You know you want one
Image: Peter Kim
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
The scientific community is increasingly coming to realize how central self-control is to many important life outcomes. We have always known about the impact of socioeconomic status and IQ, but these are factors that are highly resistant to interventions. In contrast, self-control may be something that we can tap into to make sweeping improvements life outcomes.
If you think about the environment we live in, you will notice how it is essentially designed to challenge every grain of our self-control. Businesses have the means and motivation to get us to do things NOW, not later. Krispy Kreme wants us to buy a dozen doughnuts while they are hot; Best Buy wants us to buy a television before we leave the store today; even our physicians want us to hurry up and schedule our annual checkup.
There is not much place for waiting in today’s marketplace. In fact you can think about the whole capitalist system as being designed to get us to take actions and spend money now – and those businesses that are more successful in that do better and prosper (at least in the short term). And this of course continuously tests our ability to resist temptation and exercise self-control.
It is in this very environment that it's particularly important to understand what's going on behind the mysterious force of self-control.
Several decades ago, Walter Mischel started investigating the determinants of delayed gratification in children. He found that the degree of self-control independently exerted by preschoolers who were tempted with small rewards (but told they could receive larger rewards if they resisted) is predictive of grades and social competence in adolescence.
A recent study by colleagues of mine at Duke demonstrates very convincingly the role that self control plays not only in better cognitive and social outcomes in adolescence, but also in many other factors and into adulthood. In this study, the researchers followed 1,000 children for 30 years, examining the effect of early self-control on health, wealth and public safety. Controlling for socioeconomic status and IQ, they show that individuals with lower self-control experienced negative outcomes in all three areas, with greater rates of health issues like sexually transmitted infections, substance dependence, financial problems including poor credit and lack of savings, single-parent child-rearing, and even crime. These results show that self-control can have a deep influence on a wide range of activities. And there is some good news: if we can find a way to improve self-control, maybe we could do better.
Where does the skill of self –control come from?
So when we consider these individual differences in the ability to exert self-control, the real question is where they originate – are they differences in pure, unadulterated ability (i.e., one is simply born with greater self-control) or are these differences a result of sophistication (a greater ability to learn and create strategies that help overcome temptation)?
In other words, are the kids who are better at self control able to control, and actively reduce, how tempted they are by the immediate rewards in their environment, or are they just better at coming up with ways to distract themselves and this way avoid acting on their temptation?
It may very well be the latter. A hint is found in the videos of the children who participated in Mischel’s experiments. It’s clear that all of the children had a difficult time resisting one immediate marshmallow to get more later. However, we also see that the children most successful at delaying rewards spontaneously created strategies to help them resist temptations. Some children sat on their hands, physically restraining themselves, while others tried to redirect their attention by singing, talking or looking away. Moreover, Mischel found that all children were better at delaying rewards when distracting thoughts were suggested to them. (You can see a modern recreation of the original Mischel experiment here.)
See what we're tweeting about
30 Comments
Add CommentAm I missing something or did this article not answer the questions in its title?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Title is quite specific, but the article is most ambiguous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that a "zen-like" approach to resisting immediate temptation is futile and that is because it is contrary to the fundamental self-interest ethic naturally inherent in every human individual as the necessary basis for survival. But rather than attempting to find artificial distractions, I have always found that picturing/focusing on the greater total benefit to be accrued from resisting at least a part of the current desire is fully strong enough to enable me to do so. This is because I realize that my life's goal is to maximize my total lifetime happiness as much as I possibly can.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI seemed to understand this from my earliest memories, for example I even at 4 years old I when given a chocolate I would only eat 1/2 of it, carefully saving the other half for a day when I had no chocolate and would therefore enjoy it more than right after the first half.
I also would like to note that this inherent life purpose of fully rational long-range, widest-viewed self-interest to maximize one's total lifetime happiness is the basis for my complete system of social interaction which I have termed the "Theory of Social Meta-Needs" and is at: http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html
Good article! It says we can set missions and devise plans in order to exert self-control! We don't have to deny our temptation, actually we need ways to counter them and turn the temptation down!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm with you. It didn't answer the questions addressed in the title.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems to be as though self-control is a multifaceted ability which requires a variety of strategies not covered in this article. For example, a child attempting to focus on reading a novel for class rather than watching tv would hardly be assisted by the strategy outlined in this article. Clearly then, there are functionally distinct forms of self-control, weakening any claims to "the secret of self-control". Also, I suspect most of us would agree that self-control is an ability which is unlikely to be held in one domain and not another: in particular, I should think that most people who are able to maintain focus on a task are also able to delay gratification. To what extent then is self-control a skill set to be learned, as opposed to an ability which is expressed through various strategies? This important aspect of the topic does not appear to have been answered in the article. Perhaps we'll never know...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems that the sirens Ulysses heard were clusters of birds, that exist today, and emit a song equal to the cry of a woman reaching climax. Sailors were atracted to the sounds, and found themselves caught in the reefs or the swirls of Caribdis and Scilla islands. Legends many times have some reality background
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt may seem quite ambiguous, but I believe the article answers partly (and due to the nature of science itself, I wouldn't expect nothing else than "partly") of the problem: self-control is modulated by attentional focus. Attentional focus is essential for regulating behavior and it has been a very topic of interest in the study of psychopathic personality. It is, e.g., fundamental to the Dr. Joseph Newman's perspective, known as Response Modulation Hypothesis (RMH). RMH is an empirical approach which has recently shown that psychopaths are not natural born fearless individuals, but naturaly deficient in automatic shifting focus of attention from goal-directed behavior to peripheric cues. Not attend to peripheric cues may lead one to deficient information processing, specially in the case of emotional-valenced stimuli (e.g., disgusting and threatening cues). In this case, attention shifting problems impair emotional processing which, in turn, affect decision-making (c.f., Antonio Damasio's somatic marker hypothesis). Therefore, the article shed light on the attentional influence on self-control and the adequate notion that regulating behavior may imply one to engage in conscious, controlled cognitive processes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this. I have read far better analysis from many other sources, including an economist. SciAm is actually loosing its grip.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSelf control? Resistance to temptation? What is temptation? Is it an external phenomenon that we have to resist and control oneself against?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSimple question: What would you do if you find a package of drugs that you know has a value of more than $100,000?
Smoke it? Sell it and put the money to good use? Hand it in to authorities? (just assume there is no risk in smoking or selling it - so your decision is purely based on how you personally feel about it).
Some people would bend down to pick up and smoke even a half-finished cigarette. Some people would be tempted to smoke the drugs. Some to sell it. And some would want nothing to do with it. They would rather hand it in to authorities and not see it harm society in any way.
Whether we are tempted by such a proposition, or any proposition, is purely based on our internal value system. For some people there is no temptation to smoke or sell it and so there is even no need for self-control! The need for self-control is only there when our needs and wants, guided or mis-guided, create the temptation for us.
So the fundamental principle in self-control is addressing the deeper issues of our personal value system.
For me education and/or prior reflections, that provide an awareness of the consequences of our choices are the surest methods of self control as they prohibit and eliminate the rise of the temptation in the first place.
Based on this, one is tempted to over-eat, one is not. To drink alcohol or not, to abuse substances or not, to risk a marriage with an affair or not. Temptation and the need for self-control is always secondary.
Self-control when we are ready to do work which we like and avoid which we don't like.Self-control means discipline in your life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a veteran 42-year retired teacher, I can agree to most. What I cannot agree with is "a single-parent" is someone who is out of control. The last 20 years i taught, I knew one teacher who opted for stranger fertilization (her child was a student of mine), and 3 elected to be single Mom's created by boyfriends. Two are teachers, one is a social worker. For what ever personal reasons, these are women did not want to have the legality of marriage. They did not need the financial assistance to raise their children, all held masters degrees.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDefining single Mom's as having no control as part of your study, is not a politically good idea these days. More women than ever are planning families outside of marriage. Why not? Even Goldie Hawn now in her 60's refused to marry, but had a child: she would be appalled to the inclusion of single Moms in this study.
or is giving yourself distractions and tricks to avoid temptation a tempting quick fix? teaching yourself to not be tempted by things is a much more fruitful strategy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a great working model to teach the "skill" of self-control/discipline/delayed gratification based on Michael's Stanford Study and developed at the former Stanford Neuropsychology Research Laboratory. To see the model go here: http://www.sybervision.com/Discipline/#steps
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe model is presented in a self-paced audio program with digital study guide titled "The Neuropsychology of Self Control: The Master Key to Success."
The audio program and digital program guide can be downloaded instantly for listening on iPod/iPhone/iPad or other mobile devices.
The theory is that we are all governed and we "govern" by what neuroscientist Karl Pribram called 'images of achievement." The clearer and more sensorily distinct the vision we hold (vision = mental image of a desirable future state that we believe is obtainable) the more intrinsic motivation we have delay gratification and work on the benchmarks that lead to vision fulfillment. In order to resist "temptation" we draw succor from the vision and our slow but steady progress toward its achievement.
The underlying value upon which the theory is based is that anything worthwhile achieving and that adds lasting value to society takes time -- even years--whether it's a skill or the successful pursuit of a goal.
I find Glutamine to be highly effective in maintaining control, when taken with Tyrosine with a dash of Thiamine. Echinacea also is helpful in this regard. Then again, it may merely be a personal thing, where they fill a need.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems to me temptation is fostered either by curiosity or an emotional need. Different emotions carry different neuronal voltages, while Tyr tames those voltages, Glu provides the Zen, and B1 is the saw that allows them to build voltage block. Amen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "neurochemistry of Zen"? Now, that's a good one :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article was disappointing because it did not have enough depth. The comments on the article are good. Even after 25 years as a therapist I am still amazed by the many ways people undermine their happiness (and the happiness of their families) with poor choices mainly from lack of self control. The article suggests this is a skill we can learn. Perhaps that is what 12-step programs are doing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi have great respect for the human brain, not because of what it can figure out but because it can't be figured out
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou people are fifty years behind. Self control was studied by B. F. Skinner at least that long ago and reported in his writings. Read "Science and Human Behavior" among others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou people are fifty years behind. Self control was studied by B. F. Skinner at least that long ago and reported in his writings. Read "Science and Human Behavior" among others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDifferent emotions have different voltages? Tyramine tames the voltages? B1 creates voltage block? What kind of neurochemistry where you taught? The voltage created by an action potential is not really something that is adjusted by amino acids. Different emotions are in no way related to a varying amount of voltage created by a bundle of neurons, rather, different emotions are activation of different circuits of neurons. And anything that creates voltage block would shut down your brain, your muscles, and your heart - I guess then you may have achieved you Zen state, whatever you believe that to be
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlthough, I should point out that amino acids definitely do affect synaptic transmission, and may affect action potential conduction. The former is obviously well characterized, and I know of at least one recent report suggesting the latter (Sasaki et al., 2011; from the February 4 edition of Science).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYep. I can't agree more with your opinion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDan Ariely is an outstanding researcher and writer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes anyone else see the irony, the oddity, of so many rather rude replies? Could we say that perhaps some of these writers do not show outstanding examples of self-control?
Yes indeed the professor has evidence. Mischel is quite famous among researchers. The 30 years of the Duke study are surely persuasive. Though Doc. Ariely minimizes the details of his own work, those of us who've read his books know him as an endlessly creative and thorough researcher.
Yes he asks and answers the questions raised. In the psychology world, one often asks the questions he asks, "is a behavior strongly based on birth differences?", or "is it based on learning or cognition (such as creativity)?". His
answers are clear and unambiguous. His team's research, and these other very professional studies clearly suggest that self-control is often based on cognition and learning and creativity.
Please try to say nice things about this wise man.
And please do understand, as another comments writer says, that science brings us Theory, not final answers, by common agreement, going back hundreds of years. That ability to be unsure, the heart of science, requires, please note, the use of self-control. May that be the take-away for those who don't read much science writing on a regular basis.
This is in the finest tradition of science. You may trust this author.
Self control "works" by redirecting attention or by taking positive action to prevent ourselves from acting on our impulses. We are who we choose to be, or rather, we are what we choose to pay attention to.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course amino acids can affect neurotransmission, glutamate is the main excitatory neurotransmitter in the brain, and GABA is the main inhibitor neurotransmitter. Glycine acts in concert with NMDA glutamate receptors, blah blah blah. These all affect whether a given neuron fires or not, but they do not affect the actual action potential. There is a difference between resting membrane potential and action potential.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would be interesting to see what would happen if the second marshmallow were visible, say inside a jar. That way the kids could see what they would be getting if they waited. My guess is that this would make it easier for them to wait.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think what's interesting is how the article and most of the comments view things in the either/or context. What people need to do is re-train themselves in how they think about food. The "secret" of self-control is to establish a baseline of moderation that exceeds what most people expect. Self-control also implies that the thing which tempts you is itself something that you should normally be deprived of. But you need not be deprived of it if consumed in a reasonable portion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow this isn't an advertisement, but I stumbled across a portion control diet product a couple of months ago. It's the first one that made sense to me because it addressed this exact topic.
(Not affiliated with them in any way)
A couple of links for those interested:
lifesizeportions.com
http://www.hsn.com/infomercial/lifesize-portion-control-system-with-quick-start-guide-measuring-devices-and-wall-chart_p-6314382_xp.aspx
ADHD identified in the study participants? It would be interesting if there were differences among individuals with that condition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this