false sense of connection.
I have no idea about teenagers from the USA, are they special in some way?Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL
Peter.
Well they are they ones for which long term (50 years) research data is available.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturdee
Given the some might say unfortunate "cultural" impact of the US media etc on Australia I thought some members night have a view/bias/insight into this.
I for one am not happy when I come in from the shed on a hot day and there's not an icy cold Grolsch sitting on the kitchen bench for me to consume
This happens regularly and I noticed that it even happens when I'm the only one home!
Prior to some fancy machine being invented and used on a regular basis with trained operators, when a female found them selves in the family way, they had to wait until said child was born to find out if it was male or female.
Today it seams to be the thing to find out the sex of the unborn child as early as possible, about 12 or 13 weeks of pregnancy.
If ultra sound is not available, you still need to wait until the child is born to find out its sex.
Now is this instant gratification.
Bob, I gave a talk on Internet Addiction late last year. It's an area of interest since I see so many kids with this issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL
One of the stats I will toss out is that, between 2011 and 2015, the number of teenagers who were on their smart phones at midnight doubled, and the same for the numbers on their smart phones at 2-3 a.m. This group represented about 25% of teenagers. I have no doubt that these figures have increased since 2015. As I recall, these were Oz teenagers.
The issue here is not simply impulsivity and instant gratification, but poor self regulation (the current buzz term).
My favourite story is that, when I was about 11 years old (that would be about 1961), I had a game of chess with an uncle of mine. Well, playing chess was not unusual, however my uncle lived in another country (in London). So we would write a move on a post card and send it off. Back-and-forth the post cards went, and the play carried on this way for over 2 years before we got together to finish the game.
I ask parents whether they believe children today could do this.
The correct answer is that children today do not need to do this. They have the Internet, Skype, email, etc.
What is missing today are many of the activities we took for granted growing up, activities that fostered self control and tolerance. Even activities such as sending off a coupon from the back of a comic or cereal box to get a badge ... and then waiting three months for it to arrive. You remember the days? :)
Do you remember waiting until dinner before telephoning anyone? There was no thought given to being near a telephone and, even if a message was left on a machine (if you had one), the urge to call back immediately was just not there. Today who walks around without a mobile phone (except for me)? Or answers it when in a meeting, or in the middle of a conversation with another, or at the meal table ....? The self control of adults has also eroded. And we are meant to set the example for teenagers.
Regards from Perth
Derek
And we do! Just the wrong one.... ;) ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by derekcohen
My info comes from a long term study I heard about on an "All in the mind" ABC Podcast ("Kids of today", released last Sunday) yesterday" which also discussed the internet as the source of all things bad with kids these days.
The speaker was a US researcher who looked at the following longitudinal study on instant gratification performed in the US since 1970.
The test involves random selection of teenagers and telling them to select a treat from this range of treats (box containing a range of lollies and chocolate bars etc)
Then two plates are laid out in front of the teenager, one plate contains one treat, and the other contains two of the same treat.
The the teenager is told you can have the plate with the one treat now, or wait and have the plate with the two later.
The research polled some 200 mental health professionals across the US and asked them the same question that I asked in this poll.
The result of this poll was that ~50% of the professionals through that teenager instant gratification has increased over time, 30% said it has stayed the same and 20% said it would have reduced.
Based on this test the teenagers since 1970 have actually steadily reduced their need for instant gratification, so even most of the professionals did not get it right and looking at the poll results suggest were as good at predicting this as the professionals
RE: internet etc - if anything kids are pragmatic and they pick up on new things quickly and explore/exploit them in ways that adults may not even think of. We should not confuse ease and breadth of access with instant gratification. Why wait for something when standard technology allows you to have it now? With some reservations I'm strongly with the kids on this one. Instead of using these forum we could all be writing letters to each other ?
The researcher on the podcast went onto to say that the latest tech often gets blamed for various things that they can find no explanation for. 20 years ago it was video games, 20 years before that it was TV, 30 year before that it was radio. Even the humble novel was said by authorities in the 19th century to be a source of moral degradation leading to lower classes thinking too far above their station.
A better test for instant gratification using the internet might be, "You can have this nice thing (eg tool) for $500 now OR buy it on line for $250 but you have to wait for 4 weeks for it to arrive by post" , now that might be an interesting poll to do with kids and adults.
BTW I recommend the podcast.
Spurred by this post I found this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3685794/ and this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3730121/.
It would appear that these may provide some insight into the 'live for today' attitudes evinced by some.
Bob, the problem with this "test" is that it does not include a measure of motivation or desire. My definition of a reward is that it must fullfill two conditions: the item must be desireable, and it must be accessible. What is being assessed here is the ability to wait, that is, how they deal with accessibility, which is not defined in terms of time - the issue of time awareness is a huge one, which is beyond a simple reply here. They have also not determined whether the prize is desirable to the same level for all.Quote:
The test involves random selection of teenagers and telling them to select a treat from this range of treats (box containing a range of lollies and chocolate bars etc)
Then two plates are laid out in front of the teenager, one plate contains one treat, and the other contains two of the same treat.
The the teenager is told you can have the plate with the one treat now, or wait and have the plate with the two later.
Junk research.
Regards from Perth
Derek
The second article (even though it relates to young children and not teenagers) is very interesting and this quote is particularly so
Then we have to ask who has created the environment in which the children are operating - of course its all of us.Quote:
We demonstrated that children’s sustained decisions to wait for a greater reward rather than quickly taking a lesser reward are strongly influenced by the reliability of the environment (in this case, the reliability of the researcher’s verbal assurances). More broadly, we have shown that young children’s performance on delay-of-gratification tasks can be strongly influenced by an implicit rational decision-making process.
So if anyone is to blame its us.
It reminds me of my Paediatrician school mate who sees a lot of kids for eating disorders. In the vast majority of the cases it's not the kids that need treating, its the parents that "need work". Derek, I think we have discussed this before?
Sure - I agree most if not all of these "tests" have limitations. And I'd like to think that Aussie kids might even be different. I should have stated in the poll more explicitly what the test was. Even If I had, I doubt it would have changed the result of the poll. We always think the worst of the next generation - its kind of built into our DNA. I used to think that way but even given the way we have treated them I have high hopes.Quote:
Originally Posted by derekcohen
I have been thinking about your examples of the comic book coupons and the chess game by letters. We had no choice - if we were told we could do it instantly back then I wonder how many of us would have chosen to use snail mail? I am reminded of what my 93 year old MIL and the late queen mum used to say, "always avail oneself of any facilities whether you need to or not"
As for the telephone, that's an easy one, if you don't answer, callers do eventually stop calling.
Agreed, but from a non-professional view of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by derekcohen
I answered the question as it was posed (as I was always instructed to do in High School....in the 1970s btw), but as someone else pointed out, if it had been about adults, old age pensioners or anyone else, my answer would have been the same. That is simply because the internet has provided the tool for instant gratification - which OF COURSE would have been used in the 70s had it existed. Just like power machinery would have been used in the 17th Century rather than hand tools, if it had existed. There is no question about that. ("Hey Mr Cabinet maker, would you prefer to make 10 tables per week, or just one, for the same unit price")
I don't think the worst of the generations coming through....not at all. I don't know if there are more dropkicks amongst them (per capita), but even if there are it was the current older generations that bred the newer ones the way they are.
Just this morning there was an article relating that teenagers in foster care in Texas are five times more likely to become teen parents. The Texas state and private authorities responsible for various child protection programs have a long history of tragedy.
I don't know that I have much to contribute beyond what has already been said, but maybe there is some value or interest here.
I remember well when I was young the predictions of me ending up in gaol, long haired louts who would never amount to anything. When I look at my friends kids today, late teens and 20's I am truly amazed at how together and successful so many of them are. Not just professional careers either, they are killing every aspect of life. Yep some fall by the way, but compared to my generation they are miles ahead.
I spent most of my working life in research, albeit physics, manufacturing etc not humanities. I submit however this truth applies: A lot of research is garbage driven more by politics and the principles belief system than good scientific method. I was so often appalled by what I saw being published and how profoundly stupid so many academics are. Read the work, but be skeptical about everything, and check teh raw data. If it's obfuscated be suspicious.
At the risk of hijacking the thread I would suggest that the internet is in no way the problem. It is after all just a conduit. I have long railed against the increasing disparity in developed countries between rich and poor, and the increasing anonymity. Before you go thinking I'm another lefty nutter stop right there. I have railed just as hard against the demonstrably stupid solutions of the left. They fail. They have always failed. But you can demonstrate that governments deregulating the economy as Hawk did in the 80's giving pillagers free reign creates a society full of resentment, fractured. When people are no longer invested in a common community the incentive to adhere to the social contract diminishes. When I was young we had one of the most egalitarian societies in the world. If people misbehaved word got around town and employment and social opportunities dried up. The poorest felt they were within reach of middle class comfort and the richest were a visible part of the same world. We lost that in the 80's. Now there are no consequences to stealing a car, going to gaol and little hope for many young people of a job that pays better than a waiter.
And all the while the media keep telling us how much better everything is...
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobl
mmm,
The other side of this goes along with what Derek posted.... The correct answer is that the world is different now and kids have to live in this world - not in the past.... It's illegal to apprentice your kids off to the trades at 10 or 13 like Great Grandpa did.. Illegal to hire out your 10 year old boy out to factories to sweep the floors or carry hods...
Well guess what - there was no deferred gratification in that world for most... No deferring anything for several years... You work now and you get paid now... A day's work for a day's pay.. This means you can have a family or buy things now - not later... And the reason the blacksmith or the jointer was a journeyman at 18 or 19 is not because they were "better" or "Worked harder".... It's because they had been working full time for 6-8 years by that age... And they had 6-8 years of working and doing the job and learning the business on the fellow who went to secondary school.....
And so my answer is that it's much better now - except that now those opportunities don't even exist...