Self-control
Self-control is the ability to regulate one's emotions, thoughts, and behavior in the face of temptations and impulses. It is an aspect of inhibitory control, one of the core human executive functions. Executive functions are cognitive processes that are necessary for regulating one's behavior in order to achieve specific goals.
As an executive function, self-control supports goal-directed behavior, planning, and decision making. In psychology, self-control is often distinguished from the broader construct of self-regulation, which includes the monitoring, adjustment, and maintenance of behavior and emotional states across changing situations.
One influential model has described self-control as operating like a muscle that draws on a limited resource.
In the short term, use of self-control can lead to the depletion of that resource. However, in the long term, the use of self-control can strengthen and improve the ability to control oneself over time.
Self-control is also a key concept in the general theory of crime, a major theory in criminology. The theory was developed by Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi in their book A General Theory of Crime. Gottfredson and Hirschi define self-control as the differentiating tendency of individuals to avoid criminal acts independent of the situations in which they find themselves. Individuals with low self-control tend to be impulsive, inconsiderate towards others, risk takers, short-sighted, and nonverbal-oriented. About 70 percent of the variance in questionnaire measures of this construct of self-control has been found to be attributable to genetic factors.
Self-control in science
Counteractive self-control
Counteractive self-control theory focuses on how desires interact with goals. Desire is an affectively charged motivation toward a certain object, person, or activity, often, but not limited to, one associated with pleasure or relief from displeasure. Desires differ in their intensity and longevity. A desire becomes a temptation when pursuing it would conflict with an individual’s goals. One limitation in researching desire is that people experience a wide variety of desires, which differ in frequency, strength, and relevance to personal goals. In a large experience-sampling study, 7,827 desire reports were collected over one week, capturing variation in desire intensity, the degree of conflict with other goals, and the likelihood of resisting a desire successfully. The most common and strongly felt desires were those related to bodily needs such as eating, drinking, and sleeping.Self-control dilemmas occur when long-term goals clash with short-term outcomes. Counteractive Self-Control Theory states that when presented with such a dilemma, we lessen the significance of the instant rewards while momentarily increasing the importance of our overall values. When asked to rate the perceived appeal of different snacks before making a decision, people valued health bars over chocolate bars. However, when asked to do the rankings after having chosen a snack, there was no significant difference of appeal. Further, when college students completed a questionnaire prior to their course registration deadline, they ranked leisure activities as less important and enjoyable than when they filled out the survey after the deadline passed. The stronger and more available the temptation is, the harsher the devaluation will be.
One of the most common self-control dilemmas involves the desire for unhealthy or unneeded food consumption versus the desire to maintain long-term health. An indication of unneeded food consumption could be overspending on eating away from home. Not knowing how much to spend, or overspending one's budget on eating out, can be a symptom of a lack of self-control.
Participants in one study rated a new snack as less healthy when it was described as very tasty rather than only slightly tasty. This evaluation pattern reflects counteractive self-control, where a tempting attribute leads people to devalue that option to support a health goal. In another experiment, participants shown one large bowl of chips—representing a strong temptation—perceived the chips as higher in calories and ate less of them than participants given three smaller bowls containing the same total amount.
Weak temptations are falsely perceived to be less unhealthy, so self-control is not triggered and desirable actions are more often engaged in; this supports the counteractive self-control theory. Weak temptations present more of a challenge to overcome than strong temptations, because they appear less likely to compromise long-term values.
Satiation
In studies of self-control, satiation refers to the reduction in desire for a particular food following repeated consumption or exposure. Satiation rates when eating depend on the interactions of trait self-control and the healthiness of the food. After eating equal amounts of either clearly healthy or unhealthy snack foods, people who scored higher on trait self-control tests reported feeling significantly less desire to eat more of the unhealthy foods than they did the healthy foods. Those with low trait self-control satiated at the same pace regardless of health value.Further, when reading a description emphasizing the sweet flavor of their snack, participants with higher trait self-control reported a decrease in desire faster than they did after hearing a description of the healthy benefits of their snack. Once again, those with low self-control satiated at the same rate regardless of the description. Perceiving a food as unhealthy, regardless of its actual health level, relates to faster satiation, but only for people with high trait self-control.
Construal levels
High-level construals involve thinking about actions and outcomes in a broad, abstract way, whereas low-level construals involve thinking about them in concrete, detailed terms. These different construal levels influence how individuals activate self-control when facing temptations.One way researchers induce high-level construals is by asking a series of “why?” questions that prompt increasingly abstract responses; low-level construals are elicited with “how?” questions that focus on concrete details. When completing an Implicit Association Test, participants induced into high-level construals pair unhealthy temptations with “bad” and healthy options with “good” more quickly than low-level participants. They are also more likely to choose an apple over a candy bar in behavioral tasks. Even without deliberate self-control, simply adopting a high-level construal can reduce the pull of temptations by shifting attention to broader goals and values, such as maintaining a healthy lifestyle.
Human and non-human
Positive correlation between linguistic capability and self-control has been inferred from experiments with common chimpanzees.Human self-control research is often modeled using a token economy system, in which individuals earn tokens for desirable behaviors and can later exchange the tokens for various backup, positive reinforcers. Differences in research designs have raised questions about whether human and non-human studies are always comparable. One procedural difference involves delays in the token-exchange period: non-human subjects can usually access reinforcement immediately, whereas human subjects often wait until the end of a session to exchange tokens. When similar delays were imposed on non-human subjects such as pigeons, they responded much like humans, with males showing less self-control than females.
Logue, whose work is discussed further below, reports that in her research, it was boys who displayed less self-control than girls. She notes that in adulthood, sex differences tend to diminish as individuals become more aware of the consequences associated with impulsive actions. This may suggest that the ability to exert self-control improves with maturity and experience.
Some theorists have noted that impulsive responses can be adaptive in certain contexts, although far less research has examined this possibility compared to work emphasizing the benefits of self-control.
Self-control has been conceptualized as a measurable human trait, and numerous tests have been developed to assess it. Longitudinal research has found that individuals with higher self-control often achieve better educational, occupational, and psychosocial outcomes, although evidence regarding its long-term health implications is mixed.
The construct known as John Henryism describes a high-effort coping style proposed by socio-epidemiologist Sherman James. It characterizes individuals who persistently exert effort to overcome social and economic barriers, even when resources are limited. James’s research linked this coping pattern to elevated risks of hypertension and cardiovascular strain among Black Americans in North Carolina, particularly in contexts of chronic stress and disadvantage. The term draws on the American folk hero John Henry, whose legendary death followed intense physical labor; the concept has since been discussed in both academic and popular accounts of stress and health inequalities.
Alternatives
Using compassion, gratitude, and healthy pride to create positive emotional motivation can be less stressful, less vulnerable to rationalization, and more likely to succeed than the traditional strategy of using logic and willpower to suppress behavior that resonates emotionally. Similarly, the use of healthy habits and strategies that eliminate the need for effortful inhibition reduce reliance on willpower.Philosopher Immanuel Kant, at the beginning of one of his main works, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, mentions the term "Selbstbeherrschung"—self-control—in a way such that it does not play a key role in his account of virtue. He argues instead that qualities such as self-control and moderation of affect and passions are mistakenly taken to be absolutely good.