The Self-Control Irony: Desire for Self-Control Limits Exertion of Self-Control in Demanding Settings

Abstract

Self-control is a highly adaptive human capacity. Accordingly, development of self-control is widely encouraged. Whereas the benefits of having self-control are well documented, little is known about the impact of wanting self-control. The present investigation fills this void by exploring the effect of desire for self-control on the ability to exert self-control. It was expected that in the context of demanding self-control challenges, a desire for self-control will highlight a discrepancy between one’s goals and perceived performance potential, leading to reduced efficacy beliefs and task disengagement. Four studies (N = 635) supported the prediction. Study 1 showed that a strong desire impaired performance on a demanding task but not on a simple task. Study 2 conceptually replicated the decrement in performance and established causality by experimentally manipulating desire for self-control. Studies 3 and 4 showed that reduction in efficacy beliefs mediate the effect. Implications of the findings are discussed.

Keywords

desire for self-control self-control self-regulation self-efficacy motivation performance

Life presents people with many temptations, such as to overeat, oversleep, skip work, spend money, and indulge in illicit pleasures. Recent findings have indicated that individuals report feeling desire about half the time they are awake and often struggle with conflicting desires (Hofmann, Baumeister, Förster, & Vohs, 2012). Not all desires are problematic, but many are (at the individual and/or societal level), and managing conflicting and problematic desires is a task that requires continuous effort. Successful navigation amidst the constant stream of desires depends to a large extent on one’s ability to self-regulate, that is, to exercise self-control.

Self-Control and Its Benefits

Self-control refers to the ability to resist temptations, regulate emotions, control cognitions, and adjust behavior in the service of overarching long-term goals (Baumeister, Vohs, & Tice, 2007). Decades of research on self-control have documented the immense impact it has on all spheres of life. For example, Moffitt et al. (2011) found that childhood self-control was a predictor of positive later-life outcomes in the domains of physical health, socioeconomic status, and criminal propensity (see also Mischel, Shoda, & Rodriguez, 1989). Research among adults has shown that high trait self-control is associated with many favorable outcomes, such as academic success, psychological adjustment, good interpersonal skills, and emotional stability (De Ridder, Lensvelt-Mulders, Finkenauer, Stok, & Baumeister, 2012; Hagger, Wood, Stiff, & Chatzisarantis, 2010; Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). The advantages of high self-control are not confined to the well-being of individuals. Good self-control benefits society at large by reducing crime rates, increasing norm adherence, advancing cooperation, facilitating morally virtuous and other prosocial actions, and encouraging self-sufficiency (Baumeister, 2005; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990).

It therefore appears that self-control brings with it many desirable consequences. Such benefits are not overlooked by educational, religious, and governing agencies, which often strive to promote self-control among individuals. Impulse control is among the earliest and most ubiquitous demands that society places on children (Moffitt et al., 2011). Parents and schooling systems devote much time and effort to directing children and adolescents to demonstrate good self-discipline (Brody & Ge, 2001; Diamond, Barnett, Thomas, & Munro, 2007; Duckworth, Grant, Loew, Oettingen, & Gollwitzer, 2011; Kremen & Block, 1998; Piquero, Jennings, & Farrington, 2010). Furthermore, a basic virtue in most major religions consists of an ability to display moral self-control (Koole, McCullough, Kuhl, & Roelofsma 2010). Governmental laws also place strong emphasis on regulating individuals’ impulsive behavior, and in fact, low self-control is a powerful precursor of criminal behavior (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Pratt & Cullen, 2000). In the mass media, abundant articles praise the benefits of high self-control and articulate ways to improve it (e.g., Tugend, 2010). Not surprisingly, many individuals have embraced the importance of good self-control. In a recent comprehensive survey, respondents cited lack of self-control as the top reason for falling short of achieving their goals (American Psychological Association [APA], 2012).

In summary, theoretical approaches and empirical evidence indicate that self-control helps people flourish within society and, more broadly, enables society to function more effectively.

Desire for Self-Control

Considering the benefits of good self-control, it would be highly likely that many individuals will consciously experience a desire to have more self-control. Yet, as far as we could find, wanting self-control has not been the subject of empirical research thus far, and so, the implications of a desire for self-control remain largely unexplored.¹ Building on the definition of trait self-control (Tangney et al., 2004), we define a desire for self-control as a desire to be better able to change and consciously redirect one’s cognitions, impulses, emotions, performance, and other behaviors. In our formulation, the desire for self-control is theoretically distinct from trait self-control in a number of ways (although the two might be somewhat related empirically, a topic that we address in a later section): Whereas trait self-control reflects an ability, desire for self-control reflects a want; whereas trait self-control reflects an aspect of character with biological (i.e., temperamental) and cognitive origins, desire for self-control develops mostly as a response to external (societal, cultural) demands; whereas trait self-control remains relatively stable across the life span, desire for self-control is subjected to change once circumstances (e.g., cultural values) change; whereas self-control could serve to advance an infinite set of goals, desire for self-control is focused on advancing one goal—having more self-control (albeit in various ways).

For the present context, it is important to emphasize that (like many other desires; for example, Carver & Scheier, 1998) at the core of having a desire for self-control rests an implicit belief that one might not have enough—not to be confused with a belief that one has a little—self-control. This belief represents (potential) insecurity about whether one’s self-control is sufficient given current demands. We hypothesized that this insecurity has significant impact on behavior in the face of difficult (but not simple) ongoing self-control challenges.

Before addressing ongoing challenges, it should be stressed that we believe that wanting self-control could have different impact in a short-term (i.e., immediate) versus a long-term (i.e., over months and years) time frame. Wanting self-control should facilitate achievement of better self-control in the long run (by, for example, gradually nurturing good habits). Studies showing the beneficial impact of self-control training lend suggestive empirical support to this idea (Muraven, 2010). Put another way, people who desire more self-control may gradually develop more—and they would likely benefit as a result.

However, in the short run—during an ongoing self-control struggle, when development of more self-control is unattainable—a desire for self-control may reflect a sense that one is failing to manage oneself and one’s affairs properly. Wanting more self-control in the context of an ongoing struggle is, therefore, likely to translate in one’s mind into a sense that one does not have enough resources to meet the challenge (i.e., a sense of low efficacy; Bandura, 1982). That is, people who report desiring more self-control may experience a discrepancy between their goals and their perceived performance potential. The following elaborates on these processes.

According to the self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987; Higgins, Bond, Klein, & Strauman, 1986; see also Higgins, 1997), at any given moment, individuals can experience various types of self-discrepancies, that is, gaps between their perception of their current state and their desired state. Desired states could reflect ideal selves, such as personal aspirations that the individual wishes to attain. Another type of desired state reflects ought-selves, which represent duties and obligations that the person feels required to meet. Self-control serves many important ends, failing at self-control risks failing to fulfill one’s obligations and, more broadly, general maladjustment. We, therefore, suggest that a desire for more self-control in the context of an ongoing self-control struggle highlights mostly a discrepancy between one’s actual-self and one’s ought-self (actual:ought discrepancy). Self-discrepancy theory suggests that when a person experiences an actual:ought discrepancy, sanctions (e.g., punishments) are expected, and agitation-related emotions (e.g., stress) arise. Negative emotions often impair task performance directly (e.g., Oertig et al., 2013), and regulating such emotions often consumes resources, making the challenge even less manageable (Heatherton & Wagner, 2011). Individuals experiencing such a discrepancy are likely to avoid facing the difficult challenges altogether (Higgins, 1987).

An influential self-regulation theory has emphasized that self-regulation follows the principles of a feedback loop (e.g., Carver, 1979; Carver, Blaney, & Scheier, 1979; Carver & Scheier, 1981, 1998). In (discrepancy-reduction) feedback loops, goal-directed behavior is monitored for progress and compared to a standard (e.g., a personal goal). If discrepancies are found, behavioral responses seek to narrow the gap. The effort continues until the person reaches the goal or encounters serious obstacles. In the face of such impediments, the individual reassesses the likelihood of goal attainment. If expectancies are unfavorable, behavioral and/or mental disengagement follows, and goal attainment is compromised (Carver & Scheier, 1990). Similar arguments were made by Bandura (1982) in self-efficacy theory and by Elliott and Dweck (1988) in their treatment of performance goal orientation. To the extent that our model holds, such that in the face of a self-control struggle, the desire for self-control translates into a sense that one does not have enough resources to meet the challenge (i.e., expectancies are unfavorable), the above models imply that disengagement and impaired performance will ensue.

Effort disengagement is also predicted based on recent work on mental contrasting. The theory of fantasy realization (Oettingen, 2012) depicts individuals’ experiences when imagining the fulfillment of a goal (in the present context—having more self-control) while also acknowledging impeding reality (e.g., having to face a difficult task that requires much self-control). Oettingen and colleagues have shown that mentally contrasting goals with reality constraints activates expectations of attaining the goals (Oettingen, 2000). When the expectations of success are low (e.g., when task demands are perceived as beyond one’s current abilities), individuals are likely to withdraw from exerting effort (A. Kappes & Oettingen, 2014; A. Kappes, Oettingen, & Pak, 2012). Put simply, based on this model, in the face of a difficult challenge, having a desire for self-control initiates a process of mental contrasting, which is likely to end in effort withdrawal if expectations for success are low.

In summary, wanting self-control could be conceptualized as reflecting a sense of discrepancy between individual’s goals and perceived performance potential. This discrepancy is expected to become most salient when one faces an ongoing self-control challenge. Existing theories suggest that in the face of a demanding challenge, one’s desire for self-control will most likely be linked to a feeling of inadequate efficacy, which is expected to cause task disengagement. Thus, ironically, a strong desire for self-control is expected to be associated with impaired or inadequate self-control ability—especially when this ability is most needed (e.g., during an ongoing self-control struggle).

Overview of the Present Studies

The present article reports four studies that have tested the effect of wanting self-control on self-control-related behavior. Study 1 shows that a strong desire for self-control is associated with performance impairment on a difficult task but not on a simple task. Study 2 replicates the effect by manipulating (rather than measuring) level of desire for self-control. In that study, manipulated high desire for self-control impaired performance on a demanding task but again not on a simple one. Studies 3 and 4 illuminate the mediating psychological process by showing that in the face of a difficult task, strong desire for self-control is associated with reduced self-efficacy beliefs, which lead to diminished motivation and performance.

We recognized that people who lack self-control might want it more than people who have it, and so across the studies, we have differentiated the effects of wanting self-control from those of trait self-control. First, in all analyses, we controlled for trait self-control to establish the independent effects of desiring versus having self-control. Second, where applicable, core analyses were conducted twice: Once focusing on desire for self-control and once focusing on trait self-control. This approach helped us to differentiate the predictive validity of the two constructs.

Study 1

Study 1 tested the impact of wanting self-control (as an individual differences variable) on performance in a demanding task. Laboratory participants worked on either a simple or a difficult copying task. We predicted that a desire for self-control would impair performance on the difficult task, which required active exertion of self-regulatory resources. Insofar as easy tasks do not present a challenge and hence do not impose demands on self-control, we predicted that the effects of desiring self-control would be found on the difficult but not the easy task.

Method

Participants

Participants were 75 undergraduate students (63 female; M_age = 22.64 years, SD = 3.78 years) who participated in exchange for course credit.

Tools

Desire for self-control

Desire for self-control was measured with a self-report scale focused on expressing the wish to have more self-control than one currently has. Scale development went through several iterations until the final version was developed. The scale consists of eight items asking about individuals’ motivation to have more control over their impulses (e.g., “I want to be better able to resist temptations”), emotions (e.g., “I want to have more control over my feelings”), cognitions (e.g., “I want to be better able to hold back bad thoughts when they come to my mind”), and behaviors (e.g., “I wish I had a better ability to change unwanted habits”). Participants state the extent to which each statement describes them (in general) using a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Reliability was good (α = .89). The scale is fully reproduced in the appendix.

Trait self-control

Participants’ standing on trait self-control was measured with the brief (13-item) version of the Trait Self-Control Scale (Tangney et al., 2004; for example, “I am good at resisting temptation,” “People would say that I have iron self-discipline”; α = .78).

Copying task

To measure performance, participants were required to work on a copying task. The task had a simple and a difficult version. In the simple version, participants were asked to copy a paragraph (181 words, 1,100 characters) in their native language (Hebrew) as quickly and accurately as possible. No other instructions or demands were imposed. In the difficult version, participants were asked to copy a paragraph (181 words, 1,135 characters) in a foreign language (English), as quickly and accurately as possible, while using only their nondominant hand and while avoiding copying the letter “e” and avoiding pressing the spacebar. On both versions, participants had 6 min to complete the task. Our main dependent variable was the number of characters that participants had copied within each experimental group. Past studies have demonstrated that breaking habitual ways of conduct (e.g., by working with a nondominant hand) poses a challenge that requires self-control (e.g., Uziel & Baumeister, 2012).

Procedure

Participants arrived to an experiment on personality and task performance. Upon arrival, they completed the Desire for Self-Control Scale and the Trait Self-Control Brief Scale. They were then randomly assigned to work on either the simple (n = 39) or the difficult (n = 36) version of the copying task. Upon completion, participants completed two manipulation check items (“how difficult has the task been for you,” “how effortful has the task been for you”; responses were on a 1 = not at all to 7 = very much scale). Participants then completed a demographic questionnaire, were debriefed, compensated, and thanked.

Results

Manipulation check

Participants who worked on the simple version of the task rated it as less difficult (M = 2.58, SD = 1.51) than participants who worked on the difficult version (M = 4.19, SD = 1.75), t(73) = 4.25, p < .001. They also rated it as less effortful (M = 3.56, SD = 1.77 vs. M = 5.11, SD = 1.16), t(73) = 4.42, p < .001. Moreover, participants in the simple copying group had copied a much larger number of characters during the 6 min time that was allotted for the task (M_simple = 946.89, SD = 148.68 vs. M_difficult = 311.55, SD = 77.78), t(73) = 22.90, p < .001. That is, all measures indicated that the manipulation of task difficulty was successful.

Because variance relating to performance on the two versions of the task deviated from equality, F(1, 73) = 19.62, p < .001, we standardized performance scores within each group to avoid biases before turning to explore the main question (see Note 2 for a nonstandardized analysis).

Desire for self-control and task performance

The main dependent measure was performance on the copying task. To test the hypothesis, we regressed performance scores on participants’ desire for self-control (M = 4.07, SD = 0.71; centered) and experimental condition (0 = simple, 1 = difficult) in Step 1, and on the interaction between these variables in Step 2. Trait self-control (M = 3.12, SD = 0.54; centered) served as covariate. There were no simple effects associated with desire for self-control or trait self-control (ts < 1) in Step 1. However, the analysis revealed a significant interaction between desire for self-control and experimental condition (Step 2, ΔR² = .09), b = −0.89, SE = 0.33, 95% CI = [−1.54, −0.23], β = −.40, t(70) = −2.70, p = .009. Probing the interaction (see Figure 1) revealed that high desire for self-control was associated with impaired performance in the difficult condition, b = −0.56, SE = 0.27, 95% CI = [−1.10, −0.02], t(70) = −2.07, p = .04, but not in the simple condition, b = 0.33, SE = 0.23, 95% CI = [−0.15, 0.79], t(70) = 1.38, p = .17.² Thus, when participants faced a difficult challenge that required exertion of self-control resources, a desire for more self-control was a liability that led to performance impairment.

Figure 1.

The association of desire for self-control with task performance (standardized) among individuals working on difficult and simple copying task (Study 1).

Trait self-control and desire for self-control were related, r(73) = −.56, p < .001. The previous section reported analyses indicating that desire for self-control affected performance after controlling for trait self-control. We also analyzed whether trait self-control would affect performance after controlling for desire for self-control. A linear regression yielded a nonsignificant interaction between experimental condition and trait self-control, controlling for desire for self-control (Step 2, ΔR² = .01), b = 0.48, SE = 0.44, 95% CI = [−0.39, 1.37], β = .17, t(70) = 1.09, p = .27. Thus, neither does the relation of desire for self-control with performance stem from its relation to trait self-control, nor could high desire for self-control be considered a proxy measure of (low) self-control.

Discussion

Study 1 explored the impact of individual differences in wanting self-control on task performance. Among participants facing a demanding self-control challenge, high desire for self-control was associated with poor performance. These findings imply that in the face of high self-control demands, strong desire for self-control impairs goal pursuit, most likely because facing the difficult challenge reinforces a sense of lacking the discipline necessary for task completion.

The desire for self-control is (theoretically and empirically) not limited to individuals who are low in trait-self-control. Many individuals who report intermediate and even high levels of self-control still wish they had more self-control to meet the current challenges. Regardless of one’s standing on trait self-control, the desire for more self-control appears to be debilitating when self-regulatory resources are most required.

Study 2

Study 1 relied on measurement of a dispositional desire for self-control, and so in an important sense, its findings were correlational. Study 2 sought to provide causal evidence by manipulating the desire for self-control. Participants in Study 2 were exposed to a manipulation that either focused them on the desirability of better self-control or on how more self-control could be useless and even counterproductive. The prediction was that participants who were induced to desire self-control would perform worse than others—albeit mainly when faced with a difficult, challenging task. This reasoning is consistent with recent work on mental contrasting, which suggests that thinking about a desired state while facing reality constraints could cause performance withdrawal if the challenge seems overly difficult (Oettingen, 2012).

Method

Participants and procedure

Data were collected from 278 people (155 female; M_age = 37.99 years, SD = 12.67 years) who were recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (Mturk; cf. Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011) for an experiment on personality, persuasion, and task performance. All participants were English speakers, residents of the United States. Most had a university diploma (or an equivalent professional diploma; 81%), and the rest had a high school diploma (19%). Participants were paid for their participation.

Upon entering the study, participants were randomly assigned to a high or a low self-control desire manipulation, which was disguised as a persuasion task (see “Tools” section). After undergoing the manipulation, participants were randomly assigned to work on a simple or a difficult anagrams task. Upon completion, participants completed two manipulation check items (“how difficult has the task been for you,” “how effortful has the task been for you”; responses were on a 1 = not at all to 7 = very much scale). Participants continued to complete the trait self-control questionnaire and a demographic questionnaire. They were then compensated and thanked.

Tools

Manipulation of desire for self-control

To manipulate desire for self-control, participants were asked to engage in a two-stage task. Participants in the high-desire condition were asked in the first stage to write persuasive arguments concerning how and why high self-control is positive and beneficial. In the second stage, they were asked to describe two incidents in their lives where they needed but failed to exert high self-control. Participants in the low-desire condition were asked in the first stage to write persuasive arguments concerning how and why high self-control can be ineffective and problematic. In the second stage, they were asked to describe two incidents in their lives where they needed low levels of self-control but failed to demonstrate low levels of self-control. This manipulation was pretested (N = 43) and proved effective in yielding high (M = 4.22, SD = 0.64) and low (M = 3.43, SD = 0.59) desire for self-control as measured with the eight-item Desire for Self-Control Scale (see Study 1), t(41) = 4.27, p < .001. In the present study, we verified the effectiveness of the manipulation by asking participants to rate their agreement (on a five-point scale) with two statements from the scale: I want to be more self-disciplined and I want to be better able to persist in pursuing goals.

Trait self-control

Akin to Study 1, participants completed the brief version of the Trait Self-Control Scale (Tangney et al., 2004; α = .90).

Anagrams task

To measure participants’ ability to meet self-control challenges, they were required to work on an anagrams task (e.g., Uziel, 2016; Uziel & Baumeister, 2012). Anagrams are a highly effective measure of self-control ability, because they require repeated attempts of building and breaking letter combinations along with an ability to withstand frustration. The present task had a simple and a difficult version, to which participants were randomly assigned. In the simple version, participants were asked to solve as many anagrams as they could, out of 50 four-letter anagrams. They were told that several of the anagrams might be unsolvable and that their task was to solve as many solvable anagrams as they can. In actuality, all anagrams were solvable. No time limit was set. Participants in the difficult version followed the same instructions, except that they were asked to solve as many anagrams as they could out of 40 five-letter anagrams. The number of possible combinations of five letters is vastly higher than the combinations of four letters (120 vs. 24), so the five-letter version was considerably more difficult than the four-letter version. The main dependent variable was the number of anagrams (standardized within each group) that participants solved.

Results

Manipulation checks

Desire for self-control

The two manipulation check items were correlated, r(276) = .57 p < .001, and were averaged into a single index. The effectiveness of the manipulation was attested by evidence that participants in the high-desire condition expressed stronger desire to have more self-control and to be successful at pursuing goals (M = 3.93, SD = 0.86) than participants in the low-desire condition (M = 3.62, SD = 0.93), t(276) = 2.83, p = .005.

We also compared participants’ level of trait self-control across the two conditions. The level of trait self-control among high-desire condition participants (M = 3.42, SD = 0.79) was no different from the level of trait self-control among low-desire condition participants (M = 3.51, SD = 0.76), t(276) = 1.00, p = .32. This result shows that the self-control desire manipulation affected participants’ desire for self-control but not the perception of how much self-control they have. Nonetheless, like in the previous study, we controlled for trait-level self-control across all substantive analyses.

Anagram difficulty

To verify that the simple and difficult versions of the anagram task were experienced as such, we compared responses on the manipulation check items. As expected, participants who worked on the simple version of the task experienced it as less difficult (M = 2.33, SD = 1.12) than participants who worked on the difficult version (M = 3.92, SD = 1.08), t(276) = 12.03, p < .001. They also rated it as less effortful (M = 3.06, SD = 1.29 vs. M = 4.02, SD = 1.09), t(276) = 6.72, p < .001. As further evidence of differential difficulty, participants in the simple anagram condition solved many more anagrams than participants in the difficult anagram condition (M = 41.58, SD = 11.99 vs. M = 17.36, SD = 10.83), t(276) = 17.66, p < .001. Variances did not differ between the simple and difficult groups, F(1, 276) = 0.08, p = .78, but to maintain consistency with our approach to data analysis from Study 1, we standardized performance scores within each difficulty group (see Note 3 for a nonstandardized analysis).

Main analysis

Our main goal was to explore how a desire for self-control would affect performance on a clearly difficult task as compared with performance on a simple version of the task. We expected that a strong desire for self-control would impair performance when the task was demanding but not when it was simple. We tested this prediction with a 2 (high/low self-control desire) by 2 (simple/difficult anagram task) ANCOVA, with trait self-control as a covariate. The dependent measure was performance on the anagrams task.

The analysis yielded no main effect for the self-control desire manipulation (M_low-desire = 0.10, SD = 1.04 vs. M_high-desire = −0.08, SD = 0.93), F(1, 273) = 2.14, p = .15, nor was there a significant effect for trait self-control, F(1, 273) = 3.11, p = .08. However, supporting the hypothesis, there was a significant interaction between manipulated desire for self-control and anagram difficulty, F(1, 273) = 4.19, p = .04, η² = .02. Probing the interaction (see Figure 2) revealed that inducing high versus low desire for self-control had no impact on performance in the simple anagram condition (M_low-desire = −0.02, SD = 1.01 vs. M_high-desire = 0.05, SD = 0.96), t(137) = −0.42, p = .68, but it had a substantial and significant impact on performance in the complex anagram condition (M_low-desire = 0.22, SD = 1.06 vs. M_high-desire = −0.22, SD = 0.88), t(137) = 2.64, p = .009.³ That is, high (vs. low) desire for self-control impaired performance only under a strenuous performance challenge.

Figure 2.

The effect of desire for self-control on task performance (standardized) among individuals working on difficult and simple anagrams task (Study 2).

In an independent regression analysis, we explored the interaction between trait self-control (centered) and anagram difficulty manipulation (controlling for self-control desire condition). The analysis yielded no effect for trait self-control, b = 0.12, SE = 0.10, 95% CI = [−.08, .34], t(273) = 1.17, p = .23, and no interaction effect, b = 0.03, SE = 0.15, 95% CI = [−.27, .33], t(272) = 0.18, p = .85. That is, the effect of wanting self-control could not be attributed to low trait self-control. Indeed, trait self-control appears to have been largely irrelevant, whereas desire for self-control had significant effects on performance.

Discussion

Study 2 substantiated the causal impact of wanting self-control on task performance. Specifically, an experimentally induced high desire for self-control impaired performance in the face of a demanding self-control challenge. It had no effect on performing an easy task. As in Study 1, the effect of desire for self-control was independent of trait-level self-control. Thus, apparently, a desire for self-control stimulates a debilitating mental state that impairs performance, regardless of the person’s chronic beliefs about self-control abilities.

Study 3

Studies 1 and 2 have established that wanting self-control could harm goal achievement in demanding contexts. Study 3 explored the psychological mechanisms that account for those decrements. Based on control theory (Carver & Scheier, 1990) and related models, we suggested that in the face of a demanding self-control task, a strong desire for self-control acts mainly to highlight the gap between one’s goals and one’s perceived performance potential. After people recognize that gap, their task-related efficacy is weakened, which reduces their motivation and fosters disengagement from effort.

Study 3 participants experienced either a simple or a difficult challenge and reported their efficacy beliefs and level of task-related motivation. We expected to find a moderated-mediation effect, such that a strong desire for self-control would lead to low efficacy beliefs only in the context of a difficult task. Efficacy beliefs, in turn, were expected to mediate the effect of desire for self-control on task-related motivation.

Method

Participants

Participants (N = 117; 50 female; M_age = 34.09 years, SD = 10.96 years) were recruited through Amazon’s Mturk for a study on personality and task performance. Participants were native English speakers (except for two participants), residents of the United States, with either a university diploma (or an equivalent professional diploma, 74%) or a high school diploma (26%). Participants were paid for their participation.

Tools and procedure

Participants started by completing the eight-item Desire for Self-Control Scale (cf. Study 1; α = .88). They were then randomly assigned to either a simple anagram condition (n = 61) or a difficult anagram condition (n = 56). In both conditions, participants were informed that they would have to solve 25 anagrams. As we were interested in task-related thoughts and beliefs, no task was actually administered. Nonetheless, before (ostensibly) starting the task, participants were given three “sample items” to practice and form an impression of the task. In the simple condition, they were asked to solve three simple anagrams (four-letter), and in the difficult condition, they were asked to solve three difficult anagrams (two 7-letter anagrams and one 8-letter anagram). After they completed the practice trials, they were asked to answer several questions by stating their agreement (on a 1 = not at all to 5 = very much scale): Two questions served as manipulation check to ensure that the practice items conveyed the intended level of difficulty (“How difficult will the anagrams task be for you?” and “How effortful will the anagrams task be for you?”; α = .73); two questions served as a measure of task-related efficacy beliefs (“I believe I can perform the task well” and “I have the ability to do well on the task”; α = .89), and two items measured task-related motivation (“How motivated are you to succeed in the anagrams task?” and “How important is it for you to succeed in the anagrams task?”; α = .89). Participants proceeded to complete the Brief Trait Self-Control Scale (Tangney et al., 2004; α = .92). They were then informed that there was no need for them to actually preform the anagrams task. After providing some demographic information, participants were thanked and dismissed.

Results

Manipulation check and descriptive statistics

We compared participants’ ratings on the index of the two manipulation check items. The comparison verified that participants experienced the difficult anagrams condition (M = 4.04, SD = 0.88) as more difficult than the simple anagrams condition (M = 3.14, SD = 0.84), t(115) = 5.63, p < .001.

Additional analyses showed that participants in the difficult anagrams condition expressed lower task-related efficacy beliefs (M = 3.34, SD = 1.06) than participants in the simple anagrams condition (M = 3.99, SD = 0.71), t(115) = 3.86, p < .001. Participants in the two conditions did not differ (ts < 1.40, ps > .19) with regard to task-related motivation (M = 3.83, SD = 1.04), desire for self-control (M = 3.65, SD = 0.75), or trait self-control (M = 3.22, SD = 0.81).

Desire for self-control, efficacy beliefs, and motivation

The main analysis explored whether in the face of a difficult (but not simple) self-control challenge, desire for self-control acts to reduce one’s sense of task-related efficacy, which then affects task-related motivation. To that end, we conducted several analyses that meet the criteria for a moderated-mediation effect (Edwards & Lambert, 2007; Muller, Judd, & Yzerbyt, 2005; Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007). The first analysis was a regression analysis, which showed that the interaction between desire for self-control and task difficulty was significant in predicting task-related motivation (the dependent variable), b = −0.59, SE = 0.25, 95% CI = [−1.10, −0.08], β = −.33, t(113) = −2.31, p = .023. A second regression analysis explored the effect of the interaction between desire for self-control and task difficulty in affecting efficacy beliefs (the mediator). Results showed a significant effect, b = −0.49, SE = 0.21, 95% CI = [−0.91, −0.07], β = −.29, t(113) = −2.29, p = .02. We have subsequently explored and verified that efficacy beliefs are related to motivation, r(115) = .54, p < .001. Last, we found that the interaction between desire for self-control and task difficulty in predicting motivation was reduced when including efficacy beliefs in the regression model, b = −0.28, SE = 0.22, 95% CI = [−0.72, 0.16], β = −.15, t(112) = −1.24, p = .22. That is, adding efficacy beliefs to the model reduced the effect of the interaction between desire for self-control and task difficulty, thus indicating that the former mediates the effect of the interaction on task-related motivation (index of moderated mediation = −0.30, SE = 0.13, 95% CI = [−0.57, −0.04]; Hayes, 2013). These effects were unaffected by controlling for trait self-control. Figure 3 illustrates the mediation model.

Figure 3.

Efficacy beliefs as a mediator of the interactive effect between desire for self-control and expected task difficulty on motivation.

We used a bootstrapping procedure to probe the model and estimate the conditional indirect relation between desire for self-control, efficacy beliefs, and motivation in the simple and difficult conditions. In the simple condition, the confidence interval included 0, bootstrap indirect effect = −0.02, SE = 0.08, 95% CI = [−0.17, 0.14], implying that the mediation model is not supported. However, in the difficult condition, the indirect effect was significant, bootstrap indirect effect = −0.32, SE = 0.10, 95% CI = [−0.54, −0.12], indicating that a strong desire for self-control leads to reduced task-related motivation via its negative impact on task-related efficacy beliefs.

Discussion

Study 3 elucidated the psychological mechanism that accounts for the effect of desire for self-control on performance. Specifically, it showed that performance suffers because people with a strong desire for self-control sometimes disengage and withhold effort. For these individuals, a demanding self-control challenge emphasizes their (perceived) current incapacity, which diminishes their motivation.

Study 4

Study 3 established that reduction in self-efficacy beliefs causes low motivation among individuals who have a strong desire for self-control and face high performance demands. Study 4 sought to extend this model by having a measure of actual performance. That is, Study 4 explored how a desire for self-control affects task performance via its effect on self-efficacy beliefs. To the extent that a difficult challenge reduces the task-related efficacy beliefs among individuals with a strong desire for self-control, it should also negatively affect their performance. To emphasize the role that expectations play in affecting task performance, participants were primed to expect a simple or a difficult (anagrams) task, but (unlike Studies 1 and 2) they actually faced the same task, which consisted of a mix of simple and difficult items.

Method

Participants

Participants (N = 165; 91 female; M_age = 38.86 years, SD = 12.25 years) were recruited through Amazon’s Mturk for a study on personality and task performance. Participants were native English speakers (except for four participants), residents of the United States, with either a university diploma (or an equivalent professional diploma; 77%) or a high school diploma (23%). Participants were paid for their participation.

Tools and procedure

The procedure was nearly identical to that of Study 3, with one major difference: The main dependent variable was not level of motivation but task performance. Like in Study 3, participants started by completing the eight-item Desire for Self-Control Scale (α = .84). They were then randomly assigned to either a simple anagram condition (n = 85) or a difficult anagram condition (n = 80). On both conditions, participants were told they would have to solve 28 anagrams. Before starting the task, participants were given three sample items to practice and form an impression of the task. In the simple condition, they were given three simple (4-letter) anagrams, whereas in the difficult condition, they were given three difficult anagrams (two 7-letter anagrams and one 8-letter anagram). After they completed the practice trials, they were asked to answer several questions by stating their agreement (on a 1 = not at all to 5 = very much scale): Two questions served as manipulation check to ensure that the practice items conveyed the intended level of difficulty (“How difficult will the anagrams task be for you?” and “How effortful will the anagrams task be for you?”; α = .84); two questions served as a measure of task-related efficacy beliefs (“I believe I can perform the task well” and “I have the ability to do well on the task”; α = .89). Participants then proceeded to work on the anagrams (with no time limit). Unlike in Studies 1 and 2, the two groups faced the same list of anagrams, which included seven 4-letter anagrams, seven 5-letter anagrams, seven 6-letter anagrams, and seven 7-letter anagrams—thus, a mix of easy and difficult anagrams. Performance was assessed by counting the number of anagrams solved correctly. After the task, participants proceeded to complete the Brief Trait Self-Control Scale (Tangney et al., 2004; α = .88). After providing some demographic information, participants were thanked and dismissed.

Results

Manipulation check and descriptive statistics

We compared participants’ ratings on the index of the two manipulation check items. The comparison verified that participants in the (ostensibly) difficult anagrams condition experienced the difficult practice anagrams as more difficult (M = 3.89, SD = 1.01) than participants in the (ostensibly) simple anagrams condition, who solved the simple practice anagrams (M = 2.79, SD = 1.02), t(163) = 6.93, p < .001.

Additional analyses showed that participants in the difficult anagrams condition expressed lower task-related efficacy beliefs (M = 3.12, SD = 1.12) than participants in the simple anagrams condition (M = 4.05, SD = 0.82), t(163) = 6.08, p < .001. Participants in the two conditions did not differ (ts < 1.54, ps > .12) with regard to desire for self-control (M = 3.65, SD = 0.72) or trait self-control (M = 3.39, SD = 0.72).

Desire for self-control, efficacy beliefs, and task performance

The main analysis explored whether in the face of a difficult (but not simple) self-control challenge, desire for self-control acts to reduce one’s sense of task-related efficacy, which then affects task performance. To that end, like in Study 3, we conducted the analyses that meet the criteria for a moderated-mediation effect (Muller et al., 2005). The first analysis was a regression analysis, which showed that the interaction between desire for self-control and task difficulty significantly predicted performance on the anagrams task (the dependent variable), b = −2.91, SE = 1.39, 95% CI = [−5.66, −0.15], β = −.22, t(160) = −2.08, p = .039, conceptually replicating and also extending the findings from Studies 1 and 2 (Figure 4).⁴ A second regression analysis showed that the effect of the interaction between desire for self-control and task difficulty affected efficacy beliefs (the mediator), b = −0.44, SE = 0.20, 95% CI = [−0.85, −0.04], β = −.20, t(160) = −2.15, p = .033. Next, we verified that efficacy beliefs were related to performance on the anagrams task, r(163) = .28, p < .001. Last, we confirmed that interaction between desire for self-control and task difficulty in predicting motivation was reduced when including efficacy beliefs in the regression model, b = −1.98, SE = 1.35, 95% CI = [−4.65, 0.69], β = −.15, t(159) = −1.46, p = .15. That is, adding efficacy beliefs to the model reduced the effect of the interaction between desire for self-control and task difficulty, thus indicating that the former mediates the effect of the interaction on task performance (index of moderated mediation = −0.73, SE = 0.40, 95% CI = [−1.68, −0.09]; Hayes, 2013). All these effects were unaffected by controlling for trait self-control. Figure 5 illustrates the mediation model.

Figure 4.

The effect of desire for self-control on task performance among individuals working on an anagrams task after being primed to believe the task was simple/difficult (Study 4).

Figure 5.

Efficacy beliefs as a mediator of the interactive effect between desire for self-control and expected task difficulty on task performance.

A bootstrapping procedure probed the model and estimated the conditional indirect relation between desire for self-control, efficacy beliefs, and performance in the simple and difficult conditions. In the simple condition, the confidence interval included 0, bootstrap indirect effect = 0.16, SE = 0.22, 95% CI = [−0.18, 0.74], implying that the mediation model was not supported. However, and more important, in the difficult condition, the indirect effect was significant, bootstrap indirect effect = −0.55, SE = 0.31, 95% CI [−1.26, −0.02], indicating that a strong desire for self-control impairs performance via its negative impact on task-related efficacy beliefs.

Discussion

Study 4 showed that expecting a task to be difficult was sufficient to reduce self-efficacy beliefs among individuals high in desire for self-control, which then impaired their performance. The results extend Studies 1 to 3 by showing that individuals with a strong desire for self-control are especially sensitive to signals about difficulty and are more prone than low-desire individuals to respond to such signals with despair and disengagement.

General Discussion

Self-control is a valuable capacity with numerous documented advantages (De Ridder et al., 2012). The benefits of self-control are widely acknowledged and considerable resources are invested (by individuals and societies) in securing adequate level of self-control (Moffitt et al., 2011). The present work investigated the implications of a desire for more self-control, a topic that has attracted little empirical attention to date.

We reasoned that wanting self-control could be adaptive in the long run, as it might initiate and support a process of self-improvement and the acquisition of healthy habits. Under certain conditions, however, wanting self-control could ironically have some counterproductive implications. Specifically, we suggested that in the face of demanding self-control challenges, a sense of wanting self-control could lead to reduced efficacy beliefs, which might cause task disengagement. Building on central motivation and self-regulation theories (e.g., Carver & Scheier, 1990; Higgins, 1987; Oettingen, 2012), we suggested that in the face of a demanding self-control challenge, having an active desire for more self-control highlights the difference between a person’s goals and performance potential. The discrepancy discourages one from continuing to pursue goals, because they seem to be out of reach considering one’s abilities.

Four studies found evidence for this detrimental effect of desiring self-control. Study 1 showed that individuals who expressed strong desire for self-control experienced performance impairment when faced with a difficult task that required self-control capacity. In that context, people who did not have strong desire for self-control performed better. Study 2 established causal relations between wanting self-control and self-control failure in demanding settings. Participants who were manipulated to experience strong desire for self-control were less successful in their subsequent performance of a difficult anagrams task. Performance on a simple task was unaffected. Study 3 showed that in demanding settings, strong desire for self-control led to low task-related efficacy beliefs, which led to reduced motivation. Last, Study 4 replicated and extended the findings by showing that desire for self-control reduced performance in the context of merely expecting difficulties. Across the different studies, the effects of wanting self-control were above and beyond the effects associated with trait self-control.

The present findings, thus, highlight some negative consequences of desiring self-control. Both researchers and practitioners may profitably reconsider the benefits of holding up an ideal of high self-control, so as to stimulate others to want more self-control. Clearly, interventions designed to induce strong desire for self-control (e.g., by emphasizing the benefits of high self-control through popular media or education channels) could lead to unintended negative effects that have not been sufficiently considered yet.

Several approaches could help harness the desire for self-control in the service of performance facilitation, thus reversing some of its potential negative effects. First, in high-demand situations, it seems most effective to avoid experiencing or inducing strong desire for self-control. Second, given a desire, its effects are likely to be more positive if the desire reflects an intrinsic source of drive rather than extrinsic pressure (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Third, it seems most valuable to connect the desire with specific implementation intentions (i.e., specific action plans; Gollwitzer, 1999), as opposed to experiencing it as a fantasy about the future (H. B. Kappes & Oettingen, 2011; Oettingen, 2012). Fourth, a given task could be reappraised in terms of its level of importance and perceived difficulty. Fifth, in the face of task-related difficulties, it might be effective to adopt a mind-set that emphasizes the malleability of self-control. Job and colleagues (e.g., Job, Dweck, & Walton, 2010; Job, Walton, Bernecker, & Dweck, 2013) reported that having an implicit belief that one has unlimited self-control capacity is helpful in countering ego-depletion effects. Such beliefs appear relevant as potential moderators of the processes described in the present research. Believing that self-control could always be continued might help counter some of the negative effects of wanting self-control in demanding contexts. In contrast, believing that the level of self-control is fixed is likely to escalate its negative impact. Relatedly, it seems valuable for people to acknowledge that a desire for self-control might cause difficulties in the short run but benefits in the long run, thus reducing pressure when faced with setbacks.

Future research could expand the present conclusions in several directions. First, theoretically, studies could aim to explore the exact processes (e.g., the nature of the discrepancy) that lead to a low sense of self-efficacy among individuals high in desire for self-control. More research is also needed to explore additional potential mediators, such as worry cognitions and other distractions (Eysenck & Calvo, 1992). Second, methodologically, the conclusions could be generalized further by testing the present model in nonlaboratory settings and by exploring a wider set of tasks. Third, practically, calculated ways for implementing interventions to increase self-control that would avoid the pitfalls presented in the current research should also be studied.

In sum, people differ not only in their chronic level of self-control but also in their aspirations to improve at self-control. Having and wanting self-control are apparently different (albeit related) things. Our findings depict people with a strong desire for self-control not as ambitious self-improvers so much as people worried about their inadequacies in the face of difficult circumstances. Future research may extend the psychology of self-regulation by attending to individual differences in how much people desire to gain self-control.

Footnotes

Appendix

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Roy F. Baumeister’s contribution was partly supported by a grant from the Templeton Foundation.

Supplemental Material

The supplemental material is available online.

Notes

References

American Psychological Association. (2012). What Americans think of willpower: A survey of perceptions of willpower & its role in achieving lifestyle and behavior-change goals. Washington, DC: Author.

Bandura

(1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.

Baumeister

R. F.

(2005). The cultural animal: Human nature, meaning, and social life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Baumeister

R. F.

Vohs

K. D.

Tice

D. M.

(2007). The strength model of self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 351-355.

Boardman

Catley

Mayo

M. S.

Ahluwalia

J. S.

(2005). Self-efficacy and motivation to quit during participation in a smoking cessation program. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 12, 266-272.

Boone

Soenens

Braet

(2011). Perfectionism, body dissatisfaction, and bulimic symptoms: The intervening role of perceived pressure to be thin and thin ideal internalization. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 30, 1043-1068.

Brody

G. H.

(2001). Linking parenting processes and self-regulation to psychological functioning and alcohol use during early adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 82-94.

Buhrmester

Kwang

Gosling

S. D.

(2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5.

Carver

C. S.

(1979). A cybernetic model of self-attention processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1251-1281.

10.

Carver

C. S.

Blaney

P. H.

Scheier

M. F.

(1979). Reassertion and giving up: The interactive role of self-directed attention and outcome expectancy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1859-1870.

11.

Carver

C. S.

Scheier

M. F.

(1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control-theory approach to human behavior. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

12.

Carver

C. S.

Scheier

M. F.

(1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review, 97, 19-35.

13.

Carver

C. S.

Scheier

M. F.

(1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

14.

De Ridder

De Wit

Adriaanse

M. A

. (2009). Making plans for healthy diet: The role of motivation and action orientation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 622-630.

15.

De Ridder

D. T.

Lensvelt-Mulders

Finkenauer

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.

16.

Diamond

Barnett

W. S.

Thomas

Munro

(2007). Preschool program improves cognitive control. Science, 318, 1387-1388.

17.

Duckworth

A. L.

Grant

Loew

Oettingen

Gollwitzer

P. M.

(2011). Self-regulation strategies improve self-discipline in adolescents: Benefits of mental contrasting and implementation intentions. Educational Psychology, 31, 17-26.

18.

Edwards

J. R.

Lambert

L. S.

(2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1-22.

19.

Elliott

E. S.

Dweck

C. S.

(1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12.

20.

Eysenck

M. W.

Calvo

M. G.

(1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing efficiency theory. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 409-434.

21.

Gollwitzer

P. M.

(1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493-503.

22.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Hirschi

(1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

23.

Hagger

M. S.

Wood

Stiff

Chatzisarantis

N. L.

(2010). Ego depletion and the strength model of self-control: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 495-525.

24.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

25.

Heatherton

T. F.

Mahamedi

Striepe

Field

A. E.

Keel

(1997). A 10-year longitudinal study of body weight, dieting, and eating disorder symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 117-125.

26.

Heatherton

T. F.

Wagner

D. D.

(2011). Cognitive neuroscience of self-regulation failure. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 132-139.

27.

Higgins

E. T.

(1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319-340.

28.

Higgins

E. T.

(1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300.

29.

Higgins

E. T.

Bond

R. N.

Klein

Strauman

(1986). Self-discrepancies and emotional vulnerability: How magnitude, accessibility, and type of discrepancy influence affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 5-15.

30.

Hofmann

Baumeister

R. F.

Förster

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.

31.

Job

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(11), 1686-1693.

32.

Job

Walton

G. M.

Bernecker

Dweck

C. S.

(2013). Beliefs about willpower determine the impact of glucose on self-control. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(37), 14837-14842.

33.

Kappes

Oettingen

(2014). The emergence of goal pursuit: Mental contrasting connects future and reality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 25-39.

34.

Kappes

Oettingen

Pak

(2012). Mental contrasting and the self-regulation of responding to negative feedback. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 845-857.

35.

Kappes

H. B.

Oettingen

(2011). Positive fantasies about idealized futures sap energy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 719-729.

36.

Koole

S. L.

McCullough

M. E.

Kuhl

Roelofsma

P. H.

(2010). Why religion’s burdens are light: From religiosity to implicit self-regulation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 95-107.

37.

Kremen

A. M.

Block

(1998). The roots of ego-control in young adulthood: Links with parenting in early childhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1062-1075.

38.

Linde

J. A.

Jeffery

R. W.

Finch

E. A.

D. M.

Rothman

A. J.

(2004). Are unrealistic weight loss goals associated with outcomes for overweight women? Obesity Research, 12, 569-576.

39.

Mann

De Ridder

Fujita

(2013). Self-regulation of health behavior: Social psychological approaches to goal setting and goal striving. Health Psychology, 32, 487-498.

40.

Mischel

Shoda

Rodriguez

M. I.

(1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244, 933-938.

41.

Moffitt

T. E.

Arseneault

Belsky

Dickson

Hancox

R. J.

Harrington

Caspi

(2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 2693-2698.

42.

Muller

Judd

C. M.

Yzerbyt

V. Y.

(2005). When moderation is meditated and when mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 852-863.

43.

Muraven

(2010). Building self-control strength: Practicing self-control leads to improved self-control performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 465-468.

44.

Norcross

J. C.

Ratzin

A. C.

Payne

(1989). Ringing in the New Year: The change processes and reported outcomes of resolutions. Addictive Behaviors, 14, 205-212.

45.

Oertig

Schüler

Schnelle

Brandstätter

Roskes

Elliot

A. J.

(2013). Avoidance goal pursuit depletes self-regulatory resources. Journal of Personality, 81, 365-375.

46.

Oettingen

(2000). Expectancy effects on behavior depend on self-regulatory thought. Social Cognition, 18, 101-129.

47.

Oettingen

(2012). Future thought and behaviour change. European Review of Social Psychology, 23, 1-63.

48.

Piquero

A. R.

Jennings

W. G.

Farrington

D. P.

(2010). On the malleability of self-control: Theoretical and policy implications regarding a general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 27, 803-834.

49.

Polivy

Herman

C. P.

(2002). If at first you don’t succeed: False hopes of self-change. American Psychologist, 57, 677-689.

50.

Pratt

T. C.

Cullen

F. T.

(2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38, 931-964.

51.

Preacher

K. J.

Rucker

D. D.

Hayes

A. F.

(2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185-227.

52.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

53.

Stice

Presnell

Spangler

(2002). Risk factors for binge eating onset in adolescent girls: A 2-year prospective investigation. Health Psychology, 21, 131-138.

54.

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.

55.

Tugend

(2010, October 9). Pumping up the self-control in the age of temptations. The New York Times, p. B6.

56.

Uziel

(2016). Alone, unhappy, and demotivated: The impact of an alone mind-set on neurotic individuals’ willpower. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 7, 818-827.

57.

Uziel

Baumeister

R. F.

(2012). The effect of public social context on self-control: Depletion for neuroticism and restoration for impression management. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 384-396.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.13 MB

0.34 MB