Situational Factors and Academic Delay of Gratification

Takashi Mitsutomi1，Tetsuo Ogawauchi2 ，Yukichi Ryu3，Kazunori Otsuka4

Abstract
The present study aimed to investigate the effects of situational factors on academic delayof gratification among university students in four hypothetical academic situations that manipulated theimportance of academic goals and the attractiveness of a distractor (watching a movie) as situational factors.
The relationships among academic delay of gratification, the use of learning strategies, self-efficacy,and experiential time perspective was also investigated for the four hypothetical situations. In the academic delayof gratification questionnaire participants were asked she the they showed the academic delay of gratification in thefour hypothetical academic situation that manipulated the importance of academic goal and the attractiveness of
distractor. In addition, learning strategy scale, self-efficacy scale and experiential time perspective scale wereadministered. The results indicated that the academic delay of gratification is influenced by situational variable andthat academic delay of gratification is associated with the experiential time perspective and the use of learning
strategies in males and females, respectively.

Key words: Academic delay of gratification, learning strategy, self-efficacy, experiential time perspective,
situational factors

Unfortunately, it is often impractical to translate one’s desires, urges, and impulses
immediately and directly into action. Often, the behaviors that would be most immediately gratifying areprohibited by a higher authority or society at large. Developing children must learn to wait for a reward that1

Sakamoto, 2-8-11, Nagasaki, Japan.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Takashi Mitsutomi.
2

Department of Childhood Education, Faculty of Education, Kobe-Shinwa

Women’s University.
3

Department of Education, Faculty of School of Education, Tokai Gakuen University.

4

Department of Nursing Science, Faculty of Nursing and Nutrition, University of Nagasaki.

―7―may be forthcoming, but often only after a delay. A key ability for persons is therefore to be capable ofdelaying gratification (Funder, Block & Block, 1983).
Mischel (1966, 1974) and his associate conducted research on delay of gratification inwhich the experimenter presented children with a larger delayed reward available later (DelR) and a smaller
immediate reward available immediately (ImR) and had them choose the one they preferred.
When the child selected the DelR, it is considered that he or she had chosen to delay immediate gratification.
That research indicated that the choice of a delayed reward related positively to social responsibility (Mischel,1961 a), intelligence and achievement motive (Mischel, 1961 b), accuracy in time statements (Mischel &Metzner, 1972), and future time perspective (Klineberg, 1968).
The research described above was choice research. However, in addition to choice research,
Mischel (1981) also measured how long children could wait to attain DelR while resisting the temptation of
ImR. Mischel (1981) identified waiting strategies that facilitate waiting behavior. The distraction strategy
distracts from rewards through the performance of an overt or covert activity (Mischel & Ebbesen, 1970;
Mischel, Ebbesen & Zesis, 1972). The self-instruction strategy regulates behavior through verbal commands
to the self (Miller, Weinstein & Karniol, 1978; Toner, 1981; Tonner, Bonnie & Lewis, 1979; Tonner, &Smith; 1977). The cognitive transformation strategy cognitively transforms arousing, consummatory, hot
ideation (e.g., taste of reward) about the reward into symbolic representation, i.e., cool ideation (Mischel &Baker, 1975; Mischel & Moore, 1973; Mischel & Moore, 1980; Moore & Mischel, 1976).
Recently, Bembenutty (1998, 2004) proposed academic delay of gratification, defined asa student’s postponement of an immediately available opportunity to satisfy an impulse in favor of academic
goals that are temporally remote but ostensibly more valuable. The concept of academic delay of gratificationdiffers from that of delay of gratification devised by Mischel (1966, 1974). First, in Mischel’s (1966, 1974)
delay of gratification research, waiting is necessary to obtain a larger reward. By contrast, in Bembenutty’s(2004) delay of gratification research, performing an academic activity is necessary to obtain a larger reward.
Second, in Mischel’s (1966, 1974) delay of gratification research, a delayed reward is a substance that canbe eaten (e.g., candy), whereas in Bembenutty’s (1998) delay of gratification research, a delayed reward isa symbolic reward (e.g., obtaining an academic degree).
The present study focuses on academic delay of gratification. Previous research has
indicated that academic delay of gratification is related to personal variables such as self-efficacy(Wlieard, Perry & Bembenutty, 2002), future time perspective (Klineberg, 1969, Doolin, 1989) and the useof learning strategies (Bembennuty & Zimmerman, 2003, Kim & Chung, 2001; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990).
However, previous research has not fully investigated the influence of situational variables on academic
delay of gratification.
Given this background, in the present study, to investigate the effects of goal―8―

importance and the attractiveness of a distractor on the delay of gratification, a situation was set in which
students resisted the temptation of a distractor to attain an academic goal. In setting such a situation, theimportance of the academic goal and the attractiveness of a distractor (watching a movie) were used as
situational variables to influence academic delay of gratification.
Previous research has reported that academic delay of gratification is related to selfefficacy (Bembenutty, 2002), the use of learning strategies (Bembenutty & Zimmerman, 2003; Kim, Chung& Kwon, 2001; Pintrich & De Goot, 1990), and future time perspective (Ward, Perry & Dooling, 1989;
Klineberg, 1968). Therefore, in the present study, we focused on self-efficacy and learning strategies.
We also focused on not future time perspective, but experiential time perspective (Shirai, 1994), which
consists of self-fulfillment, goal-orientation, past acceptance, and hopefulness. The reason why we focusedon this concept is because it includes not only the future, but also the present and past, and thus, is a broader
concept about the time compared with future time perspective.
Therefore, here, we investigated whether academic delay of gratification is related to theuse of learning strategies, self-efficacy, and experiential time perspective for four situations in which goal
importance and the attractiveness of a distractor were manipulated. Finally, by performing a cluster analysis,
we cluster the students based on their delay response for the four situations in which goal importance andthe attractiveness of a distractor was manipulated. Then, we compared the use of learning strategies, selfefficacy, and experiential time perspective among the clusters.

MethodParticipants
The study participants were 176 university students (71 males, mean age: 20.1 years,
105 females, mean age: 19.2 years) from the Tokai and Nagasaki districts. The university students from theTokai district (41 males, 105 females) belonged to the school of education, while those from the Nagasaki
district (30 males) belonged to the faculty of nursing and nutrition. Consent to participate in the survey was
obtained from all students.
Questionnaires and scales
Academic delay of gratification questionnaire
The participants were asked whether they achieved an academic goal while resisting to
the temptation to go watch a movie. We manipulated the importance of the academic goal
and the attractiveness of a distractor (watching a movie) and set four hypothetical situations (Table 1). The
participants responded to the four situations using a three-point scale.

―9―

Learning strategy scale
We used the learning strategy scale devised by Ito (1996). Although this scale wasoriginally administered to junior high school students, we used it in the present study because the content
and meaning of the items were also thought be true for university students. The students responded to thequestionnaire items using a six-point scale.
Self-efficacy scale
We used the self-efficacy scale devised by Ito (1996), which was also administered tojunior high school students. Again, the content and meaning of the items were also thought to be true foruniversity students. The students also responded to this questionnaire using a six-point scale.
Experiential time perspective scale
Finally, we used the experiential time perspective scale devised by Shirai (1994). This
scale was originally administered to university and professional school students. The students responded tothis questionnaire using a five-point scale.

Results
Analysis of situational factors
We performed a 2 (sex)  2 (goal importance)  2 (attractiveness of a distractor) analysis
of variance (ANOVA) using delay scores as the dependent variable. We assigned “go to the movie” 0 points,
not sure” 1 point, and “study” 2 points. Table 2 shows the mean delay scores for each sex and condition. The
main effect of sex (F (1,174) =4.14, p<.05) was significant and females had higher delay scores than did males.
The main effect of goal importance (F (1,174) =153.38, p<.01) was significant, and the goal high (H)condition had higher delay scores did than the goal low (L) condition. The main effect of attractiveness of a
distractor (F (1,174) =161.34, p<.01) was significant, and the distractor L condition had higher delay scoresthan did the distractor H condition.
The interaction effect between goal importance and attractiveness of a distractor(F (1,174) =141.30, p<.01) was significant. We performed the analysis of simple main effect of importance ofgoal for distractor H and L conditions. The simple main effect of importance of goal was significant for the
distraction H (F (1,348) =290.72, p<.01) and L (F (1,348) =7.22, p<.01) conditions. Between these two
conditions, the goal H condition had the higher delay scores compared to the goal L condition. The simple
main effect of attractiveness of a distractor was significant for the goal H (F (1, 348) =301.07, p<.01) and L(F (1,348) =5.77, p<.01) conditions. And, between these two conditions, the distractor L condition had thehigher delay scores.

― 10 ―

Scales (factor analysis)
Learning strategy scale
A difference in the factor structure might be present between the junior high school
students that participated in the study by Ito (1996) and the university students that participated in the present
study because the age of the participants and the content of their experiences differed substantially. Therefore,
we did not adopt the subscale abstracted by Ito (1996), and we newly performed a factor analysis for theuniversity students.
Factor analysis with promax rotation was performed for males and females. Three factors
were abstracted for males and females, considering the decreased eigenvalue and the possible interpretabilityof the factors. Tables 3 and 4 show the results of factor analysis. The first subscale was a general cognition
strategy and consisted of 11 items for males and females. The second subscale was a review summarizing
strategy and consisted of three items for males and females. The third subscale was attention and consistedof four and three items for males and females, respectively.
Self-efficacy scale
Similar to the learning strategy scale, a difference in the factor structure might bepresent between the junior high school students that participated in the study by Ito (1996) and the university
students that participated in the present study because the age of the participants and the contents of experiences
differed substantially. Therefore, we again did not adopt the subscale abstracted by Ito (1996),
and we newly performed a factor analysis for the university students.
Factor analysis with promax rotation was performed for males and females. The
results are shown in Tables 5 and 6. One subscale was abstracted for the males and females, considering thedecreased eigenvalue and the possible interpretability of the factors. The scale consisted of nine items formales and females.
Experiential time perspective scale
Unlike the situation for the above two scales, a large difference in the factor
structure was not presumed to be present between the university students and professional school students
that participated in the Shirai (1994) study and the university students that participated in the present study,
because the age of participants and content of their experiences were similar. Thus, we adopted the subscaleof Shirai (1994) and performed an analysis using an experiential time perspective scale. According to Shirai (1994),
this scale consists of four subscales. The first subscale is self-fulfillment and consists of five items. The second
subscale is goal-oriented and consists of five items. The third subscale is past acceptance and consists of four items.
The fourth subscale is hopefulness and consists of four items.
Correlation analysis
Total scores were calculated for each subscale on the learning strategy― 11 ―

and experiential time perspective scales. The total self-efficacy score was also calculated. The correlation
coefficients between the academic delay of gratification scores, total scores for each subscale on the learning
strategy scale, total self-efficacy scores, and total scores for each subscale on the experiential time
perspective scale was calculated for all four conditions under which goal importance and attractiveness ofa distractor was manipulated. The results are shown in Tables 7 and 8.
In the goal L distractor H condition, for males, the experiential time
perspective scale, i.e., goal-orientation, and hopefulness scores, were significantly positively related toacademic delay of gratification scores. Also, self-fulfillment scores tended to be positively correlated withacademic delay of gratification scores. For females, review summarizing strategy scores tended to bepositively related to academic delay of gratification.
In the goal H distractor H condition, for males, no relations were found foracademic delay of gratification. For females, goal-orientation and general cognition strategy scores tended
to be positively related to academic delay of gratification scores.
In the goal L distractor L condition for males, self-efficacy scores andacceptance of past scores tended to be positively related to academic delay of gratification. Also, selffulfillment scores significantly positively correlated to academic delay of gratification scores. For females,
general cognition strategy scores significantly positively related to academic delay of gratification scores.
Review summarizing strategy scores also tended to be positively related to academic delay of gratification.
In the goal H distractor L condition, for males, general cognition strategy,
review summarizing strategy, and attention scores tended to be positively related to academic delay ofgratification. For females, general cognition strategy scores significantly positively related to academic delayof gratification.
Cluster analyses
By performing hierarchical cluster analysis for each sex (Ward method,mean distance method), we clustered the students on the basis of their delay response for the four situations
in which goal importance and attractiveness of a distractor were manipulated. Then, we compared the use oflearning strategies, self-efficacy, and experiential time perspective among clusters for each sex. Cluster
analysis abstracted three clusters for each sex, considering the possible interpretability of clusters..
For males, 25, 43, and 3 students were assigned to clusters 1, 2, and 3,
respectively. As the number of students was low, we removed cluster 3. For females, 27, 70, and 8 students
were assigned to clusters 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Again, as the number of students was low, we removed
cluster 3.
Cluster of males
Cluster-condition ANOVA was performed to clarify the characteristics of― 12 ―

the cluster for males. Table 9 shows the delay scores for each condition and cluster. The main effect of cluster(F (1,66) =118.02, p<.01) was significant, and cluster 1 had higher delay of gratification scores than did cluster
2. The main effect of condition (F (3, 198) =58.65, p<.01) was significant. When arranging the conditions inorder of the magnitude of delay scores, the results were as follows: goal H distractor L > goal H distractor H= goal L distractor L > goal L distractor H (goal H distractor L vs. goal H distractor H, t (198) =3.38, p<.05;
goal H distractor L vs. goal L distractor L, t (198) =2.13, p<.05; goal H distractor L vs. goal L distractor H,t (198) =12.71, p<.01; goal H distractor H vs. goal L distractor H, t (198) =9.34, p<.01; and goal L distracter H
vs. goal L distractor L, t (198) =10.59, p<.01).
The interaction effect between cluster and condition was significant (F (3,198) =34.76, p<.01).
The simple main effect of cluster was significant for goal L distractor H (F (1,264) =192.25, p<.01), and cluster 1
had higher delay of gratification scores than did cluster 2. For goal L distractor L, the simple main effect of cluster
was significant (F (1,264) =5.29, p<.05), and cluster 1 had higher delay of gratification scores than did cluster 2.
For goal H distractor H, the simple main effect of cluster was significant (F (1,264) =28.86, p <.01), and cluster 1
had higher delay of gratification scores than did cluster 2.
The simple main effect of condition was analyzed for each cluster. For cluster 1, nosimple main effect of condition was observed. For cluster 2, the simple main effect of condition
was significant (F (3,198) =91.50, p<.01). When arranging the conditions in order of the magnitude of delay
scores, the results were as follows: goal H distractor L > goal L distractor L > goal H distractor H > goal L
distractor H (goal H distractor L vs. goal H distractor H, t (198) =5.39, p<.01; goal H distractor L vs. goal L
distractor L, t (198) =2.58, p<.01; goal H distractor L vs. goal L distractor H, t (198) =17.80, p<.01; goal H
distractor H vs. goal L distractor H, t (198) =12.42, p<.01; goal L distractor L vs. goal L distractor H,t (198) =15.23, p<.01; and goal L distractor L vs. goal H vs. distractor H, t (198) =2.81, p<.01).
Therefore, in cluster 1, no changes were seen in delay scores by situation, and the delay scores
were basically high, so this was referred to as the high delay cluster. In cluster 2, changes were seen in delay scoresby situation as follows: goal H distractor L > goal L distractor L > goal H distractor H > goal L distractor H. Thus,
we referred to cluster 2 as the changing cluster.
Cluster of females
Cluster-condition ANOVA was performed to clarify the characteristics of the cluster for females.
Table 10 shows the delay scores for each cluster and condition. The main effect of cluster was significant(F (1,95) =146.59, p<.01). Cluster 1 had higher delay of gratification scores than did cluster 2. The main effect ofcondition was significant (F (3,285) =96.84, p<.01). When arranging the conditions in order of the magnitude of
delay scores, the results were as follows: goal H distractor L = goal H distractor H > goal L distractor L > goal L
distractor H (goal L distractor L vs. goal L distractor H,t (285) =13.65, p<.01; goal H distractor L vs. goal L distractor H, t (285) =16.67, p<.01; goal H distractor L vs.

― 13 ―

goal L distractor L, t (285) =3.00, p<.01; goal L distractor H vs. goal H distractor H, t (285) =15.64, p<.01; andgoal L distractor L vs. goal H distractor H, t (285) =1.98 p<.05).
The interaction effect between cluster and condition was significant (F (3,285) =98.83, p<.01).
The simple main effect of cluster was analyzed for all four conditions. For goal L distraction H (F (1,380) =436.61,
p<.01), cluster 1 had higher delay of gratification scores than did cluster 2. For goal L distraction L (F (1,380) =7.98,
p<.01), cluster 1 had higher delay of gratification scores than did cluster 2.
The simple main effect of condition was also analyzed for each cluster. No simple
main effect of condition was observed for cluster 1, but a simple main effect of condition
was observed for cluster 2 (F (3,285) =195.55, p<.01). For cluster 2, when arranging the conditions in orderof the magnitude of delay scores, the results were as follows: goal H distractor L > goal H distractor H >goal L distractor L > goal L distractor H (goal H distractor L vs. goal H distractor H, t (285) =1.74,
p<.05<p<.10; goal H distractor L vs. goal L distractor L, t (285) =4.47, p<.01; goal H distractor L vs. goal L
distractor H, t (285) =28.32, p<.01; goal H distractor H vs. goal L distractor L, t (285) =2.73, p<.01; goal H
distractor H vs. goal L distractor H, t (285) =6.58, p<.01; and goal L distractor L vs. goal L distractor H,t (285) =23.84, p<.01).
Therefore, in cluster 1, no changes were seen in delay scores by situation, and thedelay scores were basically high, so this was referred to as the high delay cluster. In cluster 2, changes wereseen in delay scores by situation as follows: goal H distractor L > goal H distractor H > goal L distractor L> goal L distractor H. Thus, we referred to cluster 2 as the changing cluster.
Comparison of self-efficacy, experiential time perspective, and use of learning strategies among clusters
Tables 11 and 12 show the results of comparisons of total self-efficacy scores, total
scores for each subscale on the experiential time perspective scale, and total scores for each subscale on thelearning strategy scale among clusters for each sex. In a t test, cluster was used as the independent variable
for males. Goal-oriented scores was significantly higher for the high delay cluster than for the changing
cluster (goal-oriented: t (66) =2.38, p<.05), and hopefulness scores tended to be higher for the high delay
cluster than for the changing cluster (hopefulness: t (66) =1.85, .05<p<.10). Cluster was also used as theindependent variable in a t test for females. Review summarizing strategy scores tended to be higher for thehigh delay cluster than for the changing cluster (t (95) =1.84, .05<p<.10).
Discussion
In the present study, females were found to have higher academic delay ofgratification scores than males. This result is not consistent with the results of past research
Ogawauchi, Ryu, Mitsutomi & Otsuka, 2013). Japan has a culture of self-restraint. In― 14 ―

their childhood, girls in particular are taught to exercise restraint and regulate their behavior more so thanare boys (Kashiwagi, 1988). Thus, it is known that in Japan, girls have higher self-regulation ability than doboys. According to Shoda, Mischel & Peake (1990), higher self-regulation ability in childhood leads to better
academic performance in adolescence. Since girls have higher self-regulation ability than do boys inchildhood, in adolescence females would thus likewise be expected to show better
academic behavior than do males. This would explain why females appear to have higher academic delay ofgratification ability than males in the present study. It must be noted, however, that past research has not found sex
differences in academic delay of gratification. Further research is needed to gain a better understanding of thisresult.
Past research has shown that personal variables such as the use of learning
strategies (Bembenutty&Zimmerman, 2003; Kim, Chung, Lee & Kwon, 2001; Pintrich & Degoot, 1990),
self-efficacy (Bembenutty, 2002), and future time perspective (Klineberg, 1968, Ward, Perry, Wolz & Doolin,1989) are related to academic delay of gratification. However, past research has not fully indicated whether
situational variables influence academic delay of gratification. Therefore, the present study manipulated goal
importance and the attractiveness of a distractor and investigated whether these situational factors influenced
academic delay of gratification.
When goal importance was low, the distractor H condition hinderedeffective academic delay of gratification. However, when goal importance was high, effective academic
delay of gratification resulted in not only the distractor L condition, but also the distractor H condition.
Thus, goal importance and the attractiveness of a distractor interacted with one another and influenced
academic delay of gratification.
The correlation coefficients between academic delay of gratification, learning strategy, selfefficacy, and experiential time perspective scores were calculated for the four situations in which goal importanceand the attractiveness of a distractor was manipulated. The results differed for males and females.
For males, experiential time perspective related positively to academic delay of gratificationin the two goal L conditions. For males, in the goal L distractor H situation, academic delay of gratification
correlated positively with experiential time perspective, i.e., self-fulfillment, goal-orientation, and hopefulness.
These results indicated that in the goal L distractor H condition, academic delay of gratification was related tohaving hope in the future, orienting to a goal, and leading a fulfilled life in the present.
In the goal L distractor L condition, academic delay of gratification correlated positively
with past acceptance and self-fulfillment. These results indicated that in the goal L distractor L condition,
academic delay of gratification was related to accepting the past and leading a fulfilled life in the present.
Thus, for males, experiential time perspective was positively related to academic delay of gratification in
the two goal L conditions. However, the reason why the students chose delay in the two goals L conditions― 15 ―

remains unclear. Further research is needed to better understand this problem.
On the other hand, for females, the use of learning strategies was positively related toacademic delay of gratification in comparative many situations, which indicated that females need tohave effective learning strategies to show academic delay of gratification in such situations.
Therefore, in the present study, the results differed for males and females. In
males, experiential time perspective was related to academic delay of gratification in the goal L
conditions. On the other hand, in females, the use of learning strategies was related to academic delay ofgratification in comparative many situations. Further research is needed to gain a better understanding ofthese findings.
We performed cluster analysis and compared the use of learning strategies, self-efficacy, andexperiential time perspective among the clusters. No such analysis was has been performed in past research on
academic delay of gratification. The three clusters were abstracted for each sex. In cluster 1, no change was seen indelay scores by situation and the delay scores were basically high, so we referred to cluster 1 as a high delay
cluster. In cluster 2, changes in delay scores by situation were observed, so we referred to cluster 2 as a changing
cluster. We removed cluster 3 because of the small number of students.
For males, the high delay cluster had higher goal-directedness and hopefulness scoresthan did the changing cluster. For females, the high delay cluster had higher review summarizing
strategy scores than did the changing cluster. These results indicated that for males and females,
experiential time perspective and the use of learning strategies, respectively, were related to academic
delay of gratification.
In conclusion, the results of the present study indicated that academic
delay of gratification is influence by situational variables, and that for males and females, experiential time
perspective and the use of learning strategy, respectively, are basically positively related to academic delayof gratification.

― 16 ―

References
Bembenutty, H. (2007). Self-regulation of learning and academic delay of gratification. Journal of Advanced
Academics, 18, 586–616.
Bembenutty, H., & Karabenick, S.A. (1998). Academic delay of gratification. Learning and Individual
Difference, 10, 329–346.
Bembenutty, H., & Zimmerman, B.J. (2003). Relation of motivational beliefs and self-regulatory processes
to homework completion and academic achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Funder, D.C., Block, J.H., & Block, J. (1983). Delay of gratification: Some longitudinal personality
correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1198–1213.
Ito, S. (1996) Self-efficacy, causal attribution, and learning strategy in an academic achievement situation.
Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology. 44, 340-349. .
Kashiwagi, K. (1988). The Development of Self during Childhood. Tokyo, Japan:
Tokyo University Press.
Kim, B.S., Chung, W.H., Lee, K.J., & Kwon, Y.J. (2001). Self-regulated strategies in sciencelearning: The role of frontal lobe function. Paper at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
Klineberg, S.L. (1968). Future time perspective and the preference for delayed reward. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 8, 253–257.
Miller, D.T., Weinstein, S.M., & Karnial, R. (1978). Effects of age and self-verbalization on children’sability to delay gratification. Developmental Psychology, 14, 569-570.
Mischel, W. (1961a). Preference for delayed reinforcement and social responsibility. Journalof Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 1–7.
Mischel, W. (1961 b). Delay of gratification, need for achievement, and acquiescence in anotherculture. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 543–552.
Mischel, W. (1966). Theory and research on the antecedents of self-imposed delay of reward.
In B.A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in Experimental Personality Research, Vol. 3, New York:
Academic Press. Pp.85-132.
Mischel, W. (1974). Processes in delay of gratification. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, Vol. 7, New York: Academic Press. Pp. 249-292.
Mischel, W., & Baker, N. (1975). Cognitive appraisals and transformations in delay behavior. Journal of
Personality
and Social Psychology, 31, 254–261.

― 17 ―

Mischel, W., & Ebbesen, E.B. (1970). Attention in delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 16, 329–337.
Mischel, W., Ebbesen, E., & Zeiss, A.R. (1972). Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 204–218.
Mischel, W., & Metzner, R. (1962). Preference for delayed reward as a function of age, intelligence and length ofdelay interval. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64, 425–431
Mischel, W., & Moore, B. (1973). Effects of attention to symbolically presented rewards on self-control. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 172–179.
Miller, D.T., Weinstein, S.M., & Karniol, R. (1978). Effects of age and self-verbalization on children’s ability todelay
gratification. Developmental Psychology, 14, 569–570.
Moore, B., & Mischel, W., & Zeiss. (1976). Comparative effects of the reward stimulus and its cognitive
representation in voluntary delay. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 419–424.
Ogawauchi, T., Ryu, Y., Mitsutomi, T., & Otsuka, K. (2013). Reliability and validity of Japanese version ofacademic
delay of gratification. Japanese Journal of Applied Psychology, 39, 145–151.
Pintrich, P,R & De Groot, E. (1990) Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic
performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.
Shirai, T. (1994). A study on the construction of experiential time perspective scale. The Japanese Journal of
Psychology, 65, 54-60.
Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Peak, P, K. (1990) Predicting adolescent cognitive and self-regulatory competences frompreschool delay of gratification: Identifying diagnostic condition. Developmental Psychology, 26, 978-986.
Toner, I. J. (1981). Role involvement and delay maintenance behavior in preschool children. The Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 138, 245–251.
Toner, I.J., Lewis, B.C., & Gribble, C. (1979). Evaluative verbalization and delay maintenance behavior in children.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 28, 205-210.
Toner, I., & Smith, R.A. (1977). Age and overt verbalization in delay maintenance behavior in children. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 24, 123–128.
Ward, W.E., Perry, T.B., Woltz, J., & Doolin, E. (1989). Delay of gratification among black college student leaders.
Journal of Black Psychology, 15, 111–128.

― 18 ―

Table 1 Academic delay of gratification questionnaire
Goal low (L) distractor high (H) condition
A subject that you have to study is not needed to. graduate ( elective). A movie thatyou desperately want to see is currently playing. Do you study hard for the subject or
go to movie ?
Go to the movie
Not sure
Study
Goal L distractor L condition
A subject that you have to study is not needed to graduate (elective). A movie thatyou do not want to see is currently playing. Do you study hard for the subject or go
see the movie?
Go to the movie
Not sure
Study
Goal H distractor H condition
A subject that you have to study is needed to graduate (nonelective). A movie thatyou desperately want to see is currently playing. Do you study hard for the subject or
go see the movie?
Go to the movie
Not sure
Study
Goal H distractor L condition
A subject that you have to study is needed to graduate (nonelective). A movie thatyou do not want to see is currently playing. Do you study hard for the subject or go
see the movie?
Go to the movie
Not sureStudy― 19 ―

Table 2 Academic delay of gratification score for each condition

Males
Females

Goal L
Distraction H Distraction L
0.66
1.67
(0.87)(0.60)
0.80
1.72(0.83)(0.50)

Goal H
Distraction H Distraction L
1.60
1.81
(0.68)(0.48)
1.83
1.89(0.43)(0.38)― 20 ―

― 21 ―

Table 5 Results of the factor analysis for males
F1

Commonality

I can get a good mark.

.709

.583

I can do well in class.

.802

.584

I can solve the tasks and problems given in class.

.843

.676

I can understand the contents of the class.

.795

.686

I can keep up with the level of the class.

.759

.680

I know the content of the class better than the other students.

.827

.655

I can do better than the other students.

.841

.695

I am better at learning than the other students.

.772

.657

I have a higher learning ability than the other students.

.809

.655

Table 6 Results of the factor analysis for females
F1

Commonality

I can get a good mark.

.764

.503

I can do well in class.

.765

.643

I can solve the tasks and questions given in class.

.822

.710

I can understand the contents of the class.

.817

.633

I can keep up with the level of the class.

.825

.576

I know the content of the class better than the other students.

.809

.685

I can do better than the other students.

.834

.708

I am better at learning than the other students.

.810

.596

I have a higher learning ability than the other students.

.809

.655

― 22 ―

― 23 ―