In the Dudedin study, a group of 1037 people who were born in the same year in Dudedin, New Zealand were studied from birth to the age of 32. Levels of self-control were evaluated among these people, from as early as age 3, by observing how they behaved on a day-to-day basis. These levels of childhood self-control were then placed on a scale (eg: maniac to angel, but in nicer terms), which served as a model for levels of self-control among society as a whole. Researchers believed that if the outcomes of the participants’ lives were patterned according to the scale of self-control, this would provide significant evidence that improving self-control (even by small amounts) would improve society’s health and wealth while reducing crime. Economists thought that this might even save the money of taxpayers. And who would complain about that?
However, there’s a catch. Researchers had to make sure that factors other than self-control did not influence the participants’ health, wealth, and criminal records as adults. Because the purpose of the study was to show whether improving self-control would improve society, it was crucial to test the influence of self-control alone. For this reason, researchers made sure in advance that the influences of factors such as intelligence, class, gender, and family life had already been accounted for and did not skew the results.
The health and wealth statuses and criminal records of the group of 1037 participants of the Dudedin study were observed at age 32. Those who had lower levels of self-control as children were found to have more health issues and were more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol as adults. They were also less careful with money, more likely to struggle financially, and more likely to be convicted of crime. To view these results, see Figure A below.
Figure A
The results, then, matched up well with the scale of self-control levels, showing that the development of programs to improve self-control would successfully contribute to the bettering of society.
Dudedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development did a second, similar test among 500 pairs of siblings from birth to age 12. Called The Environmental-Risk Longitudinal Twin Study, its results closely paralleled those of the group of 1037, while removing the possibility for the factors of class and upbringing to influence the results. Studying the pairs showed that the siblings who had less self-control were more likely to engage in risky behaviors and make bad decisions that could be harmful to their health, wealth, and safety in the future.
Though the Dudedin study supported that developing self-control improvement programs would be effective, it never actually implemented such a program. It did, however, seek to discover what age ranges to target with these programs. Because teenage years are typically viewed as critical years in life where people begin to become more independent and make their own decisions, researchers closely observed the 1037 case studies during teenage years, looking at things such as dropout rates, smoking, and unplanned pregnancy. Researchers found that those who had less self-control as children were more likely to make “mistakes” that would significantly affect their futures, and that those whose self-control levels were the lowest made the most mistakes. This data supported that it would be beneficial to target self-control improvement programs at teenagers, so that their behavior could be corrected and they could be rerouted to the road less traveled by.
At the same time, researchers found that determining self-control levels among 3-5 year olds correctly predicted health and wealth statuses and crime involvement even among those who didn’t end up making “mistakes” as teenagers. Therefore, would it be fair to only benefit the ones who did and in a sense punishing those who didn’t? The thought brings me back to the days when the “good kids” were punished with silent lunch in elementary school for things they didn’t do, simply because a few kids made a few bad choices. Because the study results showed that the futures of people could be so greatly affected by how self-controlled they were as young children, researchers were given reason to believe that it would also be advantageous to target the self-control improvement programs at young children. Therefore, researchers decided that it would be best to plan self-control interventions for individuals when they are young children as well as for when they are teenagers. This would be most efficient, and therefore most cost-effective.
For a graphic outline of the design of the Dudedin study, see Figure B below.
Figure B
The Dudedin study answered a lot of questions, but in terms of putting those results into action, another question arises: should programs focus on improving the self-control of a particular group, or of everyone? According to the Dudedin study’s idea that a small shift would make a large impact, both would benefit society’s health, wealth, and safety. It seems as though targeting one level on the self-control scale would be most cost-effective, but attempting to serve everyone on the scale would likely gain more support. Once this question is answered, support can be gained for self-improvement programs and the first steps at developing them can begin. So maybe we should turn to those schoolyard games after all – they may not predict the future, but at least they can help us make a decision.
Reference:
Moffitt, Terrie, Louise Arseneault, Daniel Belsky, Nigel Dickson, Robert Hancox, et al. "A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108.7 (2011): 2693-2698. Web. 11 Mar 2011.
Photo Credit: http://www.correctchildrenbehavior.com
Figure A Link: http://www.pnas.org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/content/108/7/2693/F2.large.jpg
Figure B Link: http://www.pnas.org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/content/108/7/2693/F1.large.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment