Counteractive self-control in overcoming temptation.

Abstract

How do anticipated short-term costs affect the likelihood of engaging in an activity that has long-term benefits. Five studies investigated the factors that determine (a) how anticipated short-term costs elicit self-control efforts and (b) how self-control efforts eventually diminish the influence of short-term costs on behavior. The studies manipulated short-term costs (e.g., painful medical procedures) and assessed a variety of self-control strategies (e.g., self-imposed penalties for failure to undergo a test). The results show that short-term costs elicit self-control strategies for self rather than others, before rather than after behavior, when long-term benefits are important rather than unimportant and when the costs are moderate rather than extremely small or large. The results also show that the self-control efforts help people act according to their long-term interests.People sometimes know what they prefer but feel uncertain that this is what they will actually do. This uncertainty often reflects feasibility constraints such as lack of opportunity, freedom of choice, or prerequisite skills. In some cases, however, people may know that what they prefer is entirely feasible but may nevertheless suspect that when faced with the actual choice they will be tempted to do something else. A considerable amount of basic and applied research on self-control has investigated how immediate temptations prevent people from acting according to their preferences and has suggested techniques that may help people resist the temptations (Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994;Gollwitzer & Moskowitz, 1996;Kuhl, 1984;Loewenstein, 1996;Mischel, Cantor, & Feldman, 1996;Rachlin, 1995;Thaler, 1994;Wegner, 1994). On the basis of this work, the present article examines the antecedents and consequences of self-control designed to counteract the influence of anticipated temptations on behavior. In this article, we seek to extend earlier research by investigating the factors that determine (a) how anticipated temptations elicit counteractive self-control and (b) whether counteractive self-control actually diminishes the influence of temptations on behavior. Counteractive ControlTo understand self-control when future choice is anticipated, it may be useful to distinguish between perceived short-term and Yaacov Trope,

How much time-inconsistency is there and does it matter? Evidence on self-awareness, size, and effects

“…Such devices represent "smoking guns" that cannot be explained by any timeconsistent preferences (for example, Wertenbroch 1998, Ariely andWertenbroch 2002). It appears that people do use self-imposed constraint and penalty to improve performance, but the constraint is not set optimally for maximum performance enhancement (for example, Trope andFishbach 2000 andAriely andWertenbroch 2002). Thus, the evidence is consistent with people being to some degree aware, but not completely aware, of future time-inconsistency.…”

Too Much of a Good Thing: The Benefits of Implementation Intentions Depend on the Number of Goals

“…But even if planning for a single goal does not notably increase commitment to that goal, planning may reduce commitment to other desirable activities. This could still facilitate goal success if goal pursuit depended on the relative importance of goals (Fishbach, Friedman, and Kruglanski 2003;Trope and Fishbach 2000). Consider the phenomenon of goal shielding, a process whereby nonfocal goals are prevented from interfering with focal goals because the activation of nonfocal goals is inhibited, not because focal goals are further activated (Shah, Friedman, and Kruglanski 2002).…”

The Battle for Business Ethics: A Struggle Theory

“…This not only holds for ethical behavior in general but also for struggling. Research by Trope and Fishbach (2000) shows that individuals who reward themselves for resisting temptations are better at resisting those temptations. Organizations can also reward employees for resisting opposing forces and impose punishment for failing to do so.…”

“…This strategy can be The Battle for Business Ethics: A Struggle Theory 347 likened to Shiffman's (1984) advice on coping with the temptation to smoke: by finding substitutes and distractions, thinking about the negative effects of smoking, or the positive consequences of not smoking. Trope and Fishbach (2000) suggest self-imposed penalties and rewards as a way to resist temptations. In the context of organizations, this strategy translates, for example, into developing a business code of ethics, having a robust monitoring and control framework, and running an ethics training program.…”