Inspired by some of current Western societies' most pressing problems, much research attention has been devoted to understanding self‐regulation failure. While this has yielded some very valuable insights, the current paper underlines that understanding self‐regulation failure does not mean that we also understand self‐regulation success. Whereas failure and success are semantic antonyms, in terms of self‐regulation research, they should not be regarded as mere opposites. First, on the process level, self‐regulation success versus failure is not simply a matter of inverse explanatory factors (e.g., the capacity to inhibit impulses vs. a lack thereof). Second, on the outcome level, self‐regulation success versus failure is not strictly a matter of inverse behavioral action (e.g., abstaining from versus indulging in immediate gratification). This has significant implications, the most important one being that to understand self‐regulation success, researchers need to take a more holistic perspective rather than mainly considering single instances when studying self‐regulation.