Slight flaw in the logic of the doughnut experiment.

the adult one had to be slightly more complex because ... we're adults. the idea is that we have a different reasoning process and also perhaps a little more restraint. The idea for the donut experiment is that an adult can reason more easily that 20 minutes isn't that long to wait for a better product (so better, not just another of the same), but their state of mind would suggest that their standards are slightly lowered by a more negative mood.
the experiment makes sense to me, and my psychology student friends who i saw the film with

The doughnut experiment was a metaphor for their relationship. They had a really good thing in front of them but kept waiting for the ideal situation. The ideal situation may never come. That was the gist of Segal's rant at the end and the lesson they learned.

Hey

i think you're missing a big point of the doughnut exp: it wasn't suppose to be a good experiment

her professor only agreed to it because he was trying to win her over, remember at the end when she asked if he would have agreed to the exp if it was suggested by someone else; he said no. This means he liked her from the start and he was always trying to "woo" her.

eating stale doughnut, is not a good mark up that you're emotional scared (or whatever her conclusion was), there are a lot of reasons to eat them, say you're hungry(haven't eating all day), or u hate wasting edible food (which is my case), or some ppl just like to eat during movies (thus selling pop corn, nachos, candy... at the movies)...etc


Fuzzy Wuzzy Was a Woman

Yes the experiment in the movie is flawed. There have been numerous studies involving immediate and delayed gratification (reinforcement). See studies by Mazur, Kacelnik, and Biondi who give great insight into behavioural psychology. The most popular study involved the proposition of $20 now, or $100 at a later specified date. Most people will take the $20 now. The donut experiment is flawed; people weren’t forced to choose stale or new donuts, but could choose to eat both if they wished. This isn’t a controlled independent variable, and makes the experiment unreliable.

They explained this (slightly) in the film.

While they were brainstorming ideas of how to re-create this experiment on adults Vaneetha said something along the lines of, "We can't tell them to wait 20 minutes and they'll get two, they'll all wait the 20 minutes." (I know this isn't an exact quote but the idea is the same)

The adult experiment could not be as simple as the children's experiment because adults are more complicated. Twenty minutes to a child feels like a lifetime. Especially when they have something they know they can take if they want it right in front of them. But to an adult the decision is clear. Twenty minutes is not that long of a time to get more of what you want.

What I took from the adult experiment was that it was not so much about having patience. But exercising impulse control and what a lack of impulse control says about your character.

I studied psychology only briefly because I could not believe how boring it was. But the experiment still made sense to me.

The donut experiment was a shaky plot device from the start. It was obviously a metaphor for the nature of waiting for the perfect relationship rather than enjoying what you have right now. But why? Why would that be a valid sociology experiment? It doesn't really prove anything about human nature, it just proves that people like donuts enough to eat a stale one rather than needing it to be perfectly fresh.

Furthermore the marshmallow experiment doesn't prove anything either. What; kids are impulsive? They like marshmallows and have a hard time restraining themselves? Wow. Brilliant sociology work.

There needed to be some measure of detriment to the initial take in the experiment that quantified the results. Something more like, "we have these plain donuts here for you guys, we were going to get an assortment but wanted to see if people ate these."

That way you could tell if people like plain donuts or not.

My problem is that I would've asked what kind of doughnut. Since it looked plain I wouldn't eat either of them. Some people are particular like that.

This was pulled from an actual experiment (as well as the numerous reproduced studies of the same measure or of something similar).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment

As with most social psychology experiments (and any psychology study that utilizes behaviorist methodologies) it is riddled with flaws and hasty generalizations based on ridiculous assumptions (such as the one made in this film about impulse control being so cut-and-dry determined by eating a stale doughnut). The most that could be "determined" from the results is that it is merely interesting.

As far as the character of Winton is concerned, he was a piss-poor depiction of a research psychologist/psychology professor. But, no surprise there as movies and television always screw up psychology/psychologists.

always, --=tYCC=--
Clear Eyes. Full Hearts. Can't Lose.
bango skank was here