Past research indicates that peoples' implicit theories about the nature of willpower moderate the ego-depletion effect. Only people who believe or were led to believe that willpower is a limited resource (limited-resource theory) showed lower self-control performance after an initial demanding task. As of yet, the underlying processes explaining this moderating effect by theories about willpower remain unknown. Here, we propose that the exertion of self-control activates the goal to preserve and replenish mental resources (rest goal) in people with a limited-resource theory. Five studies tested this hypothesis. In Study 1, individual differences in implicit theories about willpower predicted increased accessibility of a rest goal after self-control exertion. Furthermore, measured (Study 2) and manipulated (Study 3) willpower theories predicted an increased preference for rest-conducive objects. Finally, Studies 4 and 5 provide evidence that theories about willpower predict actual resting behavior: In Study 4, participants who held a limited-resource theory took a longer break following self-control exertion than participants with a nonlimited-resource theory. Longer resting time predicted decreased rest goal accessibility afterward. In Study 5, participants with an induced limited-resource theory sat longer on chairs in an ostensible product-testing task when they had engaged in a task requiring self-control beforehand. This research provides consistent support for a motivational shift toward rest after self-control exertion in people holding a limited-resource theory about willpower.

Psychological researchers often use powerful experimental manipulations to temporarily reduce participants' well-being. Postexperimental debriefings are intended to eliminate such detrimental effects. However, experimentally induced beliefs can persevere even when the underlying information is explicitly discredited. The present research investigates, in the context of ego-threatening manipulations, whether postexperimental debriefings reestablish participants' prestudy conditions. In 6 studies, participants received false feedback about their intelligence (Studies 1 and 5) or their attractiveness and likability (Studies 2-4 and 6), completed dependent variables indicative of well-being (Studies 1, 2, and 4 -6), or aggressive behavior and hostile attributions (Study 3), and were thoroughly debriefed. Participants reported lower well-being and exhibited more hostile attributions after receiving negative compared with neutral or positive feedback. These effects were not eliminated when participants had been debriefed before completing the dependent variables, either in writing (Studies 1-6), in person (Studies 4 and 5), or when additionally writing a self-affirming essay (Studies 4 and 5). A prolonged and extensive personal debriefing (Study 6) was most effective in reducing the aversive effects of ego threat. Follow-up assessments revealed that affective consequences of the ego threat persevered for 2 weeks and longer. Internal meta-analyses corroborated these results, but also showed that all debriefing versions, even if not fully effective, ameliorated the effects of ego threat at least to some extent. Taken together, the present findings illustrate the only partial effectiveness of different debriefing procedures, stress the importance of carefully designing postexperimental debriefings to avoid ethical concerns, and more generally point to potentially effective ways to deal with negative feedback and personal threats.

No abstract

No abstract