Self-Control A Function of Knowing When and How to Exercise Restraint

To successfully pursue a goal in the face of temptation, an individual must first identify that she faces a self-control conflict. Only then will the individual exercise self-control to promote goal pursuit over indulging in temptation. We propose a new model that distinguishes between the problems of conflict identification and those of conflict resolution. We then review research on the factors that influence conflict identification and those that determine conflict resolution. KEYWORDS—self-control; goals; temptation In Plato’s Protagoras (ca. 380 BC), Socrates asks how it is possible that one lacks command over oneself and experiences akrasia, the state of acting against one’s better judgment (Plato, 1986). With the advent of experimental psychology, the question of akrasia has endured as the question of self-control: How does one pursue a goal offering larger long-run benefits when it conflicts with a temptation offering greater immediate rewards? We propose that success in self-control is contingent jointly on identifying conflict between temptation and ‘‘better judgment’’ and on successfully implementing self-control strategies. Of course, identifying conflict is not always a central issue. One could imagine the diabetic diner facing a delicious dessert on the plate before her, but knowing that having that dessert could trigger dangerous insulin levels; she should not have it. In this case, her capacity to invoke self-control strategies (e.g., Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998; Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999) determines her likelihood of resolving the conflict in favor of the goal to stay healthy (and alive). Under many circumstances, however, recognizing conflict may not prove this obvious. For example, if one does not have insulin concerns, having a single dessert alone will but trivially affect one’s health even though having dessert regularly could prove detrimental. Thus, the dieter considering a highly caloric dessert for a single occasion (e.g., her birthday) is less likely to identify conflict with goal pursuit than is the dieter considering dessert for multiple occasions, even when both are aware of the caloric content. The likelihood of self-control success would therefore depend jointly on (a) identifying self-control conflict and (b) invoking effective self-control strategies. A TWO-STAGE MODEL: IDENTIFICATION AND RESOLUTION We present our model of self-control in Figure 1. As shown, individuals facing temptation first must determine whether there is a conflict between indulging and pursuing higher-order goals (Stage 1). If and only if individuals identify self-control conflict will they implement self-control strategies to promote goalpursuit over indulgence in temptation (Stage 2). Alternatively, individuals may fail to identify the conflict (Stage 1) or fail to exercise self-control (Stage 2). Although the outcomes are similar, the etiologies of the two instances of indulgence are distinct and therefore consequential for improving goal pursuit. In what follows, we first direct attention to the determinants of conflict identification. We argue that relatively subtle cues in the environment determine conflict identification by influencing how individuals perceive choice opportunities. We then argue that upon identifying self-control conflict, conflict resolution depends on the effectiveness of self-control strategies. These strategies create asymmetric shifts in motivational strength, facilitating goalrelated behavior while inhibiting pursuit of temptation. Importantly, the processes of conflict identification and resolution are not necessarily conscious and deliberative. Rather, they also involve nonconscious, energy-efficient processes. The First Stage: Conflict Identification While much psychological research has focused on the implementation of self-control strategies, success at self-control depends first on conflict identification. The probability of identifying self-control conflict decreases as the cost associated with a single indulgence in temptation decreases. We have coined the term ‘‘epsilon-cost temptation’’ to describe situations in which Address correspondence to Kristian Ove R. Myrseth or Ayelet Fishbach, University of Chicago, Booth School of Business, 5807 South Woodlawn Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637; e-mail: kmyrseth@chicago booth.edu or [email protected]. CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Volume 18—Number 4 247 Copyright r 2009 Association for Psychological Science the cost of a single indulgence, or unit consumption cost, is negligible but that of extended consumption may prove serious— for instance, cookies for the dieter or cigarettes for the smoker. (In calculus, epsilon denotes a trivially small quantity, which in aggregation may yield a relatively large quantity.) Epsilon-cost temptation is common in modern life and poses the problem of conflict identification. When facing epsilon-cost temptation, conflict identification depends on whether individuals frame the temptation as a single opportunity to act in isolation or as one among many opportunities (Myrseth & Fishbach, 2009). For example, if a tempting chocolate is perceived in isolation, then there are trivial costs associated with indulgence, and the individual will not identify conflict between indulging and maintaining more important dieting and health goals. However, if the temptation is perceived in relation to multiple future action opportunities, then the individual may identify self-control conflict. Notably, the individual could still perceive actions in the future to be different from those in the present (e.g., ‘‘I’ll have chocolate now, but later I’ll stay clear’’). Thus, to identify self-control conflict it is also necessary that the individual perceives the present action as similar to future ones (e.g., ‘‘If I have chocolate now, I’ll likely also have it again in the future’’). Overall, the frame necessary for conflict identification meets two conditions: a) Width: The individual sees multiple opportunities together b) Consistency: The individual expects to act similarly across multiple opportunities Considering multiple opportunities together helps individuals identify the self-control conflict because it makes the aggregate cost of multiple epsilon-cost temptations more apparent. For example, Read, Loewenstein, and Kalyanaraman (1999) asked participants to make a series of choices (one for each week) between two kinds of lottery tickets, one offering the prospect of larger, delayed rewards and the other that of smaller, immediate rewards. The choices thus represented potential self-control dilemmas. The authors found that participants choosing multiple tickets at once (i.e., the wide frame) preferred the tickets with larger delayed rewards more than did those choosing each ticket individually (i.e., the narrow frame). In our research, we demonstrate that wide frames are effective because they promote conflict identification. In one study, we measured consumption of potato chips among health-conscious participants. Before deciding how much to eat, participants noted the date either on a calendar that used a grid to separate the days in the month and that marked the date of the experiment, or on a calendar with no grid and no special marking of the experiment date (see Fig. 2). The former calendar induced a narrow frame, because the experiment date appeared separated from the others, while the latter imposed a wide frame because there was no visual separation. Accordingly, participants consumed more chips when the calendar induced a narrow frame than they did when the calendar induced a wide frame. Importantly, participants in the narrow (vs. wide) frame also indicated that they were experiencing less self-control conflict during consumption, and this lack of experienced conflict, in turn, mediated their increased consumption of chips (Myrseth & Fishbach, 2009). A wide frame is necessary for identifying self-control conflict, but it is not sufficient. In addition, individuals need to expect to make the same choices every time they face the conflict between the goals and the temptations. Research by Fishbach and colleagues points to two possible ‘‘dynamics’’ (i.e., choice patterns) that individuals can expect to follow when they consider a sequence of actions involving potential goal pursuit and conflicting temptation: They can follow a pattern that highlights the goal or one that balances between the goal and temptations (Fishbach, Dhar, & Zhang, 2006; Fishbach & Zhang, 2008). When highlighting the goal, individuals choose goal pursuit and employ self-control strategies to forego temptation. However, when balancing goal and temptation, individuals follow a pattern of choosing ‘‘first temptation, then the goal,’’ thus postponing goal pursuit in favor of instant gratification. Specifically, when balancing, individuals do not see themselves as making the same choice in the future; they choose to indulge presently without giving up on the goal. In other words, when balancing, individuals do not identify self-control conflict. To demonstrate this point, Fishbach and Zhang (2008) manipulated the presentation of healthy carrots and unhealthy chocolates; the foods either were presented apart in two separate bowls or together in the same bowl. Presenting the options separately induced a perception of the foods as conflicting, thereby prompting a choice sequence that highlighted the goal of eating healthy, whereas presenting them together induced a perception of complementarity, prompting a choice sequence that balanced between the goal of eating healthy and enjoying a tempting chocolate. Accordingly, the percentage of participants that chose carrots over chocolates increased when the options were presented apart (vs. together) and prompted highlighting. Facing Temptation Successful Self-Control Strategies (Restraint) Do Not Identify Conflict (Indulging) Identify SelfControl Conflict Unsuccessful Strategies (Indulging) Stage 1: Conflict Identification Stage 2: Conflict Resolution Fig. 1. The two-stage model of self-control. In the face of temptation, individuals either identify self-control conflict or not. If and only if they have identified conflict, they use self-control strategies to promote goal pursuit. 248 Volume 18—Number 4 Self-Control