PSYCH 328 Washington State University Psychology Paper

It is a final paper on Volitional vs. impulsigenic processes, the draft is done and generated by chatgpt. but needs to be revised and edited, attached below would be the guideline and rubric and readings. please do use all sources attached to do the final paper.  please also do a document of identify and explain at least three modifications made to the final outline to improve it so as to generate a better ChatGPT draft. the formatting has to be in app format   Motivation Science
2018, Vol. 4, No. 1, 39 – 49
© 2017 American Psychological Association
2333-8113/18/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mot0000062
Whatever Happened to Self-Control? A Proposal for Integrating
Notions From Trait Self-Control Studies Into State
Self-Control Research
Denise de Ridder, Floor Kroese, and Marleen Gillebaart
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Utrecht University
In this article we discuss recent findings in trait self-control research suggesting that
successful self-control may rely on either handling the self-control dilemma in a smart
and effortless way or on the effortfully inhibiting an immediate urge or an unwanted
response. We then contrast these results with findings from ego-depletion research on
state self-control that up to now has focused on merely (consequences of) effortful
inhibition. In doing so, we aim to shift the focus of recent debate about the underlying
mechanisms of the ego-depletion phenomenon to the broader and more important
question of how successful self-control operates. Specifically, we emphasize that
dealing with personally relevant dilemmas or conflicts is often absent from the egodepletion paradigm, which is crucial for understanding why and how people are able
and willing to prioritize a higher ultimate goal. We first discuss the key role for
handling self-control dilemmas in trait self-control research. Subsequently, we discuss
how self-control dilemmas are seemingly absent from ego-depletion paradigms and
then suggest future directions for self-control research.
Keywords: trait self-control, state self-control, ego depletion, goals
ability to handle self-control dilemmas: situations in which competing behavioral tendencies
create a conflict that needs to be resolved rather
than simply overriding an immediate urge (Fujita, 2011; Myrseth & Fishbach, 2009). Many
people are confronted with such self-control
dilemmas on a daily basis. People who watch
their weight need to resolve the dilemma of
choosing between an apple, which is in line
with their long-term goal, or a tempting chocolate bar, which would satisfy their immediate
craving for candy. Similarly, people who want
to save money are confronted with spending
decisions, and academics who want to excel in
their work experience a dilemma when their
favorite show is on TV. Handling such dilemmas may occur by overriding prepotent responses that prioritize the immediate option or
by using (automated) strategies. Self-control
can be considered part of the self-regulation
feedback loop that encompasses goal setting,
monitoring, and reducing discrepancies between actual and desired states (Carver &
Scheier, 1982). Specifically, self-control can be
considered the “operate” component within the
test– operate–test– exit loop proposed in models
of cybernetic control (Vohs & Schmeichel,
Self-control is often defined as the self’s capacity to override or change one’s inner responses, as well as to interrupt undesired behavioral tendencies and to refrain from acting on
them (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, &
Tice, 1998; Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone,
2004). Obviously, overruling an immediate
urge— even when it is undesired—is not an
easy task, and it has been suggested that one is
able or willing to do so only in view of an
attempt to attain a goal that is more rewarding in
the long term (Carver & Scheier, 1981; de Ridder, Lensvelt-Mulders, Finkenauer, Stok, &
Baumeister, 2012). A more accurate definition
of self-control would therefore emphasize the
This article was published Online First August 3, 2017.
Denise de Ridder, Floor Kroese, and Marleen Gillebaart,
Department of Social Health & Organizational Psychology,
Utrecht University.
The authors wish to thank Marieke Adriaanse for her
constructive feedback and comments on this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed
to Denise de Ridder, Department of Social Health & Organizational Psychology, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80140,
3508 TC Utrecht, the Netherlands. E-mail: d.t.d.deridder@
uu.nl
39
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
40
DE RIDDER, KROESE, AND GILLEBAART
2003). People with high levels of self-control
are better able to deal with this kind of dilemma,
as witnessed by many studies reporting on the
role of self-control in a wide variety of positive
life outcomes (de Ridder et al., 2012; Tangney
et al., 2004). The success story of self-control
typically relates to measures of trait self-control
as the stable ability to handle self-control dilemmas in such a way that the desired goal is
prioritized. In contrast, research on state selfcontrol, defined as the more transient level of
self-control at a given moment, highlights cases
of self-control failure by emphasizing that selfcontrol relies on effortful inhibition resulting in
a state of ego depletion where people are no
longer able to exert self-control.
In recent years, academic debate about selfcontrol has centered around the question of
whether the phenomenon of ego depletion, defined as lower performance on a task that requires self-control after previous exertion of
self-control (Baumeister et al., 1998), is caused
by exhaustion of resources after an initial act of
self-control, as is posited in the strength model
of self-control (Baumeister et al., 1998), or results from temporary flaws in attention and motivation to exercise self-control, as is emphasized in the process model of self-control
(Inzlicht & Schmeichel, 2012). Although this
debate is important for understanding the underlying mechanisms of ego depletion, we argue that urgent questions about essential features of self-control—as for example how a
self-control dilemma is handled—are not addressed in this discussion. We therefore propose
to shift the focus of debate to better understanding successful self-control, through an integration of research on trait and state self-control. In
doing so, we acknowledge the work by Fleeson
(2004) on trait and state approaches to personality that aims to reconcile opposing views on
whether behavior is primarily stable or variable
across situations. Following Fleeson’s reasoning, we argue that state and trait approaches to
self-control would substantially benefit from research within the same paradigm. We observe
that state self-control research typically focuses
on (situations and consequences) of self-control
failure, whereas research on trait self-control
has focused more on understanding selfregulatory success. Until now, this remarkable
discrepancy has hardly been addressed in the
literature, and therefore the exact relation be-
tween trait self-control and state self-control is
not well understood. Whereas one study has
suggested that high trait self-control is associated with a larger self-control resource (e.g.,
Muraven, Rosman, & Gagné, 2007), others
have given the idea that high trait self-control
buffers the depletion effect (DeWall, Baumeister, Stillman, & Gailliot, 2007) or is associated
with more efficient use of the self-control resource (Baumeister, Vohs, & Tice, 2007). Still
other studies have suggested that high trait selfcontrol is unrelated to depletion (Stillman, Tice,
Fincham, & Lambert, 2009) or even amplifies
the depletion effect (Imhoff, Schmidt, & Gerstenberg, 2014). These divergent findings are
puzzling and call for a thorough investigation of
how both conceptual and empirical approaches
to self-control relate to each other.
In this article we discuss recent findings in
trait self-control research suggesting that successful self-control may not depend solely on
the effortful inhibition of an immediate urge or
an unwanted response but can also be achieved
by handling the self-control dilemma in much
less effortful, and even effortless, ways when
the self-control conflict is recognized at an early
stage, allowing for a swift resolution of the
conflict (Gillebaart & de Ridder, 2015; Gillebaart, Schneider, & de Ridder, 2016). We subsequently contrast these results with findings
from ego-depletion research on state selfcontrol. In doing so, we aimed to identify limitations of the ego-depletion paradigm that may
produce unsuccessful self-control, because the
paradigm does not allow participants to use the
smart and effortless strategies for dealing with
conflict that in fact characterize the success of
trait self-control. We are aware that the egodepletion model entails a specific approach to
state self-control and that other prominent approaches such as the seminal work by W. Mischel exist (e.g., W. Mischel, 1974; W. Mischel,
Shoda, & Rodriguez, 1989). We focus on the
ego-depletion paradigm for two reasons. The
first reason is that the paradigm is still widely
used (despite recent discussion). Second, and
more important, the ego-depletion model allows
for the manipulation of self-control to examine
how state self-control fluctuates over time and
over situations by highlighting two stages—
regardless of how the underlying mechanism
that may explain changes in state self-control
are specified, that is, as a result of a resource
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO SELF-CONTROL?
that gets depleted or as a result of decreased
motivation (see later for further discussion of
this specific aspect). Specifically, we emphasize
that dealing with personally relevant selfcontrol dilemmas or conflicts is often absent
from the ego-depletion paradigm, which is crucial for understanding why and how people are
able and willing to prioritize a higher ultimate
goal. To this end, we first discuss the key role
for handling self-control dilemmas in trait selfcontrol. Subsequently, we discuss how selfcontrol dilemmas are seemingly absent from
ego-depletion paradigms and then suggest future directions for self-control research.
Trait Self-Control: Efficient Handling of a
Self-Control Dilemma
A large body of evidence exists showing that
trait self-control is associated with many positive outcomes in life, such as academic or work
performance (Duckworth & Seligman, 2005;
W. Mischel, Shoda, & Peake, 1988), maintaining satisfying relationships (Tangney et al.,
2004), health (Moffitt et al., 2011), and even
happiness (Cheung, Gillebaart, Kroese, & de
Ridder, 2014; Hofmann, Luhmann, Fischer,
Vohs, & Baumeister, 2014). Although one
would expect that being able to inhibit unwanted impulses is underlying these success
stories, as is generally assumed in self-control
theories, a recent meta-analysis has suggested
otherwise. This meta-analysis revealed that the
effects of high levels of trait self-control are
strongest in behaviors that are performed automatically, without effort, compared to intentional and deliberate behaviors, with effect sizes
up to more than twice as large (de Ridder et al.,
2012). Specifically, the beneficial effects of
high trait self-control were shown to be more
manifest in behaviors that are performed routinely or habitually, with people with high selfcontrol reporting both stronger adaptive routines (such as fruit consumption habits) and
weaker unadaptive routines (such as smoking
habits). These findings evince a sharp contrast
with the traditional view that people with high
self-control are more effective in intentionally
and effortfully resisting temptations and call for
alternative explanations of the underlying
mechanism of self-control success.
In recent years, several propositions have
been made to elucidate this novel view on self-
41
control, all elaborating on the conception that
effective self-control does not rely only on effortful inhibition but also on ways to prevent the
employment of effortful inhibition by using
more effortless strategies when the self-control
conflict is identified at an early stage. First, in
line with the notion that trait self-control may be
characterized by the increased ability to make
behavior automatic (Baumeister & Alquist,
2009; de Ridder et al., 2012), several studies
have demonstrated that the effects of trait selfcontrol on behavior are mediated by habits
(Adriaanse, Kroese, Gillebaart, & de Ridder,
2014; Galla & Duckworth, 2015; Gillebaart &
Adriaanse, 2017), thus exemplifying the notion
that self-control exerts its positive influence on
behavior by taking advantage of effortless routines. For example, a study by Adriaanse et al.
(2014) showed that the inverse relation between
trait self-control and unhealthy snacking could
partly be explained by habit strength, such that
people with higher trait self-control had weaker
habits of consuming unhealthy snacks, which in
turn was associated with lower intake of unhealthy snacks. This is an interesting notion that
underscores the effortless self-control proposition: Apparently, people with high trait selfcontrol eat fewer unhealthy snacks not because
they successfully inhibit their urges all the time
but instead they are simply less inclined to make
unhealthy choices as part of their automatic
routines. However, it should be acknowledged
that the literature has not yet provided direct
evidence that people with high self-control are
faster to form these adaptive habits, or break
undesirable ones, compared to people with low
self-control.
Other studies have suggested that people with
high self-control are less tempted by opportunities for immediate gratification and thus experience self-control dilemmas to a lesser extent
than do people with lower levels of self-control
(e.g., Milyavskaya, Inzlicht, Hope, & Koestner,
2015). For instance, in an experience sampling
study in a sample of German adults it was
demonstrated that people with high self-control
tend to experience fewer and weaker problematic temptations in their environment, because
they strategically structure their lives to steer
away from these vices and thus do not need to
exert effortful inhibition to the same extent as
do people with low self-control (Hofmann,
Baumeister, Förster, & Vohs, 2012). In a similar
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
42
DE RIDDER, KROESE, AND GILLEBAART
vein, it has been suggested that self-control is a
proactive trait that helps to avoid problematic
desires: For example, people with high selfcontrol were shown to prefer working in a
room that had few (vs. many) distractions,
relieving them of the necessity to deal with
temptations that might otherwise have compromised their task performance (Ent,
Baumeister, & Tice, 2015). Other studies
have supported the notion of smart selfcontrol strategies that focus on modifying circumstances before a problematic dilemma occurs rather than relying on resolving the
conflict when it reaches a critical level (Duckworth, Gendler, & Gross, 2016). Furthermore,
recent research has implied that the relation
between self-control and various goaldirected behaviors (exercising, studying,
healthy eating) are mediated by lower experienced aversion toward these behaviors (Gillebaart & Kroese, 2015), again suggesting
that people with high self-control do not necessarily need to invest more effort into the
performance of such behaviors but rather
have developed ways that make it easier for
them to be successful.
Third, recent work has propounded yet another, slightly different angle. Whereas the studies just discussed suggest that high self-control
is related to absence of conflict— because people with high self-control are not tempted by
opportunities for immediate gratification to the
same extent as are people with low selfcontrol—this latter approach suggests that people with high self-control do experience conflict
to a similar extent as do people with low levels
of self-control do but are able to deal with this
conflict more efficiently, allowing for faster
identification and resolution of the conflict. That
is, the daily lives of people with high selfcontrol are probably not void of all self-control
conflicts, because in many cases such dilemmas
can simply not be avoided (Gillebaart & de
Ridder, 2015). For instance, a person may develop routines to avoid passing by the bakery
shop in order to not be tempted by the delicious
chocolate cookies in the window but may nevertheless be offered a piece of birthday cake
when visiting a friend, creating a self-control
dilemma. It is important to note that in these
situations, people with high self-control still
tend to make better choices than do people with
low self-control. Gillebaart and colleagues
(2016) were able to demonstrate that people
with high trait self-control were faster in identifying and resolving response conflicts that
arose when asked to categorize healthy and
unhealthy food items as positive or negative. By
tracking people’s computer mouse movements
when categorizing the food items, Gillebaart et
al. demonstrated that, rather than not experiencing conflict at all, people with high and low
self-control initially experienced conflict to the
same extent. Of importance, however, people
with high self-control were faster to implicitly
identify the conflict, providing them with better
opportunities for resolving the conflict, as reflected by faster resolution of the conflict (i.e.,
faster categorization of the food item as positive
or negative). This process of response conflict
resolution in people with high trait self-control
was effective to such an extent that on an explicit level, people with high self-control reported experiencing weaker conflicts. This recent study thus suggested that the critical aspect
of high trait self-control may lie in the ability to
identify a self-control dilemma earlier, allowing
for faster, smart, and effortless strategies to deal
with it. This is in line with theoretical notions
stating that the experience of conflict is a prerequisite for engaging in self-regulatory action
(Myrseth & Fishbach, 2009).
Altogether, these new directions in trait selfcontrol research help to shed light on the understanding of how successful self-control operates. Depending on the moment when the
conflict is identified, people may use different
strategies to handle the conflict. At a very early
stage they may turn to truly automated strategies such as habits, whereas in later stages they
may use “smart strategies” that are still relatively low-effort, and in cases of full-blown
self-control conflict people may need to turn to
strategies that require effortful inhibition. The
timing aspect of the self-control conflict process
may prove essential in distinguishing these different ways of handling dilemmas, similar to the
theoretical account by Gross on a process model
of emotion regulation strategies (Duckworth,
Gendler, & Gross, 2014; Gross, 1998). However, we do not wish to elaborate on the timing
aspect here but rather point out that regardless
of the specific stage, good handling of the
conflict is crucial for understanding successful
self-control. We posit that these insights bear
important implications for the study of state
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO SELF-CONTROL?
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
self-control in the ego-depletion paradigm. Before we present a number of suggestions on how
to integrate research on trait and state selfcontrol (particularly taking into account the
novel perspective on effortless strategies), we
discuss some limitations of the ego-depletion
paradigm that currently preclude such conceptual integration.
State Self-Control: Where Is the Dilemma
in the Ego-Depletion Paradigm?
In contrast with research on trait self-control,
which has made significant steps in understanding why and how high trait self-control leads to
self-regulation success, research on state selfcontrol has witnessed several controversies
about the nature and the workings of selfcontrol. These discussions typically do not
question the existence of the behavioral phenomenon (i.e., that under certain conditions performance on a second demanding task may be
hampered after having done an initial effortful
task) but primarily relate to the question of
which processes are underlying the egodepletion phenomenon. For example, there has
been debate about whether self-control depletion results from the exhaustion of resources
(Baumeister et al., 1998) or from shifts in motivation and attention for exerting self-control
after an initial act of self-control (Inzlicht &
Schmeichel, 2012), whether ego depletion is
caused by naïve beliefs about how self-control
operates (Job, Dweck, & Walton, 2010), and
whether ego depletion is different from fatigue
(Clarkson, Hirt, Austin Chapman, & Jia, 2011).
Our goal was not to reiterate these discussions
but rather to focus on the way self-control is
assessed in ego-depletion research. In doing so,
we aimed to uncover the extent to which the
paradigm allows for handling a self-control dilemma as is suggested by trait self-control studies.
Studies on ego depletion typically use a dual
task paradigm. This paradigm holds that participants have to engage in an initial task that
requires self-control (e.g., resisting chocolate
chip cookies or crossing out e letters in a text
conforming to complex rules; Baumeister et al.,
1998), which is considered a manipulation of
the self-control resource. Subsequently, participants perform a secondary task that also requires self-control (e.g., completing an anagram
43
or holding a hand grip). Performance on this
second self-control task serves as the dependent
variable. The paradigm reflects the view that
self-control is a resource rather than a skill and
that this resource is generic in nature and not
specific to a certain task (Baumeister et al.,
1998) but also accommodates related views on
state self-control that allow for the influence of
motivation, attention, and self-control beliefs by
introducing slight variations to the task (e.g.,
Inzlicht & Schmeichel, 2012). Although metaanalytic evidence has supported the existence of
the ego-depletion effect within the dual task
paradigm (Hagger, Wood, Stiff, & Chatzisarantis, 2010), its validity has also recently been
contested in a number of critical reviews (Carter
& McCullough, 2013, 2014; Hagger et al.,
2016). We do not aim to discuss the validity of
the dual task paradigm in general here but rather
want to allude to several aspects of the task that
complicate the employment and identification
of smart strategies for handling a self-control
dilemma, as highlighted by recent advances in
trait self-control research. Our point of departure thus is not to contest the ego-depletion
phenomenon as such but rather to illuminate
methodological limitations of the paradigm that
prevent an accurate assessment of dealing with
self-control dilemmas.
We have identified two main problematic aspects of state self-control research that interfere
with the notion that self-control involves smart
resolution of self-control dilemmas: It is not so
much about dilemmas, and it does not allow for
using smart strategies.
Does ego-depletion research involve a selfcontrol dilemma? The first concern is about the
critical sequential setup of the dual task paradigm. Whereas this sequence serves the central
idea of the strength model that after initial exertion of self-control, the resource gets depleted,
one may wonder to what extent the paradigm
simply examines how people deal with performing two subsequent different tasks rather
than assessing how they deal with a self-control
dilemma (the secondary task) in a state of low
self-control (because of the initial task). There
are several reasons for considering this question. The first reason is that this setup does not
allow for examining whether the first task in
fact leads to low self-control, because the dual
task paradigm does not generally entail a manipulation check (for exceptions, see Halali,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
44
DE RIDDER, KROESE, AND GILLEBAART
Bereby-Meyer, & Meiran, 2014; Schmeichel,
Vohs, & Baumeister, 2003)— or rather the manipulation check and the dependent variable
cannot be disentangled. Strictly speaking, one
thus has no evidence that the initial task leads to
a state of low self-control, as is assumed, making it more difficult to appreciate whether poor
performance on the secondary task is indeed
due to low self-control or due to different reasons.
The second reason—related to the first
one—is that the very requirement that the paradigm should involve two different tasks rather
than two similar tasks (Baumeister et al., 1998)
may produce poor performance on the second
task (Dewitte, Bruyneel, & Geyskens, 2009).
Research has shown that if people are allowed
to engage in two similar tasks requiring selfcontrol, a decline in performance is not observed (Dewitte et al., 2009; for a review see
Kiesel et al., 2010), suggesting that poorer performance on the second task does not provide
evidence of low self-control but rather of decreased performance due to task switching. Related to this point is the issue that the time frame
of doing two subsequent tasks has never been
explicitly addressed in ego-depletion research,
although the time spent on a task critically affects performance on a task after completion of
an initial task (Langner, Steinborn, Chatterjee,
Sturm, & Willmes, 2010; Lorist et al., 2000).
A third and more important reason lies in the
second task that is used as the dependent variable in the dual task paradigm. This second task
often seems to be unrelated to self-control in
terms of inhibiting responses in view of a longterm goal because a long-term goal is absent
from the paradigm. If self-control is defined in
terms of handling a dilemma (inhibiting an immediate response in view of a goal that is more
important in the long run), then a task assessing
self-control should incorporate goals rather than
only inhibiting a response “for nothing.” For
instance, it is difficult to imagine in what way
holding a handgrip a bit longer or solving more
anagrams relates to any long-term goal people
may have. Studies on the role of motivation in
ego-depletion research support this line of reasoning. If people are more motivated for the
secondary task— either because the task is important to them or is made more important by
providing them with incentives—the depletion
effect is diminished or disappears (Muraven,
2008; Muraven & Slessareva, 2003). In extreme
cases one may even argue that quitting early on
the second task is actually a good example of
successful self-control because participants
have better things to do in their lives than solving anagrams in the lab (e.g., studying for an
exam, going running to improve their physical
condition, or any other activity that is in line
with their long-term goals). We argue that,
taken together, there are serious objections to
the dual task paradigm in terms of whether it
presents people with a true self-control dilemma, thus threatening the external validity of
the task (cf. Hommel, 2015). If people are required to engage in two subsequent trivial tasks
that do not speak to their long-term goals, one
may seriously wonder whether they experience
any dilemma that needs to be regulated and thus
any need to exert self-control.
Our reservations about the validity of the dual
task paradigm are fueled by the scarcity of
studies on the depletion phenomenon outside
the lab. As far as we know, there are only two
published studies that have manipulated ego
depletion in a real-life setting (Janssen, Fennis,
Pruyn, & Vohs, 2008; Salmon et al., 2015).
Both were conducted in a consumer psychology
setting and showed that consumers who were
depleted— by applying a speech control manipulation (Salmon et al., 2015) or letting people
respond to a series of questions (Janssen et al.,
2008)—were more easily persuaded by heuristics. That is, Salmon et al. (2015) showed that
depleted consumers were more likely to follow
a social proof heuristic that led them to buy a
healthy low-fat cheese product, and Janssen et
al. (2008) demonstrated that depleted passersby
were more likely to donate to charity when it
was promoted by an authority heuristic. These
studies suggested that depleted people relied
more strongly on automatic processing (heuristic thinking) compared to nondepleted people.
Although this is promising, one can conclude
that the evidence for ego depletion outside of
the lab is still scarce (but see Danziger, Levav,
& Avnaim-Pesso, 2011, and Vohs et al., 2008,
for field studies on decision fatigue and depletion). Moreover, these results point toward another relevant issue slightly beyond the scope of
this article’s aims, namely that depletion does
not necessarily lead to self-control failure in the
sense that depleted people always make choices
that are bad in view of their long-term goal. In
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO SELF-CONTROL?
fact, depleted participants in Salmon et al.’s
study who were presented with a heuristic made
better (i.e., healthier) choices than did nondepleted people.
Does ego-depletion research allow for using
smart strategies? This leads to our second concern, which relates to whether the dual task
paradigm allows participants to truly deal with a
self-control dilemma in smart, effortless ways
(e.g., by relying on their automatic processing).
Specifically, the paradigm does not give people
the opportunity to rely on their adaptive routines
when they have to deal with unfamiliar and
often trivial or artificial lab tasks. One may even
argue that the paradigm interferes with smart
and automatic dealing with conflict, because it
presents people with odd tasks that they are not
used to handling in their everyday lives. Keeping the findings on early conflict identification
and effortless handling of the conflict in mind,
as suggested by the study from Gillebaart et al.
(2016), it may well be that the ego-depletion
paradigm prevents people with high self-control
from using their smart routines for conflict handling, as is suggested by a recent study by
Imhoff and colleagues (2014). This study
showed that people with high trait self-control
showed stronger depletion effects (i.e., performed worse on the second task in a dual task
paradigm) compared to people with lower trait
self-control. The authors explained this finding
by suggesting that, because people with high
self-control typically rely on effortless, adaptive
routines, they are in fact less well trained to deal
with acute self-control dilemmas that are unfamiliar to them. Thus, it is important to realize
that the dual task paradigm may not be suitable
to detect potentially smarter and faster conflict
resolution strategies that might typically underlie successful self-control as suggested by trait
self-control studies.
Implications and Directions for
Future Research
Considering the emerging findings on smart
and effortless strategies in the context of trait
self-control success, combined with the concerns related to the validity of the ego-depletion
paradigm, we see a number of exciting opportunities for future research, taking the best of
both worlds and moving closer to a more comprehensive view on self-control success and
45
failure. In particular, we suggest that to advance
the understanding of how (successful) selfcontrol operates, research should incorporate
insights from trait self-control into state selfcontrol designs and vice versa. Next, we outline
some research questions that might inspire such
work.
First, research on state self-control should
take into account the notion that self-control
dilemmas may be handled without requiring
effortful control and should offer the opportunity to do so. A crucial question is whether
people with high trait self-control are also able
to engage with dilemmas in smart, effortless
ways when they experience a temporary drop in
state self-control. To this end, it is important to
distinguish between tasks for which routinized,
effortless strategies can and cannot be used. To
investigate to what extent effortless self-control
strategies are still employed when state selfcontrol is low, one should first have participants
become depleted by a task for which they cannot rely on their routines (to make sure they
indeed have to exert inhibitory control causing
low state self-control), whereas after this manipulation, one should employ a task for which
participants are allowed to rely on routines. This
could be done in either a lab setting or a field
setting. For example, studies could employ depletion manipulations after which participants’
behavior is assessed in the lab (e.g., by letting
them do tasks that are familiar to them) or
observed in a natural setting (e.g., prosocial
behavior at a busy train station, spending money
in a store). Such work could reveal to what
extent people high in trait self-control still function successfully (prosocially, economically
sound) when they have had to previously exert
effortful control. Careful consideration should
be given to determining whether these settings
(either lab or field) allow people to rely on their
routines or other effortless self-control strategies (e.g., avoidance). Inspiration for this direction of research can be drawn from studies that
observe use of self-control strategies (e.g., H. N.
Mischel & Mischel, 1987; W. Mischel et al.,
1988).
A second line of research could look at spontaneous, or “natural,” rather than manipulated
situations of low state self-control (e.g., having
to make a series of choices in the supermarket)
and how this lowered state of self-control affects people with low and high trait self-control.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
46
DE RIDDER, KROESE, AND GILLEBAART
State self-control research is currently confounded with the dual task paradigm, but it
would be important to consider how states of
low self-control come about in real life outside
the lab. Resisting a simple temptation or doing
brief tasks that are aversive may not require so
much self-control and thus not result in low
state self-control. Still, many people will recognize the phenomenon of low state self-control
(either in relation to their naïve beliefs of how
self-control operates or not; cf. Job et al., 2010):
feeling like they have less “willpower” after a
strenuous meeting, having difficulty resisting
the urge to snap at one’s nagging kids after a
busy day at work, or impulsively buying cookies when going out for groceries after an exhausting activity. Thus, future research may investigate such naturally occurring states of low
self-control and examine to what extent people
high or low in trait self-control might be differentially affected. For instance, the key to success for people with high self-control may lie in
the fact that even in this lowered state of selfcontrol they are still able to make good choices,
because they have their smart, effortless strategies to fall back on, whereas people with low
self-control do not have such strategies to rely
on when their resource gets depleted, which
leads to a third possible research question.
This third, and equally crucial, question is
whether people with high trait self-control are
less prone to typical depletion effects because of
their effortless strategies. To address this question, one must take another approach. In this
case it would be interesting to consider selfcontrol dilemmas in which people—presumably
as a function of trait self-control—may or may
not have adaptive routines (e.g., making food
choices in a cafeteria), after which a more unfamiliar task (with which people have no prior
experience, and they can therefore not rely on
any routines) could illustrate whether the handling of the initial conflict was depleting or not,
depending on level of trait self-control. Of
course, the ultimate test would then be to examine to what extent an effortlessly solved dilemma affects performance on a subsequent,
equally relevant dilemma for which people have
no adaptive routines.
Finally, it would be interesting to investigate
whether people’s levels of state self-control affect their use of effortless self-control strategies,
in the sense that people with high state self-
control may be more prone to using effortless
strategies than are people with low state selfcontrol. Research may therefore either manipulate high and low states of self-control or observe them in a natural setting and subsequently
employ tasks like the ones used in trait selfcontrol research (e.g., implicit assessment of
identifying and resolving self-control conflicts).
Considering all these aspects, we see ample
opportunities for novel research that examines
how trait self-control and state self-control relate to each other and that may reconcile the
divergent findings on their association that hitherto have been reported. Even more important
than resolving the apparent contradictions of the
two distinct approaches to state self-control and
trait self-control is to learn more about whether
insight into the mechanisms that underlie successful trait self-control also apply when people
experience a temporary drop in self-control.
Knowing more about when and why state selfcontrol varies across situations (e.g., novel vs.
well known) or over time as a function of trait
self-control is crucial for enhancing the understanding of self-control success. One final caveat is important in this regard. In this article we
have focused on the shortcomings of the egodepletion paradigm, but in future attempts to
address trait self-control and state self-control
within the same paradigm it may be equally
important to consider the shortcomings of how
trait self-control is assessed and develop more
sophisticated measures of trait self-control than
the ones that now primarily focus on self-report.
Self-report trait self-control measures rely on
the assumption that people have sufficient
awareness of their capacity for self-control to
report it accurately, that it does not vary across
situations or time, and that it does not vary
across categories of self-control challenges
(Hoyle & Davisson, in press). These assumptions are dubious given the low convergence
between self-report measures and behavioral
measures of trait self-control (Duckworth &
Kern, 2011).
Conclusion
The aim of this article was to discuss how
different insights gained from trait self-control
and state self-control research relate to each
other. To this end, we have discussed recent
developments in trait self-control research and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO SELF-CONTROL?
have identified problematic aspects of state selfcontrol research. Although self-control by definition involves a dilemma between immediate
gratification and (long-term) goal pursuit, the
dual task paradigm does not entail these goals or
such a dilemma. Furthermore, dual task paradigms typically do not allow for employing or
assessing the effortless strategies that people
with high trait self-control tend to use. By highlighting the opportunities that lie in combining
the existing knowledge on trait and state selfcontrol, we believe that a better understanding
of the mechanisms that are involved in selfcontrol success and failure will be possible.
References
Adriaanse, M. A., Kroese, F. M., Gillebaart, M., & de
Ridder, D. T. D. (2014). Effortless inhibition:
Habit mediates the relation between self-control
and unhealthy snack consumption. Frontiers in
Psychology: Eating Behavior, 5, 444. http://dx.doi
.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00444
Baumeister, R. F., & Alquist, J. L. (2009). Is there a
downside to good self-control? Self and Identity, 8,
115–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298860
802501474
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., &
Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active
self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 74, 1252–1265. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M.
(2007). The strength model of self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 351–
355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007
.00534.x
Carter, E. C., & McCullough, M. E. (2013). Is ego
depletion too incredible? Evidence for the overestimation of the depletion effect. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 36, 683– 684. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1017/S0140525X13000952
Carter, E. C., & McCullough, M. E. (2014). Publication bias and the limited strength model of selfcontrol: Has the evidence for ego depletion been
overestimated? Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 823.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00823
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and
self-regulation: A control theory approach to human behavior. New York, NY: Springer Verlag.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5887-2
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control
theory: A useful conceptual framework for personality-social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 111–135. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0033-2909.92.1.111
47
Cheung, T. T. L., Gillebaart, M., Kroese, F., & de
Ridder, D. (2014). Why are people with high selfcontrol happier? The effect of trait self-control on
happiness as mediated by regulatory focus. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 722. http://dx.doi.org/10
.3389/fpsyg.2014.00722
Clarkson, J. J., Hirt, E. R., Austin Chapman, D., &
Jia, L. (2011). The impact of illusory fatigue on
executive control: Do perceptions of depletion impair working memory capacity? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 231–238. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1177/1948550610386628
Danziger, S., Levav, J., & Avnaim-Pesso, L. (2011).
Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 108, 6889 – 6892. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018033108
de Ridder, D. T. D., Lensvelt-Mulders, G., Finkenauer, C., Stok, F. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2012).
Taking stock of self-control: A meta-analysis of
how trait self-control relates to a wide range of
behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 76 –99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1088868311418749
DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Stillman, T. F., &
Gailliot, M. T. (2007). Violence restrained: Effects
of self-regulation and its depletion on aggression.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43,
62–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12
.005
Dewitte, S., Bruyneel, S., & Geyskens, K. (2009).
Self-regulating enhances self-regulation in subsequent consumer decisions involving similar response conflicts. Journal of Consumer Research,
36, 394 – 405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/598615
Duckworth, A. L., Gendler, T. S., & Gross, J. J.
(2014). Self-control in school-age children. Educational Psychologist, 49, 199 –217. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.926225
Duckworth, A. L., Gendler, T. S., & Gross, J. J.
(2016). Situational strategies for self-control. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 35–55.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691615623247
Duckworth, A. L., & Kern, M. L. (2011). A metaanalysis of the convergent validity of self-control
measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 45,
259 –268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.02
.004
Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005).
Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic
performance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16, 939 –944. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j
.1467-9280.2005.01641.x
Ent, M. R., Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (2015).
Trait self-control and the avoidance of temptations. Personality and Individual Differences, 74,
12–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09
.031
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
48
DE RIDDER, KROESE, AND GILLEBAART
Fleeson, W. (2004). Moving personality beyond the
person-situation debate: The challenge and the opportunity of within person variability. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 83– 87.
Fujita, K. (2011). On conceptualizing self-control as
more than the effortful inhibition of impulses. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 352–
366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1088868311411165
Galla, B. M., & Duckworth, A. L. (2015). More than
resisting temptation: Beneficial habits mediate the
relationship between self-control and positive life
outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 508 –525. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
pspp0000026
Gillebaart, M., & Adriaanse, M. A. (2017). Selfcontrol predicts exercise behavior by force of
habit, a conceptual replication of Adriaanse et al.
(2014). Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 190. http://dx
.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00190
Gillebaart, M., & de Ridder, D. T. D. (2015). Effortless self-control: A novel perspective on response
conflict strategies in trait self-control. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 9, 88 –99. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12160
Gillebaart, M., & Kroese, F. M. (2015, August).
Easier done than said: People with high selfcontrol feel less aversive to health behaviors. Paper
presented at the 29th Conference of the European
Health Psychology Society, Limassol, Cyprus.
Gillebaart, M., Schneider, I. K., & de Ridder, D. T.
D. (2016). Effects of trait self-control on response
conflict about healthy and unhealthy food. Journal
of Personality, 84, 789 –798. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1111/jopy.12219
Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent- and responsefocused emotion regulation: Divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, 224 –237. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0022-3514.74.1.224
Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Alberts, H.,
Anggono, C. O., Batailler, C., Birt, A. R., . . .
Zwienenberg, M. (2016). A multilab preregistered
replication of the ego-depletion effect. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 546 –573.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691616652873
Hagger, M. S., Wood, C., Stiff, C., & Chatzisarantis,
N. L. (2010). Ego depletion and the strength model
of self-control: A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 136, 495–525. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0019486
Halali, E., Bereby-Meyer, Y., & Meiran, N. (2014).
Between self-interest and reciprocity: The social
bright side of self-control failure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 745–754.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033824
Hofmann, W., Baumeister, R. F., Förster, G., &
Vohs, K. D. (2012). Everyday temptations: An
experience sampling study of desire, conflict, and
self-control. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 102, 1318 –1335. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/a0026545
Hofmann, W., Luhmann, M., Fisher, R. R., Vohs,
K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2014). Yes, but are
they happy? Effects of trait self-control on affective well-being and life satisfaction. Journal of
Personality, 82, 265–277. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1111/jopy.12050
Hommel, B. (2015). Between persistence and flexibility: The yin and yang of action control. In A. J.
Elliot (Ed.), Advances in motivation science (Vol.
2, pp. 33– 67). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms
.2015.04.003
Hoyle, R. H., & Davisson, E. K. (in press). Measurement of self-control by self-report: Considerations
and recommendations. In D. T. D. de Ridder,
M. A. Adriaanse, & K. Fujita (Eds.), Handbook of
self-control in health and well-being. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Imhoff, R., Schmidt, A. F., & Gerstenberg, F. X. R.
(2014). Exploring the interplay of trait self-control
and ego-depletion: Empirical evidence for ironic
effects. European Journal of Personality, 28, 413–
424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.1899
Inzlicht, M., & Schmeichel, B. J. (2012). What is ego
depletion? Toward a mechanistic revision of the
resource model of self-control. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 7, 450 – 463. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1177/1745691612454134
Janssen, L., Fennis, B. M., Pruyn, A. T. H., & Vohs,
K. D. (2008). The path of least resistance: Regulatory resource depletion and the effectiveness of
social influence techniques. Journal of Business
Research, 61, 1041–1045. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1016/j.jbusres.2007.09.013
Job, V., Dweck, C. S., & Walton, G. M. (2010). Ego
depletion—Is it all in your head? Implicit theories
about willpower affect self-regulation. Psychological Science, 21, 1686 –1693. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/0956797610384745
Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein,
M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010).
Control and interference in task switching—A review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 849 – 874.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019842
Langner, R., Steinborn, M. B., Chatterjee, A., Sturm,
W., & Willmes, K. (2010). Mental fatigue and
temporal preparation in simple reaction-time performance. Acta Psychologica, 133, 64 –72. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.10.001
Lorist, M. M., Klein, M., Nieuwenhuis, S., De Jong,
R., Mulder, G., & Meijman, T. F. (2000). Mental
fatigue and task control: Planning and preparation.
Psychophysiology, 37, 614 – 625. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/1469-8986.3750614
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO SELF-CONTROL?
Milyavskaya, M., Inzlicht, M., Hope, N., & Koestner,
R. (2015). Saying “no” to temptation: Want-to
motivation improves self-regulation by reducing
temptation rather than by increasing self-control.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
109, 677– 693. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp
0000045
Mischel, H. N., & Mischel, W. (1987). The development of children’s knowledge of self-control strategies. In F. Halisch & J. Kuhl (Eds.), Motivation,
intention, and volition (pp. 321–336). http://dx.doi
.org/10.1007/978-3-642-70967-8_22
Mischel, W. (1974). Processes in delay of gratification. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 249 –292).
New York, NY: Academic Press.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Peake, P. K. (1988). The
nature of adolescent competencies predicted by
preschool delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 687– 696.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.687
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. I. (1989,
May 26). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244, 933–938. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/
science.2658056
Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson,
N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., . . . Caspi, A.
(2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 108, 2693–2698. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1010076108
Muraven, M. (2008). Autonomous self-control is less
depleting. Journal of Research in Personality, 42,
763–770. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.08
.002
Muraven, M., Rosman, H., & Gagné, M. (2007).
Lack of autonomy and self-control: Performancecontingent rewards lead to greater depletion. Motivation and Emotion, 31, 322–330. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1007/s11031-007-9073-x
Muraven, M., & Slessareva, E. (2003). Mechanisms
of self-control failure: Motivation and limited resources. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 894 –906. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0146167203029007008
49
Myrseth, K. O. R., & Fishbach, A. (2009). Selfcontrol: A function of knowing when and how to
exercise restraint. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 247–252. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01645.x
Salmon, S. J., De Vet, E., Adriaanse, M. A., Fennis,
B. M., Veltkamp, M., & de Ridder, D. T. D.
(2015). Social proof in the supermarket: Promoting healthy choices under low self-control conditions. Food Quality and Preference, 45, 113–120.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.06.004
Schmeichel, B. J., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F.
(2003). Intellectual performance and ego depletion: Role of the self in logical reasoning and other
information processing. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 85, 33– 46. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.33
Stillman, T. F., Tice, D. M., Fincham, F. D., &
Lambert, N. M. (2009). The psychological presence of family improves self-control. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 28, 498 –529.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2009.28.4.498
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L.
(2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271–
324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004
.00263.x
Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., Schmeichel, B. J.,
Twenge, J. M., Nelson, N. M., & Tice, D. M.
(2008). Making choices impairs subsequent selfcontrol: A limited-resource account of decision
making, self-regulation, and active initiative. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 883–
898. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.5
.883
Vohs, K. D., & Schmeichel, B. J. (2003). Selfregulation and the extended now: Controlling the
self alters the subjective experience of time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 217–
230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2
.217
Received January 11, 2017
Revision received June 26, 2017
Accepted June 26, 2017 䡲
Self-control is a crucial aspect of human behavior that involves the ability to delay gratification
of a smaller reward for a larger reward later in time. The operational definition of self-control
includes several important components that shed light on this concept. Firstly, self-control can
have both good and bad outcomes. On the one hand, good outcomes include a better
understanding of research findings, causes, and consequences. On the other hand, bad outcomes
can include problematic behaviors and impulse buying.
There are two types of self-control attainable, inhibitory and initiatory self-control. Inhibitory
behavior has the ability to suppress or reduce a bad habit or negative behavior, while initiatory
self-control can create positive behaviors and lead to short-term goals. The TOTE model of selfregulation is essential for self-control to function well in behavior.
Gillebaart (2018) explains three ingredients of self-regulation, Standards, Monitoring, and
Operating. These three serve as self-regulation as there needs to be some type of desire or
standard within a person to have self-control behavior that will input any standards or goals.
Self-regulation allows people to formulate goals, standards, and desired end states while also
monitoring discrepancies.
Effortful inhibition is another component of self-control. When choosing between a small or
large reward value, a person’s impulses come into play. Effortful inhibition is what makes
someone effortful, and there needs to be more effort into self-control in people’s daily life for
them to be successful. Better self-control is related to better grades and academic achievements.
The dual-system framework is another contribution to the theory of self-control. The “cool”
system represents slower, rational behavior, while the “hot” system represents impulsive
behavior. The empirical and theoretical contributions of the operational definition of self-control
are crucial to understanding the concept of self-control fully.
The theoretical contribution of self-control highlights the importance of how self-control plays in
a person’s behavior and the outcomes it can have if no self-control is being applied. When no
self-control is used, it’s harder for people to reach their goals. Understanding the operational
definition of self-control is essential for anyone looking to improve their ability to control their
impulses and achieve their goals.
Self-Discrepancy Theory is a psychological theory that explains the importance of self-concept
and the discrepancies that arise between an individual’s actual self, ideal self, and ought self.
These discrepancies lead to emotional responses, such as dejection-related emotions or agitationrelated emotions, which can influence a person’s behavior and self-control.
According to the theory, there are three basic domains of self: actual self, ideal self, and ought
self. Actual self is the kind of person an individual believes that others think they are or the
person they think they themselves are. Ideal self is the representation of the attributes that
someone (yourself or another) would like you to possess, while ought self is the representation of
the attributes that someone (yourself or another) believes you should or ought to possess.
The theory also identifies two basic standpoints on self: own personal standpoint and standpoint
of some significant other. These lead to six basic types of self-state representations, including
self-concept (actual, ideal, ought), self-guides (own, other), and representations that reflect
discrepancies between the actual self and the ideal self or ought self.
The importance of understanding the distinction between dejection-related emotions and
agitation-related emotions is also emphasized in the theory. Dejection-related emotions are
related to an absence of positive outcomes, such as dissatisfaction, disappointment, and sadness,
while agitation-related emotions are related to the presence of negative outcomes, such as fear,
threat, and edginess.
Self-discrepancy theory highlights the significance of having standards for oneself and selfevaluation as motivational factors. Higher ideal goals motivate performance, but minimizing
discrepancies between actual self and standards is necessary to reduce negative feedback.
Self-discrepancy sets that reflect a discrepancy between an individual’s self-concept and their
self-guides can lead to negative emotions, such as dejection-related emotions or agitation-related
emotions. These negative emotions can make an individual believe they cannot achieve their
goals, which can affect their behavior and self-control.
In terms of the contribution of Self-Discrepancy Theory to the theory of self-control, the theory
emphasizes the importance of understanding the discrepancies between actual self, ideal self, and
ought self, and how these discrepancies can affect an individual’s behavior and self-regulation.
By understanding the emotional responses that arise from these discrepancies, individuals can
better manage their behavior and self-control.
Yes, the idea that self-control is a limited resource has important implications for our
understanding of self-control and how we can best use it. This concept helps us understand why
we may struggle to maintain self-control over time and why we may need to conserve our selfcontrol resources in order to be successful in achieving our goals.
By recognizing that self-control is a limited resource, we can also develop strategies to better
manage our self-control resources. For example, we can prioritize tasks that require self-control
early in the day when our resources are highest, or we can break up a larger task into smaller,
more manageable parts to avoid depleting our self-control resources too quickly.
Overall, the idea that self-control is a limited resource is an important contribution to our
understanding of self-control, and it can help us develop strategies to more effectively manage
our behavior and achieve our goals.
The strength model of self-control has contributed significantly to the theory of self-control by
providing an explanation for the limited resource nature of self-control. Through empirical
research, the model shows that self-control depends on a limited energy resource that can be
depleted over time due to repeated use. The success or failure of self-control depends on the
person’s level of strength, and regular exertion of self-control can improve willpower strength.
Furthermore, the model highlights that everyone has different levels of self-control strength,
much like everyone has different amounts of muscles on their body. Additionally, the model
explains that stressors such as inhibition, noise, crowding, experimental stressors, and general
stress can lead to poorer self-control performance and depletion.
The strength model also provides a framework for understanding the relationship between selfcontrol and the brain. It suggests that self-control requires mental strength, which is a limited
resource and can be depleted. However, over time, this strength can be replenished with rest,
similar to how our muscles require rest to recover.
Overall, the strength model of self-control provides a theoretical and empirical contribution to
the understanding of self-control by providing an explanation for the limited resource nature of
self-control and how regular exertions of self-control can improve willpower strength.
The challenging of the resource model of self-control contributes to the theory of self-control by
questioning the validity of the resource depletion model. This study provides evidence that the
effect size of ego depletion studies has been declining over time, which may suggest that the
resource depletion model is not as accurate as previously thought. It also highlights the
importance of replication in scientific research and the potential biases in publishing statistically
significant results. This study encourages researchers to consider alternative models of selfcontrol and to continue exploring the mechanisms behind self-control. Overall, the challenging
of the resource model contributes to a better understanding of the complexity of self-control
and the need for continued research to fully comprehend its mechanisms.
Psychological science has long held the replication and reproducibility of studies as an important
pillar. However, in recent years, some argue that psychology is in a replication crisis. This crisis
stems from the inability to replicate past studies, which calls into question the reliability of their
data.
One of the most infamous examples of this crisis was the publication of Daryl Bem’s article
“Feeling the Future” in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. This article claimed to
demonstrate evidence for the parapsychological phenomenon of precognition, which many
psychologists took issue with due to the presumption that this phenomenon is not accurate.
Bem’s “evidence” was also deemed problematic due to questionable research practices.
Another significant event in this crisis was the discovery of Diedrik Stapel’s extensive research
fraud in 2011. He was found to have fabricated data on several of his published research studies,
which called into question the quality control of psychology studies.
That same year, Simmons, Nelson, and Simonsohn published “False Positive Psychology:
Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as
Significant,” which drew attention to questionable research practices that likely inflated the false
positive rate in psychological literature. These questionable research practices are a result of
problematic methodology in research and high pressure on researchers to publish in well-known
journals that have a reputation for only publishing novel or positive findings.
Reformers have called into question null hypothesis significance testing and p-hacking, which is
a broad term describing a collection of activities, such as manipulating data, with the end goal of
finding p to be less than .05. Transparency, openly sharing data, materials, and codes to analyze
data, has been suggested as a solution, with some journals requiring sharing to publish.
Replicability, the degree to which psychological findings can be replicated, has also been called
into question, with confirmation bias being a significant issue. The crisis of confidence, rather
than the replication crisis, may be a more accurate description of this problem.
The contribution of the replication crisis to the theory of self-control is significant. Due to the
inability to replicate some studies, psychologists question which self-control theories can be
relied on. Past questionable research practices and publication biases towards certain results or
larger sample sizes have led to studies not being able to reproduce the same results.
If psychologists are not confident in the definitions of self-control, whether or not ego-depletion
functions a certain way or not, or if self-control really does function like a muscle, this leads to
what many call a “crisis.” Changes in publishing, such as the peer review process, transparency,
and rewarding those who replicate, will alter how factual the theory of self-control can be.
In conclusion, the replication crisis is a significant issue in psychological science that has led to
questioning the reliability of research studies. The contribution of this crisis to the theory of selfcontrol is particularly relevant, as it calls into question the definitions of self-control and the
reliability of past research. Reforms such as transparency, replicability, and rewarding those who
replicate can help address this crisis and increase confidence in the validity of psychological
research.
Self-regulation is the ability to regulate one’s thoughts, emotions, and behavior to achieve goals
or standards. Successful self-regulation involves three main components: standards of thought,
feeling, or behavior that individuals endorse and monitor, motivation to invest effort into
reducing discrepancies between standards and actual states, and the capacity to achieve this in
the face of obstacles and temptations.
There are three basic executive functions that contribute to self-regulation: working memory
operations such as maintenance and updating of irrelevant information (updating), inhibition of
prepotent impulses (inhibition), and mental set shifting (shifting). These functions allow
individuals to actively inhibit or override behavioral responses, which is a hallmark of successful
regulation.
Hoffman suggests that working memory plays a crucial role in self-regulation by facilitating the
representation of goals and goal-relevant information. Attention is a key factor in self-regulation,
as stimulus-driven influences and goal-directed processing often compete for limited attentional
resources. Successful self-regulators are able to shield their self-regulating goals from competing
goals or distractions, suppress ruminative thoughts, and downregulate unwanted affect and
cravings.
Self-regulating organisms must balance the pursuit of focal goals with the possibility of being
open to alternative courses of action. This is the cognitive control “dilemma.”
Empirically and theoretically, self-regulation contributes to the theory of self-control by
providing a framework for goal-directed behavior and the ability to override unwanted impulses
or urges. While executive functions can be improved through training or related interventions,
the extent to which these improvements generalize and show positive transfer on everyday
behavior is debated. Nonetheless, new findings suggest an exciting role for executive functions
in self-regulation.
Self-efficacy plays an essential role in self-control as it influences an individual’s belief in their
ability to regulate their thoughts, emotions, and behavior. Self-efficacy is a crucial aspect of
Bandura’s social cognitive theory, which proposes that human functioning is influenced by
personal factors such as cognition, emotion, and behavior, as well as by social and environmental
factors.
Self-efficacy is shaped by four sources of information: performance accomplishments, vicarious
experiences, social persuasion, and physiological/emotional states. Individuals who have high
self-efficacy are more likely to engage in self-regulatory actions and persist on challenging tasks.
Moreover, having high self-efficacy alone is not sufficient for success, but it is when combined
with other positive motivational processes that it leads to strong motivation outcomes.
Collective self-efficacy is also an essential aspect to consider, especially in teamwork and
cooperative learning, even in individualistic cultures. It refers to the belief of a group of people
in their ability to accomplish a shared goal. Continued research in collective self-efficacy is
necessary to better understand how it affects group performance.
Other factors that affect motivation include goal setting, social comparison, values, outcome
expectations, and attribution. Effective goal setting involves making specific, challenging, and
proximal goals. Social comparison refers to how individuals compare themselves to others in
terms of performance, leading to motivation or demotivation. Values reflect how important an
action is to an individual in relation to their goals, and higher values lead to higher motivation.
Outcome expectations refer to how individuals see the outcome of their behaviors, and
attribution refers to how individuals perceive the causes of these outcomes. These factors interact
with self-efficacy to shape an individual’s level of motivation and self-control.
Self-efficacy also contributes to the empirical study of self-control. For instance, research has
shown that individuals with high self-efficacy are more likely to use effective self-regulation
strategies, such as setting goals, monitoring their progress, and adjusting their strategies when
needed. These strategies, in turn, have been found to be effective in enhancing self-control.
Additionally, studies have found that interventions that enhance self-efficacy can improve selfcontrol in a variety of domains, such as dieting, substance use, and academic performance.
Therefore, self-efficacy has an important role in empirical studies of self-control by providing a
key factor that can be targeted for intervention to improve self-control.
The empirical contribution of trait vs state self-control to the theory of self-control is that it
highlights the importance of considering individual differences in self-control abilities. It
suggests that self-control is not solely dependent on momentary states, but also on stable traits
that individuals possess. This recognition can help researchers and practitioners better understand
and predict self-control behaviors in individuals.
Furthermore, trait self-control has been linked to many positive life outcomes, such as better
academic achievement, job performance, and mental and physical health. This highlights the
importance of trait self-control and the potential benefits of cultivating this skill.
On the other hand, the theoretical contribution of trait vs state self-control is that it has led to the
development of the ego depletion theory, which suggests that self-control is a finite resource that
can be depleted with use. This theory has been widely researched and has led to a better
understanding of the mechanisms underlying self-control and how it can be improved.
In summary, the empirical and theoretical contributions of trait vs state self-control to the theory
of self-control have highlighted the importance of considering individual differences in selfcontrol abilities and have led to the development of important theories and research in the field.
Volitional and impulsigenic processes play an important role in the theory of self-control. Selfcontrol refers to the ability to regulate one’s thoughts, emotions, and behaviors in a way that
aligns with long-term goals, despite the presence of temptations or distractions.
Volitional processes encourage behavior that corresponds to an individual’s long-term goals.
These processes involve the use of executive functions, such as planning, attention deployment,
and psychological distancing, which facilitate self-controlled behavior. Volitional processes are
effective when an individual is able to focus on their desired outcome and resist the temptation
for immediate gratification.
In contrast, impulsigenic processes encourage behavior that accepts immediate gratification from
interacting with a temptation. These processes involve reward sensitivity, sensation seeking, and
domain-specific cravings. Impulsigenic processes undermine self-controlled behavior by
increasing an individual’s focus on immediate rewards rather than long-term goals.
Time plays a significant role in determining whether an individual succumbs to volitional or
impulsigenic processes. Volitional processes rely on longer time periods, while impulsigenic
processes operate on a proximal timeline. Age also impacts whether an individual acts upon
volitional or impulsigenic processes. Adolescents, for instance, have increased reward sensitivity
and are more likely to act upon impulsigenic processes in order to attain rewards instantly.
The empirical and theoretical contribution of volitional and impulsigenic processes to the theory
of self-control lies in their ability to impact an individual’s self-control behavior. Understanding
how these processes vary by age can help us develop a better understanding of how we practice
self-control and how to improve it. Research on age-impacted decision making contributes to the
understanding of self-control as it relates to development, which is a piece of the grander puzzle
of self-control as a practice. By distinguishing processes that encourage the pursuit of
immediately gratifying urges from those that encourage actions aligned with more distal goals,
researchers can gain a better understanding of how to facilitate self-controlled behavior.
The concept of implicit theories of willpower refers to an individual’s beliefs about the nature of
self-control and its limits. According to this theory, people who hold a limited-resource theory of
self-control believe that their capacity for self-control is finite and can be depleted over time. On
the other hand, people who hold a nonlimited-resource theory of self-control believe that their
capacity for self-control is unlimited and can be sustained even through demanding tasks.
In the studies, participants were asked to complete a self-report about their beliefs regarding
willpower. They then underwent either an ego-depleting or non-depleting task before taking a
stroop test, a measure of ego depletion. The results showed that participants who held a
nonlimited-resource theory of self-control demonstrated no difference in stroop test accuracy,
while participants who held a limited-resource theory of self-control made significantly more
mistakes during the stroop test after an ego-depleting task.
The second study manipulated participants’ beliefs about willpower by exposing them to
information that either supported a limited-resource or nonlimited-resource theory of selfcontrol. The results showed that participants who were exposed to the limited-resource theory
made significantly more mistakes during the stroop test after an ego-depleting task, while those
who were exposed to the nonlimited-resource theory showed no significant change in accuracy.
The empirical and theoretical contribution of this research is that an individual’s implicit theory
of willpower plays a significant role in their self-control. Believing that one has limited selfcontrol can limit one’s capacity for self-control, while believing that one has unlimited selfcontrol can significantly increase one’s capacity for self-control. This research highlights the
importance of people’s perceptions and beliefs about their capacity for self-control in
determining their behavior and performance in challenging situations.
The contribution of Implicit Theories of Willpower to the theory of self-control is significant as
it highlights the role of beliefs and perceptions in shaping one’s ability to regulate behavior. The
studies show that the implicit theory of willpower can impact self-control, demonstrating that
beliefs can be just as important as actual abilities in determining behavior. The studies also
provide evidence for the existence of two primary beliefs of self-control: the limited-resource
theory and the nonlimited-resource theory.
This understanding can help individuals and practitioners in several ways. For example,
individuals who believe that their self-control is limited may need to engage in activities that
replenish their resources to maintain their self-control effectively. Conversely, those who believe
that their self-control is not limited can use this belief to help them perform better when their
demands on self-regulation are high.
Moreover, the finding that individuals’ implicit theories of willpower can be manipulated has
important implications for interventions and strategies aimed at improving self-control. For
example, interventions could be designed to challenge and modify individuals’ limited-resource
beliefs, such as providing evidence that self-control is not depleted by certain activities or
providing training in cognitive reappraisal techniques to change one’s perception of self-control
limitations.
Overall, the contribution of Implicit Theories of Willpower to the theory of self-control provides
a deeper understanding of the role of beliefs and perceptions in shaping behavior and highlights
the importance of considering individual differences when designing interventions to improve
self-control.
Furthermore, research has shown that want-to motivation is associated with more positive goal
pursuit outcomes than have-to motivation. When individuals pursue goals because they want to,
they are more likely to set positive, achievement-oriented goals rather than negative, avoidanceoriented goals. This type of goal setting is associated with greater effort and sustained goal
pursuit, leading to a higher likelihood of achieving the goal. In contrast, have-to motivation is
often caused by the fear of failure or external pressures, which can lead to a less enjoyable and
less autonomous pursuit of goals.
Moreover, want-to motivation is linked to a more automated response to achieving the goal,
making it easier for individuals to resist temptations that may derail their progress. This
automated response is due to the regulatory process unfolding automatically from the
individual’s preferences, rather than from their goal. Want-to motivation is also associated with
greater vitality, making the goal or efforts to obtain that goal feel effortless or easier.
Overall, want-to motivation plays a critical role in the theory of self-control by influencing how
individuals approach and pursue their goals. By having a desire and passion for their goals,
individuals are more likely to engage in self-controlled behavior, resist temptations, and
ultimately achieve their desired outcomes.
Self-control training has made significant empirical and theoretical contributions to the broader
field of self-control research. Empirically, self-control training research has helped clarify the
cognitive and neural mechanisms involved in self-control. For example, research has indicated
that self-control training can enhance brain processes related to emotion regulation and inhibitory
control, as well as cognitive functions like attention and decision-making.
Theoretical contributions of self-control training include the strength model of self-control,
which proposes that self-control is a limited resource that can be depleted by exertion but can
also be strengthened through exercise and training. This model highlights the importance of
restorative activities in refueling one’s capacity for self-control. Self-control training research
has also shown that small acts of inhibition can increase general self-control capacity, rather than
just perceived effort or hard work. This challenges the idea that self-control is a fixed trait and
suggests that individuals can improve their ability to regulate their thoughts, feelings, and
behaviors through specific techniques and strategies.
Furthermore, self-control training research has emphasized the value of employing training
techniques for developing and maintaining self-control, which can have significant implications
for promoting health behaviors and reducing impulsive and risky behaviors. Overall, self-control
training has helped advance our knowledge of the intricate mechanisms governing self-control
and has the potential to inform interventions aimed at promoting self-control in various domains
of life.
Goal striving theory has made significant empirical and theoretical contributions to the broader
field of self-control research. One of the key contributions is the understanding that goal setting
is an effective way to regulate behavior and achieve desired outcomes. The theory proposes that
goals can be set by different sources, including oneself, others, or jointly through participation.
Moreover, research has shown that self-efficacy, past performance, and social influences can
affect the level at which goals are set.
Additionally, the theory highlights the importance of framing goals in terms of gain versus loss.
Individuals who perceive their goals as difficult to obtain may see the goal as threatening,
leading to poor performance. By reframing goals in a positive perspective, individuals can
change the outcome and achieve positive results.
The concept of learning goals, where the focus is on skill building and acquiring knowledge
rather than just reaching the goal, is another important contribution of goal striving theory.
Learning goals require individuals to engage in planning, monitoring, and evaluating their
progress, promoting self-control and regulation.
Overall, the empirical and theoretical contributions of goal striving theory have helped advance
our understanding of self-control and the mechanisms governing behavior regulation. By
providing insight into the role of goal setting and framing, the theory offers valuable guidance
for individuals and practitioners seeking to improve self-control and achieve desired outcomes.
Implementation intentions are self-instructions that specify when, where, and how to initiate a
response. They are if-then plans that connect opportunities to behavior that are effective towards
a goal. The “if” serves as a cue to initiate behavior, there must be sustainable opportunities for
goal behavior, anticipated situations, and involve internal or/and external cues. The “then” is the
goal-directed behavior, a response to promote goal attainment, specify response for goal
attainment or suppress response that may prevent goal attainment. Implementation intentions
work because they specify a goal-directed behavior at a critical moment which delegates control
from self to cue.
Ego depletion is a psychological phenomenon in which the use of self-control in one task
reduces the ability to perform self-control in subsequent tasks. It can occur due to the limited
availability of self-control resources. Ego-depletion can be avoided by having smarter long-term
strategies that allow people to keep self-control available for later demanding tasks. It comes in
the way of successful self-control by reducing the ability to perform self-control in subsequent
tasks.
Implementation intentions reduce ego-depletion and lead to successful self-control by creating a
specific plan that delegates control from self to cue. By having a plan in place, people are more
likely to follow through on their goals without using up valuable self-control resources. For
example, the implementation intention “When I get home, then I will complete a load of laundry
before I watch TV” provides a specific plan for when and where to complete a task.
The empirical and theoretical contribution of implementation intentions to the theory of selfcontrol is the idea of automaticity. People with high-trait self-control are able to use
downgrading to make more efficient use of their self-control resources. By creating if-then plans,
people can delegate control from self to cue, reducing the need for self-control in subsequent
tasks. Implementation intentions bring a new level of specificity to goal-setting and self-control,
allowing people to more effectively reach their goals.
Effortless inhibition contributes to the theory of self-control by proposing an alternative
perspective on self-control that emphasizes successful self-control rather than depletion or failure
of self-control. The theory suggests that certain behaviors can become automatized, allowing for
quick and easy inhibition of unfavorable behaviors without depleting self-control resources.
Empirical evidence suggests that people with high trait self-control utilize effortless inhibition
more often than those with low trait self-control, implying that people higher in trait self-control
have smart and easy strategies for avoiding certain undesirable behaviors. This is because those
with high trait self-control have adaptive routines that are more successful in pursuing long-term
goals.
Effortless inhibition theory highlights the importance of understanding the automatic behaviors
and habits that underlie self-control, rather than just focusing on conscious and effortful control.
The theory also suggests that interventions aimed at increasing self-control may not be as
effective as interventions aimed at developing effortless inhibition strategies.
Overall, the contribution of effortless inhibition to the theory of self-control is that it provides an
alternative model that emphasizes successful self-control and highlights the importance of
understanding and developing automatic behaviors and habits that contribute to self-control.
Effortless inhibition is a theory that suggests that self-control can be successful without the
depletion or failure of applied self-control. This theory proposes a model of self-control that
emphasizes the possibility of successful self-control rather than focusing on the depletion or
failure of self-control. In this theory, certain behaviors and actions become automatized,
allowing for the quick and easy inhibition of unfavorable behaviors.
Effortless inhibition provides an alternative explanation to the strength model of self-control that
frames self-control as a limited resource prone to depletion and failure. However, this theory
does not argue against the strength model of self-control, but instead considers it a steppingstone
in the research.
Effortless self-control may be related to habitually avoiding response conflicts that may be
counterintuitive to long-term goals. Habits are resistant to change, and if a desired behavior is
applied habitually, it may become automatic and therefore become an effortless action that helps
work towards long-term goals.
People higher in trait self-control tend to utilize effortless inhibition more often than those with
low trait self-control, suggesting that people higher in trait self-control have smart and easy
strategies for avoiding certain undesirable behaviors. The effortless strategies of dealing with a
response conflict distinguish successful self-controllers from less or unsuccessful ones.
Overall, the theory of effortless inhibition provides an alternative perspective to understanding
self-control and emphasizes the possibility of successful self-control without the depletion or
failure of applied self-control.
The hot/cool processes have made significant empirical and theoretical contributions to the
understanding of self-control. The hot/cool model has helped researchers identify the different
neural systems involved in self-regulation and how these systems interact to influence selfcontrol. This model has also helped to explain the automatic and reflexive nature of certain
behaviors, such as impulsive responses, and the cognitive effort required to override them.
In addition, the hot/cool model has been applied to a wide range of everyday situations where
self-control is required, such as resisting temptations, regulating emotions, and making decisions.
The model has helped researchers to identify the different strategies people use to regulate their
behavior, such as selective attention, distraction, and reappraisal, and how these strategies can be
optimized to enhance self-control.
Overall, the hot/cool processes have contributed to a more nuanced and complex understanding
of self-control, highlighting the importance of both emotional and cognitive processes in
regulating behavior. This understanding has important implications for interventions aimed at
improving self-control and promoting healthy behavior, as it suggests that effective strategies
should target both the hot and cool systems.
Construal-level theory has contributed to the understanding of self-control by providing a
framework for understanding the role of mental representations in self-control processes. By
distinguishing between high and low-level construal, researchers have been able to show that the
way in which individuals mentally represent their goals and temptations can influence their
ability to exert self-control.
Empirically, studies have found that individuals who take a high-level construal are more likely
to engage in self-controlled behavior and achieve their goals than those who take a low-level
construal. This may be because high-level construals promote a focus on the global and core
features of an event, allowing individuals to prioritize their long-term goals over short-term
temptations.
Theoretically, the concept of construal highlights the importance of cognitive processes in selfcontrol. It suggests that individuals’ mental representations of their goals and temptations play a
crucial role in determining their ability to exert self-control. The theory also provides a useful
framework for understanding how interventions aimed at modifying individuals’ construals could
be used to promote self-control and goal attainment.
Overall, the empirical and theoretical contributions of construal to the theory of self-control
highlight the importance of considering the cognitive processes involved in self-control and the
role of mental representations in shaping behavior.
HHS Public Access
Author manuscript
Author Manuscript
Child Dev Perspect. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 March 01.
Published in final edited form as:
Child Dev Perspect. 2015 March ; 9(1): 32–37. doi:10.1111/cdep.12107.
Unpacking Self-Control
Angela Duckworth and
University of Pennsylvania
Laurence Steinberg
Temple University
Author Manuscript
King Abdulaziz University
Abstract
Author Manuscript
Self-controlled behavior refers to actions aligned with valued, longer-term goals in the face of
conflicting impulses to seek immediate gratification. In this article, we argue that the
psychological processes that contribute to self-controlled behavior can be grouped into two
functionally distinct categories: Volitional processes facilitate self-controlled behavior and include
executive functions as well as learned metacognitive strategies like planning, attention
deployment, and psychological distancing. In contrast, impulsigenic processes undermine selfcontrolled behavior and include reward sensitivity, sensation seeking, and domain-specific
cravings. A disproportionate amount of research has addressed the former at the expense of
understanding individual and developmental differences in the latter. This imbalance is now being
rectified. Distinguishing between self-controlled behavior and its antecedent psychological
processes helps illuminate normative developmental changes in self-control and points to
directions for measurement and intervention.
Understanding and Cultivating Self-Control in Children
“The Cookies” is a popular children’s story in which two characters named Frog and Toad
face a familiar dilemma (1). Both want to keep eating cookie after delicious cookie, but at
the same time, they want to stop before getting sick. “We need will power!” cries Frog, as
he reaches for another cookie. “What is will power?” asks Toad. Frog’s answer: “Will
power is trying hard not to do something that you really want to do” (1, p. 35).
Author Manuscript
The will power that so concerns Frog and Toad has interested psychologists since James (2)
and Freud (3). Self-control has become one of the most prolifically researched topics in
developmental psychology (4). In this article, we argue that making sense of this growing
body of empirical findings requires distinguishing the overt expression of self-control from
its underlying psychological processes. Furthermore, we suggest organizing these
psychological processes into two functionally distinct categories: volitional processes that
facilitate self-controlled behavior and, conversely, impulsigenic processes that incline
individuals to enact immediately rewarding but ultimately regrettable actions. We show that
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Angela L. Duckworth, Department of Psychology, University of
Pennsylvania, 3701 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104; duckwort@psych.upenn.edu.
Duckworth and Steinberg
Page 2
Author Manuscript
these distinctions are essential for understanding the maturation of self-control during
childhood and adolescence, and for informing the design of interventions. We conclude by
suggesting ideas for continued investigation.
What Is Self-Controlled Behavior?
Author Manuscript
The nomenclature of controlled behavior varies by theoretical tradition (5), with many
developmental psychologists embracing the terms effortful control (6–8), willpower (9), or
ego-resiliency (10), and most personality and social psychologists preferring the term selfcontrol (11, 12). Whatever the moniker, self-controlled behavior refers to voluntary actions
in which individuals engage to advance personally valued longer-term goals despite
conflicting urges that are more potent in the moment. Sometimes, self-control entails
inhibiting an undesired impulse (e.g., suppressing the urge to interrupt another student in
class) and at other times, self-control entails strengthening a desired action (e.g., practicing
piano rather than watching television; 12). Individuals can regulate their own emotions,
thoughts, or physical actions. In every case, the alternative to self-controlled behavior—
impulsivity—typically brings about short-term gratification at the expense of longer-term
goals.
Author Manuscript
To conclude that a child is exercising self-control, one must be confident that his or her
personally valued long-term goals are in conflict with competing, short-term desires. This
ambivalence features an essential asymmetry: The child acutely wants the short-term desires
(e.g., to check my Instagram feed), but upon reflection, the long-term goals (e.g., to do well
on tomorrow’s algebra test) are more valuable. As the philosopher Harry Frankfurt (13)
might put it, what the child wants in the moment may not be what the child wants to want
beforehand or afterwards. Therefore, self-controlled behavior is distinct from compliant
behavior, which a child enacts in response to an external authority figure. Self-controlled
behavior also differs from actions taken in the absence of internal conflict between mutually
exclusive actions.
Author Manuscript
Developmental research often overlooks these distinctions. Instead, behaviors that may
represent compliance with authority or just the absence of competing inclinations are
interpreted as exemplifying self-control. For example, to assess whether a studious child has
prodigious self-control, one would need to determine how important academic goals are for
that child as well as how comparatively enjoyable he or she finds nonacademic pastimes like
playing video games or texting friends. While not a substitute for such ancillary
measurement, studies tell us that most school-age children and adolescents consider
schoolwork the most important thing they do for the sake of their own futures, but
experience studying and homework as less pleasurable than almost any other waking
activity (14).
Relatedly, when implemented correctly, the preschool delay of gratification task
(colloquially referred to as the marshmallow test) begins with a child choosing from a
selection of treats the one he or she likes best, then confirming that he or she prefers waiting
for more of this treat to indulging in a smaller amount right away (9, 15). Such a procedure
cannot guarantee that the impulse to indulge in immediate gratification is equivalent across
Child Dev Perspect. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 March 01.
Duckworth and Steinberg
Page 3
Author Manuscript
children, but it is more consistent than if only one kind of treat were made available—or if
intentions to wait were not verified. In summary, the failure to assess or control for the
strength of a child’s desire to satisfy a short-term impulse, as well as the subjective
importance of a conflicting long-term goal, may lead to erroneous conclusions about that
child’s capacity for self-control.
What Contributes to Self-Controlled Behavior?
Author Manuscript
Self-controlled behavior is an emergent phenomenon. Researchers have proposed a variety
of taxonomies for organizing the diverse contributing processes (e.g., 16). We suggest that a
dual influence framework helps illuminate developmental trajectories. Specifically, we find
it useful to distinguish processes that encourage the pursuit of immediately gratifying urges
from those that encourage actions aligned with more distal goals. Similar models have a
long history in the study of self-control (17–21). The dual influence framework we propose
here is functional, not neuro-anatomical. Our framework (see Figure 1) groups processes
according to whether they facilitate actions aligned with longer-term goals (volitional
processes) or encourage actions that bring about immediate gratification (impulsigenic
processes).
Author Manuscript
If, as we argue, observed self-control is the product of the interplay between impulsigenic
and volitional processes, distinguishing between these two countervailing forces is essential
to understanding developmental and individual differences in self-control. In particular,
although lapses in observed self-control are usually attributed to deficiencies in the realm of
volitional processes, they may have more to do with the relative …

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order