Self Regulatory Strategies During Delay of Gratification Paradigm in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders

Background:

The delay of gratification paradigm has shown to be a good context for assessing self-regulatory strategies in the face of temptation (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). Previous research suggests that flexible attention deployment is critical for performance on delay of gratification tasks (Ayduk et al., 2000; Mischel et al., 1988). Distraction as a coping strategy is associated with longer wait time, where as attention to a reward is associated with decreased ability to wait (Rodriguez, Mischel, & Shoda, 1989). Research with typical populations demonstrates that children utilize a number of distraction and self-regulatory strategies during the delay of gratification paradigm including gaze aversion, kinetic movement, and verbal mediation.  While research has shown that children with ASD tend to choose smaller rewards sooner than their typically developing peers (Dixon & Cummings, 2001), little research examines the coping strategies that children with ASD employ to help them delay gratification.  There is also a paucity of research examining how the ability to delay gratification in children with ASD may be related to other developmental processes such as attention.

Objectives:

The purpose of our study was to assess the independent contribution of three modalities of self-regulatory behavior (gaze aversion, kinetic movement, and verbal mediation) and whether they predict the ability to delay gratification and/or attention problems in children with ASD. 

Methods:

The current study utilizes the delay of gratification task originally pioneered by Walter Mischel. Participants included 30 children who were typically developing or diagnosed with autism between the ages 3:0 to 6:11 who were matched on verbal mental age.  Participants were given the option to receive a smaller or greater reward depending on the amount of time they were able to wait. To receive the greater reward participants were required to wait 7 minutes.  Total wait time was used as an index of participants’ ability to delay gratification. Videotapes of the task were coded for total wait time and self-regulatory behaviors including gaze aversion, kinetic movement, and verbal mediation.  Problems with attention were measured using the Conners parent rating questionnaire (Conners, Rothbart, Ahadi, & Hershey, 1994).   

Results:

Our previous findings suggest that developmental status and proportion of time in self-regulatory behaviors predict ability to delay gratification. In addition, delay of gratification moderated the relation between developmental status and attention problems. Our current study seeks to extend our previous findings and examine the independent contribution of three modalities of self-regulatory behavior to the ability to delay gratification, and how this relates to problems with attention. Our hypothesis is that modalities of self-regulatory behavior will differentially influence delay of gratification and will negatively predict attention problems. Thus, we will test a moderation model whereby self-regulatory modality moderates the relation between developmental status and attention problems.

Conclusions:

The current study will provide information about the strategies that children use to delay gratification. Our findings will ideally identify a profile of self-regulatory strategies that are successful for children with ASD.  These conclusions will be valuable for intervention programs that focus on teaching children self regulation skills.