The Teenage Brain and Delayed Gratification: What the Studies Say About Patience
On average, patience and planning ahead tend to improve from childhood into young adulthood, though individual teens vary widely. A 2009 Child Development study of 935 people aged 10 to 30 found that younger adolescents were more willing to take a smaller reward sooner, and that planning ahead kept developing into young adulthood.
A 2016 longitudinal brain-imaging study in the Journal of Neuroscience found the greatest patience in late adolescence, and a 2017 lab experiment found that asking 13- to 16-year-olds to picture a specific future event made their choices less impulsive. A six-year study from 2020 found average impatience stable across the teen years it covered. The studies are small, mostly lab tasks, and they disagree about when patience peaks.
A long horizon for grades 6 to 12
Rapunzl serves students in grades 6 to 12, an age span the studies below overlap (their samples ran from ages 8 to 30). Our curriculum scales from a 3-week unit up to a 28-week, year-long course, so a school can give students enough weeks to watch a decision play out.
Students manage simulated $10,000 portfolios with live Nasdaq pricing, which lets them check a position today and again next month. That is a design hunch of ours. The studies tested cues tied to personal events, such as a visit to an uncle, and none used a portfolio. No study has tested whether a semester of portfolio checks changes patience.
When do teens become more patient, and when do they learn to plan?
Patience and planning may be separate skills that develop on different schedules. In the Steinberg team's study, the willingness to take a smaller, sooner reward was concentrated in people younger than 16. Planning ahead kept developing into young adulthood. The authors suggested that future researchers distinguish future orientation from impulse control, since the two may follow different timetables.
| Study | Design | Ages studied | What it found on patience or planning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Steinberg et al. (2009), Child Development | Delay-discounting task plus a self-report measure, compared across ages (935 people) | 10 to 30 | Younger adolescents showed a weaker orientation to the future than people 16 and older; planning ahead kept developing into young adulthood |
| van den Bos et al. (2015), PNAS | Behavioral task with structural and functional brain imaging (50 people) | 8 to 25 | Adolescents were more impatient and reported less future orientation than young adults; stronger prefrontal-striatal connectivity went with lower impatience |
| Achterberg et al. (2016), Journal of Neuroscience | Longitudinal: task and brain scan twice, two years apart (192 people) | 8 to 26 | Patience rose in a curved pattern with the greatest patience in late adolescence; frontostriatal white matter development was linked to current and later patience |
| Bromberg et al. (2017), PLOS ONE | Within-person lab experiment (44 teens) | 13 to 16 | Choices were less impulsive when rewards were paired with personal future events (dz = .44) |
| Felton et al. (2020), Health Psychology | Six-year follow-up with repeated discounting measures (247 adolescents) | Mean age 13 at the start | Average delay discounting was stable, with significant differences between individuals |
What is happening in the teenage brain?
In the imaging studies, the connections between the prefrontal cortex and the striatum, a reward-related region, appear to strengthen between childhood and young adulthood. In van den Bos and colleagues (2015), adolescents were more impatient than young adults and reported less future orientation, but did not report more present hedonism (a taste for enjoying the moment). Teens with stronger wiring in one prefrontal pathway also showed a different pattern of coordination with the brain's reward region, and were less impatient on the task.
The authors read this as mainly increased control, and better integration of future-oriented thought, driving the drop in impatience across adolescence. That is an interpretation of correlations in a sample of 50 people. Achterberg and colleagues (2016) followed 192 people over two years, which makes their result stronger: the development of the wiring between the prefrontal cortex and the reward system was linked to patience at the time and two years later. Neither study can say what caused the wiring to develop.
Can picturing the future make teens more patient?
In one lab experiment, yes. Bromberg, Lobatcheva and Peters (2017) tested 44 adolescents aged 13 to 16 on choices between a smaller reward soon and a larger one later. On some trials, each delay was paired with a cue for a personal future event, such as visiting an uncle, timed to that event. Teens had listed events from within the coming week to about seven months away. Choices were less impulsive on those trials than on control trials, with an effect size of dz = .44.
By the usual rule of thumb (0.2 is small, 0.5 is medium), that is a small-to-moderate shift, measured within each teen. The authors also noted that the size of the effect was partly related to developmental stage, and that their control condition was simple.
What can these studies not tell us?
The research does not show that every teenager is impatient. Felton and colleagues (2020) followed 247 adolescents, starting at an average age of 13, for six years. On average, delay discounting was stable across that period, with significant differences between individuals. Teens whose discounting rose over time were also more likely to see faster increases in substance use and body mass index. That is an association, and it does not show that discounting causes either one.
Nor does it settle how steep the slope is. Steinberg's differences sit mostly before age 16, Achterberg's patience peaks in late adolescence, and Felton's sample shows no average change. The studies used different tasks, ages and designs, so they can all be right and still leave open how patience changes for a typical 15-year-old.
It does not show that picturing the future changes decisions outside the lab. In Bromberg's experiment the computer picked one of each teen's choices at random and paid it out as a gift card, and the van den Bos task also paid out one chosen decision, but a lab task is not a teen deciding what to do with birthday money. The four observational studies in the table describe patterns and associations, and cannot say what causes them. No study here tested a classroom or family activity over weeks.
What can parents try at home?
Only the first move below mirrors a tested design. The rest are our inferences from the findings.
- Attach a real date to the wait. The Bromberg cues were tied to personal events. If your teen has birthday money or is saving for something, name the actual occasion (a concert in March, a driving test in June) and say how many weeks away it is, in place of "someday."
- Write down the steps. Planning ahead keeps developing into young adulthood, so a teen may not yet map the route from "I want this" to "here is what I do each week." Sketch it together: how much, how often, by when.
- Start with short waits. Because patience tends to improve with age on average, try waits of a few days or weeks first and build up. A visible result sooner makes the longer goal easier to believe in.
- Put the payoff where your teen can see it. A savings balance, a simple chart or a long-running practice portfolio keeps the goal in view. Our parent's playbook for teaching teenagers about money builds on everyday moments, and our guide to which type of investing app suits a teen first helps if your teen is curious about a portfolio.
- Ask about the trade-off. Younger teens take the smaller, sooner reward more often on average, so a calm question (what would waiting get you?) fits better than a verdict on their character.
Frequently Asked
Questions
The research does not give a single age. In one longitudinal study, patience was highest in late adolescence, while a larger study found that planning ahead kept developing into young adulthood. A six-year study found average discounting stable, so treat any age as an average and not a deadline.
Studies tie it to prefrontal-striatal connections that strengthen from childhood into young adulthood. One study found adolescents were more impatient and less future-oriented than young adults, with stronger connectivity going with lower impatience. These are correlations, and they describe groups, not any one teen.
A lab experiment with 44 teens found that linking each wait to a personal upcoming event made choices less impulsive within the session. It shows that future thinking can shift a decision in the moment. It does not show a lasting change in habits.
On average, younger adolescents in these studies took the smaller, sooner reward more often than older teens and young adults, so some impatience is common. A six-year study of 247 adolescents found average discounting was stable, with wide differences between individuals, and that teens whose discounting rose over time were more likely to have rising substance use. If you are worried about a specific teen, talk with a pediatrician or school counselor.
To give your teen a place to practice long-horizon money decisions, see how Rapunzl works for families.
By Clarissa Collins, Curriculum Designer at Rapunzl.