Effects of self‐control training for elementary students with emotional and behavioral disorders

Staubitz et al. (2020) worked with six late-elementary students who had emotional and behavioral disorders. The team tried to teach them to wait for bigger rewards instead of grabbing small ones right away.

First they used progressive delay training alone. Later they added a clear rule and a short reason for waiting. They tracked choices with a changing-criterion design.

Delay training by itself did nothing. Once the staff added a rule and rationale, three kids began picking the larger later reward. The other three still chose the quick small payoff even after extra tweaks.

Bottom line: simply stretching the wait time is not enough for students with EBD.

Cullinan et al. (2001) and Mueller et al. (2000) got great results with the same delay-fading tactic in kids with ADHD. Every child learned to wait up to 24 hours. The mixed outcome in Staubitz et al. (2020) shows EBD students may need the added rule piece that the ADHD studies skipped.

Zhou et al. (2023) extended the idea to autism by pairing delays with say-do correspondence training. All four children stopped food stealing and learned to wait. Their extra verbal component echoes the helpful rule statement in Staubitz et al. (2020).

Dunkel-Jackson et al. (2016) also saw big gains in adults with autism who worked during the delay. Again, the verbal or work requirement, not just the delay, seems key.

If you run self-control lessons, always state a clear rule and give a kid-friendly reason for waiting. Start with short delays, but do not fade further until the learner can repeat the rule and explain why waiting pays off. Watch for students who still grab the quick prize; they may need extra practice or a different verbal prompt before the delay grows.