Exploring the Interplay of Trait Self–Control and Ego Depletion: Empirical Evidence for Ironic Effects

Abstract

Trait self‐control (TSC) has been conceptualized as a general and abstract ability to exert self‐regulation across multiple domains that has mostly beneficial effects. However, its relationship to situational depletion of self‐regulatory resources has received little attention. We systematically explore the interplay of trait and situational self‐control in two studies (total N = 264). In contrast with a positive view of TSC, the results show greater ego depletion effects for high (vs. low) self‐control abilities across such diverse domains as candy consumption (Study 1), risk‐taking behaviour (Study 2) and achievement motivation (Study 2). It is proposed that these ironic effects are attributable to high‐TSC individuals' less frequent active inhibition of impulses in everyday life and their resulting lack of experience in resisting acute temptations. A third study (N> = 358) corroborated this general reasoning by showing that TSC is indeed associated with less frequent impulse inhibition in daily routines. Our data point to a downside of dispositional self‐control in ego depletion paradigms. Other explanations and potential future avenues for resolving inconsistent findings across the literature are discussed. Copyright © 2013 European Association of Personality Psychology

Trait self-control and the avoidance of temptation

“…A recent meta-analysis found that trait self-control was more related to automatic behaviors such as forming habits than to consciously controlled behavior (de Ridder et al, 2012). In addition, Imoff, Schmidt, and Gerstenberg (2013) found that people high in trait self-control reported less frequent effortful attempts to exercise self-control in everyday life compared to people low in trait self-control. These findings suggest that people high in trait self-control may form habits that prevent them from having to expend their self-regulatory resources to resist temptations.…”

First on the List: Effectiveness at Self-Regulation and Prioritizing Difficult Exercise Goal Pursuit

“…Research indicates that effective self-regulators tend to employ self-control strategies in a more efficient way than do less effective self-regulators (e.g., Niven et al, 2013), and thus they may be more capable of continuing to engage in self-control following difficult goal pursuit than less effective self-regulators (c.f., Imhoff et al, in press). If less effective self-regulators struggle more following self-control exertion, it may be to their benefit to put off difficult goal pursuits for later in the day.…”

“…For example, children faced with a tempting marshmallow were more successful at resisting the temptation if they construed it in terms of its abstract features (e.g., thinking of it as a fluffy cloud) rather than if they construed it in terms of its concrete features (e.g., its sweet taste; Mischel & Baker, 1975; Mischel & Moore, 1973). More recent research suggests other strategies, such as precommitment, to help resist temptations (Ariely & Wertenbroch, 2002; Schwartz et al, 2014) and has found support for the notion that effective self-regulators are particularly adept at avoiding temptations (Imhoff, Schmidt, & Gerstenberg, in press). This research suggests that effective self-regulators may avoid temptations but it does not fully address how individuals make plans to face situations in which they suspect they will be tempted—that is, situations in which they believe they might need to engage in difficult goal pursuit.…”

Sustainable consumption and marketing

“…Mere awareness of desirable distal outcomes does not reduce the awareness of conflicting and more proximal outcomes. Selfcontrol requires a continuous conscious effort to suppress these proximal goalincongruent impulses and therefore is subject to ego-depletion (Gino et al, 2011;Imhoff et al, 2015;Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). Awareness and selfcontrol aim at behavioural change by forgoing immediate rewards without reducing the craving for these immediate incentives.…”

“…In line with this approach cognitive interventions aim at inducing abstraction and mindfulness to raise the construal level of the proximal choice and thus enhance the motivation for distal-goal-congruent behaviour, or to raise the self-control to resist goal-incongruent temptations (Amel, Manning, & Scott, 2009;Fujita & Roberts, 2010;Jenkins & Tapper, 2014;Mantzios & Wilson, 2014). A major drawback of these cognitive interventions is that they require effort and energy of the actor that are subject to depletion (Agrawal & Wan, 2009;Gino, Schweitzer, Mead, & Ariely, 2011;Imhoff, Schmidt, & Gerstenberg, 2015;Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). Another drawback is that most of these cognitive interventions are not suited for in-store consumer choice environments.…”