Self-Control In Kids Predicts Future Success

SpuriousLogic writes "A new study suggests that a child's future success depends on the amount of self-control they exhibit. From the article: 'The international team of researchers looked at 1,037 children in New Zealand born in the early 1970s, observing their levels of self-control at ages 3 and 5. At ages 5, 7, 9 and 11, the team used parent, teacher and the children's own feedback to measure such factors as impulsive aggression, hyperactivity, lack of persistence and inattention. At age 32, they used physical exams, blood tests, records searches and personal interviews of 96% of the original participants to determine how healthy, wealthy and law-abiding the subjects had turned out to be. The results were startling. In the fifth of children with the least self-control, 27% had multiple health problems. Compare that with the fifth of kids with the most self-control — at just 11%. Among the bottom fifth, 32% had an annual income below approximately $15,000, while only 10% of the top fifth fell into that low-income bracket. Just 26% of the top-fifth's offspring were raised in single-parent homes, compared with 58% of those in the bottom fifth. And 43% of the bottom fifth had been convicted of a crime, far outstripping the top fifth's 13% rate.'"

Comments

First post!

[Anonymous Coward]

Self control? What's that?

Causation is not Correlia

[ShakaUVM]

"Among the bottom fifth, 32% had an annual income below approximately $15,000, while only 10% of the top fifth fell into that low-income bracket. Just 26% of the top-fifth's offspring were raised in single-parent homes, compared with 58% of those in the bottom fifth."

Well, that may very well be the problem right there. Ditto for the fact that kids with low self control probably came from low-income families, too.

That said, doing martial arts as a kid is a wonderful way to learn self-control, among many other benefits. I'm half convinced it cures ADHD, too, from my personal experience.

Re:Causation is not Correlia

[hedwards]

That's what I was thinking. Kids with self control problems in school often come from backgrounds where sitting still and having self control isn't valued. But beyond that, of course if they're still having trouble with self control as adults their income is going to suffer, people who can't or won't fit the business world are going to be making less money whether or not it's warranted. Businesses just aren't in the practice of hiring people they don't think fit their business.

Re:Causation is not Correlia

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about? I think it's very clear from the research: kids with little self control clearly caused themselves to grow up in a single-parent home. I mean, how else could you possibly interpret that data?

Re:Causation is not Correlia

[aliquis]

I haven't RTFA or RTFFP.

Anyway, what I wonder in this case is how much is genetics and how much is environment. Though they don't say anything about anything of it, just how they act as kids.

But for instance genetics may not decide whatever your parents separate or not (or maybe it does if they are more "explosive" characters themselves .. And you get that), but eventually that may affect how you interact with other persons.

Personally I feel pretty fucked up now at the age of 31. I've had a somewhat weird life as kid but I didn't felt weird or remotely as bad back when I was say 20.

Way too little real interaction with other people in my life, work/job/whatever, love, death, sadness make you behave weird. It could had changed and some people could probably had helped but it kinda scares them away because what are they supposed to see in someone such as myself?

Crap :(

Re:Causation is not Correlia

[agm]

"Among the bottom fifth, 32% had an annual income below approximately $15,000, while only 10% of the top fifth fell into that low-income bracket. Just 26% of the top-fifth's offspring were raised in single-parent homes, compared with 58% of those in the bottom fifth."

Well, that may very well be the problem right there.

It says the study subjects offspring were raised in single parent homes, not that the study subjects themselves were raised in a single parent home.

It also says an annual income of below $15000. Given this was in New Zealand, I doubt very much this is true. $15,000 NZD is not much at all. Perhaps they converted it to some other currency?

Re:Causation is not Correlia

[Kell Bengal]

I know exactly how you feel. You grow up a product of your environment and you don't really look back until you're 30 and realise what could have been, if things had been different. I certainly grew up in the shadow of potential I was supposed to be meeting, even when I wasn't encouraged at home and being bullied mercilessly. I think it's insane how we expect children to learn and study at school and then send them home to parents who tell them that hard work is dumb. Even with the best genetics in the world, those kids are going to have it tough later in life.

Re:Causation is not Correlia

[tsm_sf]

Even at a very young age I realized that boxing was a far more practical and effective discipline.

It seems to me that the "effectiveness" of any martial art has everything to do with the particular instructor's point of view. Some emphasize the "martial" more than the "art", and vice versa. The most striking example of this for me was a fencing class I took years ago where the instructor devoted half of each class to what was basically dirty street fighting with a rapier. Useless in a practical sense, and entirely contrary to the spirit of the sport, but it was exactly as much fun as it sounds.

Re:Causation is not Correlia

[dogmatixpsych]

If you read the research article (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/01/20/1010076108) - [note: open access, so you can download the pdf or read the full text online] - the researchers state the annual income was 20,000 NZD, which is roughly 15,000 USD ("For example, by adulthood, the highest and lowest fifths of the population on measured childhood self- control had respective rates of multiple health problems of 11% vs. 27%, rates of polysubstance dependence of 3% vs. 10%, rates of annual income under NZ $20,000 of 10% vs. 32%, rates of offspring reared in single-parent households of 26% vs. 58%, and crime conviction rates of 13% vs. 43%.") So yes, it was converted for an American audience.

Re:Causation is not Correlia

[dogmatixpsych]

The researchers controlled for childhood income (socioeconomic status {SES}) and IQ. The low self control kids were more likely than high self control kids to become single parents (58% versus 26%) and have very low income (32% versus 10%). Yes, the low self control kids were more likely to be brought up in low SES homes and were more likely to have lower IQs but the researchers controlled for that in all analyses: "Dunedin study children with greater self-control were more likely to have been brought up in socioeconomically advantaged families (r = 0.25, P
Anyway, the regression coefficients for the study are generally quite modest, but it's an interesting finding (one that's been replicated many times, actually). I would like to have seen better statistical analyses though (some multi-level modeling would have been more elegant).

Re:Causation is not Correlia

[arivanov]

The data is right, the conclusion is wrong.

The data clearly shows that US and UK schools fail miserably in educating the potential top 5% percentile of students (ditto for bottom 5%). The best students (especially male ones) are guaranteed to be in that "lack of self control" bucket. They are bored. Anyone who had a smart boy will tell you that based on experience (girls are slightly better at faking interest).

I have seen it first hand with my 8 year old. He was assigned exactly in that bucket and had an "impossible to educate, needs psychiatric assessment" label in 2 schools. The lot - refuse to sit, lashing out, etc. Guess what, his granny taught him to read in another language with a different alphabet in 3 weeks at the age of 6. He has now managed to compensate for the 2 years when the teachers had him labelled as "impossible" and get back to his class level in English (4 years in 2) and to a level which is at least a year ahead of where he should be in math.

I really hate to think where he could have been if his teachers did not assign him to the "non-compliant, belongs to the never succeed bucket" in his last year at the nursery.

Re:Causation is not Correlia

[Kashgarinn]

You're reading too much into this from your own perspective.

Your perspective is that you have an intelligent, but out of control individual, you're assuming all individuals who lack self-control are the same as the individual you know, and that if only the needs of these individuals are met, everyone would be better.

The thing is.. and this is the big thing.. individuals who are just as intelligent, but do not lack self-control have more control over their lives in the future.

It's the difference between being intelligent, finding school boring and lashing out at the environment because you're bored, or being intelligent, finding school boring, but enduring that anyway and taking what you can from it.

In your case, I'd try and develop the kids self-control. Intelligence is a fine tool to cut through obstacles, but self-control is the tool to cleave mountains.

TED - Marshmallow Experiment

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.ted.com/talks/joachim_de_posada_says_don_t_eat_the_marshmallow_yet.html

Re:Shocking

[flink]

Well, the shocking thing is how early the amount of self control one has appears to be "set". Most of us have little to no awareness and certainly no control of how we are raised before we are 3, yet it appears that a major facility that determines how successful we will be for the rest of our lives is already well established by this age.

Don't Eat the Marshmallow... Yet! (related)

[eepok]

http://www.ted.com/talks/joachim_de_posada_says_don_t_eat_the_marshmallow_yet.html/

In this short talk from TED U, Joachim de Posada shares a landmark experiment on delayed gratification -- and how it can predict future success. With priceless video of kids trying their hardest not to eat the marshmallow.

Character

[fwarren]

Or maybe character matters?

Surprise, children are people too

[h00manist]

The same is true for adults, or, if you may, human beings. Big surprise, I don't know why people insist on treating children as retards or something.

Re:Shocking

[siddesu]

Not really, in my country he runs the second-largest telecom. The second and the third to smoke are government ministers.

/ really.

1037 children

[Coppit]

The international team of researchers looked at 1,037 children in New Zealand born in the early 1970s, observing their levels of self-control at ages 3 and 5.

The researchers had a very strong temptation to find another 300 children to study, but being successful scientists were able to exhibit self-control.

Self control == Intelligence

[Okian Warrior]

I can't comment on the study because I couldn't find a link to it in the linked article (wtf?).

One of the definitions of intelligence is the ability to put off an immediate reward for a long term benefit. Children are presented with a jelly bean and told "if you can wait until [the researcher] get back, you'll get 3 jelly beans", and then the researcher leaves.

Kids who can put off temptation the longest tend to score highest in IQ tests.

For example, smokers could give up smoking for 3 months and use the money to pay for a high-def TV. This never happens in practice, because of their inability to put off the immediate pleasure in order to get the long-term reward.

BTW, the links on Slashdot have no underlines? With no decoration, you have to mouse around the text in order to see if a link was included in the article.

Re:Self control == Intelligence

[orphiuchus]

Self control is only part of intelligence if you expand the definition to include it. In my opinion we use the word "intelligence" as too much of a blanket term encompassing all the elements of success.

The truth of the matter is that someone who processes and retains information with the bottom 20% of the population but has the self control to do the extra work required for them to get the grades and/or do good work at, whatever their profession is, is very likely to be more successful than their peers.

Most of the 4.0 students(with engineering or noble science majors) I knew in college never left their rooms on weeknights. I realized a few years ago that they weren't necessarily smarter, some of them quite frankly seemed kind of dim, what they had was work ethic and a realistic assessment of how much time they had to put in to make the grades. And that is far more important than an IQ test.

As someone who's studied and taugh

[Anonymous Coward]

That said, doing martial arts as a kid is a wonderful way to learn self-control, among many other benefits.

So does "doing" musical instruments.

Any sport, for that matter.

And any activity that requires concentration and diligence.

I've studied martial arts for quite a few years and taught a little too. The benefits are no better than the above and actually playing sports that use a ball will give a kid "ball sense" - the ability to predict where it's going from looking at it.

Studying music will also give the kid the same mental preperation and more dextarity than martial arts. Martial arts will not make one better at other sports than if one didn't do them.

As far as combat skills: I worked with "jocks" who came off the street with no previous martial arts experience and beat black-belts.

The skills from martial arts are overrated and there's nothing like after several years of practice to walk into your orthopedist and finding him shopping for an airplane while you're hobbling over to his desk. And then there's the dentist for your TMJ.

I don't care how good you become (I was .very good, others will land hits on you.

The article never said otherwise

[artor3]

The "causation is not correlation" refrain doesn't really apply here. The article claims that self-control predicts success, not that it causes it. The study seems pretty solid, and it's conclusion is believable. Unfortunately, it would be very difficult to determine whether self-control leads to success versus "unknown factor X" leading to both self-control and success. To do that would require you to take a large sample of children, and teach self-control to some who don't have it, while also breaking the self-control of some of those who do. Not the sort of study a parent will sign their kid up for.

The point is that self-control is good, and trying to instill it in a child is likely (but not guaranteed) to help them in life.

Also, I think you're misunderstanding the summary. It's not saying that the kids with poor self-control had low income or single-parent homes growing up, it's saying that kids with poor self-control are likely to grow into adults with low income and broken homes. The fact that lack of self-control can lead to divorce should surprise no one.

Re:The article never said otherwise

[Zalbik]

The article claims that self-control predicts success, not that it causes it.

The point is that self-control is good, and trying to instill it in a child is likely (though not guaranteed) to help them in life.

I think your second paragraph needs to have a little discussion with your first paragraph...

Parents!

[Anonymous Coward]

Please beat your children.

Re:Stupid correlation studies

[artor3]

I don't get why so many people on Slashdot like to harp on this. How exactly do you expect them to prove causation in a sociological study? Correlation is all they can show, and correlation can be interesting. And since they used the word "predicts" instead of "leads to", they can't even be accused of conflating the two.

Link to the Paper

[BlackSupra]

Link to the paper "A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety" by Terrie E. Moffitt, Et Al.

The Abstract : http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/01/20/1010076108

The PDF Paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/01/20/1010076108.full.pdf+html

The Journal Snippit: http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/highlights.shtml#control

Though policy-makers have considered programs to enhance the nation’s health, wealth, and safety through interventions to improve children’s self-control skills, researchers had not previously shown that childhood self-control actually influences adult outcomes in large populations. Terrie Moffitt et al. analyzed assessments of more than 1,000 participants in the Dunedin, New Zealand Longitudinal Study who were followed from birth to age 32. Even after accounting for differences in social status and IQ, the researchers found that children as young as 3 who scored highly on measures of self-control were less likely than lower-scoring children to develop common physical health problems, abuse drugs, experience financial difficulties, raise a child in a single-parent household, or be convicted of a crime as adults. In a second sample of 500 nonidentical British twins, the sibling who scored lowest in measures of self-control at age 5 was more likely than the other twin to begin smoking, perform poorly in school, and engage in antisocial behaviors at age 12, the authors report. Children whose self-control improved during the study fared better as adults in measures of health, wealth, and criminal history than was otherwise predicted by their initial childhood scores. The results suggest that even small improvements in individuals’ self-control could improve the health, wealth, and safety of large populations, according to the authors. — J.M.

Is real science from Dunedin Longitudinal Study

[QuestionsNotAnswers]

Here is an interview about this in particular (not sure if available outside NZ!): http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Children-with-more-self-control-turn-into-healthier-and-wealthier-adults/tabid/506/articleID/18253/Default.aspx or google http://www.google.com/search?q=Dunedin+Longitudinal+Study for background information.

It is a very rigourous study that has been going for nearly 40 years (now on phase 38), producing 900 papers, and a superb data set because they still have an amazing 96% of the original sample set (now aged about 40) getting regularly tested. They go to extreme lengths to continue keeping the original people coming back - e.g. organising flights for all the people that have elsewhere including a large number that are spread around the world.

Re:Old and Bad study

[QuestionsNotAnswers]

You are talking complete bollocks.
 
This particular study is a sub-study of one of the most complete longitudinal studies of its kind and it is still continuing. It is run by real scientists, some of whom have made it their life work.

Re:Metabolism also linked to success

[orphiuchus]

I call bullshit. Someone with a fast metabolism is going to have a lot easier time chasing down prey (and running from predators) than someone who takes two days to digest a single Twinkie.

Then why are there so many of us with famine-ready metabolisms walking around?

By the way, I just love eating 1700 calories a day and doing an hour of p90x just to keep from gaining 5 pounds a week. Thanks famine-survival-specialist ancestors!