Instant Gratification vs. Climate Cooperation: The Marshmallow Test of Climate Change

How our preference for quick rewards undermines efforts to tackle long-term climate challenges

I recently published a story about the different responses my children adopted to waiting 24 days to eat all the little chocolates in their advent calendars. 

How an Advent Calendar Became Our Kids’ Marshmallow Test

Patience, culture, and chocolate: a parenting experiment in delayed gratification

Worried that one of my kiddos didn’t display the same skills when it comes to delayed gratification, I dug deeper into the science behind it, stumbling upon the now iconic Marshmallow Test. 

While I was happy to discover that my younger child wasn’t destined for a lifetime of failure, I got curious about the topic. I write a lot about climate change and climate action, and I wanted to see if someone had tested how this psychological issue affected how we approach the activism behind it. 

Luckily, science didn’t disappoint when finding a study researching the topic. Human behavior, on the other hand, did disappoint a little. However, we must remember that while we can’t fight our nature, we can work to make the most out of it. 

Quite fascinatingly, the study I found is now over ten years old, so it was interesting to see how things have changed since and how much they got right. 

But going back to the science, what role does delayed gratification play in climate activism, and what can be done? Have we incorporated the results of this study into decision-making yet? Of course not. 

But let’s see what science has to say. 

When it comes to fighting climate change, time isn’t just an obstacle — it’s a dealbreaker. A yen-year-old but still fascinating experiment published in Nature Climate Change tested the idea that our willingness to cooperate with climate action decreases dramatically when the rewards for action are delayed, particularly if those rewards are aimed at future generations. 

As it turns out, instant gratification might be one of the biggest roadblocks in tackling global warming.

Dr. Jennifer Jacquet, the lead researcher, explained the issue: “People are often self-interested, so when it comes to investing in a cooperative dilemma like climate change, rewards that benefit our offspring — or even our future self — may not motivate us to act.” 

Dr. Jacquet and her colleagues wanted to find out if group dynamics could encourage people to overcome this tendency.

But let’s look at how the authors performed the study. 

The team ran an experiment with groups of six participants, each participant given €40. Their task was to pool €120 as a group, which would “avert dangerous climate change” in the experiment’s framework. If they succeeded, they’d receive an additional €45 each. 

However, there was a twist: the rewards came at different times depending on the group.

One group would get the money the next day (immediate reward), another would wait seven weeks (short-term delay), and the third wouldn’t see the money at all — instead, it would fund the planting of oak trees, benefiting future generations. 

The question was: would the timing of the reward influence their willingness to cooperate? What do you think happened?

Well, the results suggest that timing matters. 

When the reward was immediate, 70% of the groups managed to hit the target. With a seven-week delay, only 36% succeeded. And for the tree-planting scenario? Not a single group reached the goal. Not. A. Single Group!

This shows just how much timing influences our willingness to act for the collective good. Dr. Christoph Hauert, one of the researchers, pointed out: “We learned from this experiment that even groups gravitate towards instant gratification.” 

Participants were much more willing to cooperate when they knew the payoff was just around the corner. But the further away that reward seemed — either in time or generations — the less motivated they became.

So, what does this mean for climate action?

The experiment captures a central challenge in global climate negotiations: the benefits of reducing emissions are often long-term, while the costs are immediate. This mismatch creates a tough sell for both individuals and nations. 

Why make sacrifices today for benefits that might only be felt decades from now?

The findings also highlight why international agreements struggle to gain traction. Policies and treaties often rely on countries making sacrifices for the good of the planet, but these sacrifices rarely come with immediate rewards.

 Instead, they depend on the trust that everyone else will play along and that the benefits will eventually materialize. This is hard to grasp and hard to pursue. 

So, what can be done? 

The study suggested that creating more immediate incentives could help counteract our preference for short-term benefits. This might include financial rewards for hitting emission targets or penalties for failing to cooperate. Read a recent story I wrote addressing whether this is working ten years later. 

Carbon Pricing Has Proven to Cut Emissions, Not Just Hot Air

Despite criticisms, a new meta-study shows that carbon pricing, while not perfect, reduces emissions

Strategies that enhance reputations, like publicly recognizing nations or corporations for their contributions, could also encourage action.

Another takeaway is the need to frame climate action in ways that resonate with the present. Highlighting co-benefits, such as improved air quality or job creation from green industries, could make the idea of tackling climate change feel less like a far-off goal and more like a current opportunity.

Interestingly, ten years later, we’re still working on this. 

Will Transitioning to Clean Energies Destroy The Economy?

Or will switching to renewable energy drive economic growth, create new jobs, and improve public health

However, and this hit home quite hard, the authors reinforced the role of science communication in the equation. We need to communicate the benefits of climate action in a more relatable way. 

The experiment reinforced the complexity of human decision-making in the face of collective risks. It’s easy to point fingers and blame inaction on greed or ignorance, but this research showed that the problem runs deeper into how we prioritize the present over the future, just like my kids did with their advent calendars.

But don’t despair; this doesn’t mean all hope is lost. This means we must get creative in designing policies and campaigns that align with human nature. By understanding what motivates us and what doesn’t, we can keep building a framework for action that’s as pragmatic as it is ambitious.

Climate change is a long game, but the steps we take today, or that we took ten years ago, can bring immediate benefits while paving the way for a more secure tomorrow.