PERSPECTIVE

published: 18 July 2018

doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01231

The ‘Operational’ Definition of

Self-Control
Marleen Gillebaart*
Social, Health, and Organizational Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands

Self-control is a hot topic across disciplines. As such, consensus on defining self-

control is critical for advancing both scientific progress as well as societal impact of
research findings. Specifically, the emergence of initiation as a self-control component,
and the notion of effortless and strategic self-control, give rise to the question whether
and how to distinguish self-control from self-regulation. In this paper, I propose an
operational definition of self-control, based on converging definitions from the literature
as well as on the emergence of new perspectives on self-control. The TOTE-model
(Test-Operate-Test-Exit) of self-regulation will serve as a basis for this definition as
it gives clear guidance for the inclusion of self-control as a component of, but not
synonymous to self-regulation. Ultimately, an ‘operational’ definition is proposed in
which self-regulation entails scaffolding for goal pursuit, including setting standards,
and monitoring discrepancies, whereas self-control entails everything that one does
in the ‘operate’ phase. This perspective allows for inclusion of traditional as well as
contemporary research on self-control, and can provide direction for future studies.
Edited by:
Keywords: self-control, self-regulation, initiation, inhibition, TOTE-model, effortful control
John F. Rauthmann,
Wake Forest University, United States
Reviewed by:
Paschal Sheeran,
INTRODUCTION
University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, United States
Self-control is a hot topic across disciplines. Scholars from social, health, and personality
Jill Ann Jacobson, psychology, as well as from developmental and brain sciences, to name a few areas, devote their
Queen’s University, Canada work to understanding the causes, consequences, and underpinnings of this key human trait. As
*Correspondence: such, consensus on what we mean when we use the term self-control is critical. Without such
Marleen Gillebaart consensus, synthesizing research on self-control is precluded, hindering both scientific progress as
[Link]@[Link] well as societal impact of research findings. However, recent developments in self-control research
seem to have muddled the definition waters, causing some confusion about what self-control
Specialty section: entails, and what it does not. Specifically, the emergence of initiation as a self-control component,
This article was submitted to and the notion of effortless and strategic self-control, give rise to the question whether and how to
Personality and Social Psychology,
distinguish self-control from self-regulation. In this paper, I propose an operational definition of
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
self-control, based on converging definitions from the literature as well as on the emergence of new
perspectives on self-control. The TOTE-model (Test-Operate-Test-Exit, Carver and Scheier, 1982)
Received: 29 March 2018
of self-regulation will serve as a basis for this definition as it gives clear guidance for the inclusion
Accepted: 27 June 2018
Published: 18 July 2018
of self-control as a component of, but not synonymous to self-regulation.
The importance of self-control for behavior and well-being is undisputed. Several studies have
Citation:
Gillebaart M (2018) The ‘Operational’
shown that self-control level at a young age can predict cognitive and self-regulatory skills in
Definition of Self-Control. adolescence (Shoda et al., 1990), as well as essential outcomes such as health and well-being later
Front. Psychol. 9:1231. in life (Moffitt et al., 2011). Moreover, having self-control is related to better grades and academic
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01231 achievements (Tangney et al., 2004; Duckworth and Seligman, 2005), better quality interpersonal

Frontiers in Psychology | [Link] 1 July 2018 | Volume 9 | Article 1231

Gillebaart Operational Definition of Self-Control

relationships (Vohs et al., 2011), and basically, a happier this model focuses on state self-control, precluding a broader
life (Cheung et al., 2014; Hofmann et al., 2014). Conversely, perspective on self-control as a disposition or trait.
being prone to low self-control is associated with problematic These traditional definitions of self-control have two key
behaviors and outcomes such as impulse buying (Baumeister, aspects in common: effort and inhibition. However, over the
2002) and financial debt (Gathergood, 2012), maladaptive eating past decade several researchers have suggested and shown that
patterns (Elfhag and Morey, 2008), and procrastination (Tice and in order to be able to successfully use self-control in daily life,
Baumeister, 1997). Because of these robust associations between one needs to do more than simply effortfully inhibit impulses
self-control and this myriad of behaviors and outcomes, self- and unwanted responses in specific instances. With regards to
control has been coined a ‘hallmark of adaptation’ (De Ridder inhibition, many long-term goals of course do require inhibition
et al., 2012). of responses that are in correspondence with short-term goals,
For such an essential psychological construct, the dispersion but not with long-term goals. For example, one may have a
of definitions is remarkable to say the least (see also Milyavskaya long-term goal to have a healthy body, and may therefore need
et al., 2018). For example, in terms of operationalizations, the to inhibit the urge to bury one’s face in chocolate cake. Or,
amount of self-control measures easily reaches a 100 (Duckworth one may want to achieve academic success, and may therefore
and Kern, 2011). Before integrating perspectives on self-control, need to inhibit the binge-watching impulse fed by the Netflix
let us first discuss the most prominent definitions that are algorithm. However, these long-term goals of a healthy body and
out there already. One of the narrower definitions of self- academic success are not achieved by solely inhibiting impulsive
control equates the concept with inhibitory control. In this behaviors that are incongruent with long-term goal pursuit. In
definition, self-control includes, and is limited to, the effortful fact, initiation of long-term congruent behaviors may be equally,
inhibition of impulses. This inhibition is the key self-control if not more important. For example, to have a healthy body in
component in many self-control theories and models, including the long run, one needs to initiate the consumption of healthy
those based on delay of gratification (Ainslie, 1975; Mischel foods like fruits and vegetables on a regular basis. Likewise, to
et al., 1989; Kirby and Herrnstein, 1995) and dual-systems be successful in terms of academic performance, one needs to
frameworks (e.g., Metcalfe and Mischel, 1999; Hofmann et al., initiate a lot of behaviors that may not be immediately satisfying
2009). Dual-systems theories are characterized by the notion of (and sometimes even no fun at all). Indeed, De Ridder et al.
two systems for processing information and guiding behavior. (2011) were able to define both an inhibitory and an initiatory
The ‘hot’ system is fast, associative, continuously ‘on,’ and component of self-control, with inhibitory self-control predicting
provides impulsive tendencies for behavior. The ‘cold’ system undesired behavior, and initiatory self-control predicting desired
on the other hand is a bit slower, can only function when behavior. Acknowledging initiation as a component of self-
enough resources (e.g., energy, attention) are available, and control holds implications for self-control’s definition, and may
is more likely to initiate rationalized behavior (Evans, 2008; mean that this definition needs to be updated to align with these
Kahneman, 2011). Self-control can, according to this perspective, current insights.
be defined as the mechanism that allows for inhibiting or Following the acknowledgment of initiation as an essential
overriding impulses coming from the hot system, allowing part of self-control, it was proposed that self-control can be
precedence of the cold system (Gillebaart and De Ridder, conceptualized as the resolution of the conflict between two
2017). motives (i.e., short-term and long-term), with emphasis on the
Self-control has also been defined as the ability to delay notion that effortful inhibition is but one of many possible
immediate gratification of a smaller reward for a larger reward ways of handling these types of dilemmas (e.g., Fujita, 2011;
later in time (Ainslie, 1975; Mischel et al., 1989; Kirby and De Ridder et al., 2012). Taking it even further, Gillebaart
Herrnstein, 1995). This definition includes the effortful inhibition and De Ridder (2015) suggest that self-control simply cannot
notion, but is extended in the sense that it emphasizes the self- rely on effortful inhibition only, because this would render
control dilemma or conflict between a short-term, immediately people extremely prone to self-control failure all the time, due
gratifying option (that needs to be inhibited) and a long-term to depletion, fatigue, or lack of attentional or motivational
option with a larger reward value. The ability to forego the resources. In reality however, many people succeed in using
immediate reward reflects self-control. their self-control in subsequent situations. Gillebaart and De
A related model of self-control is the strength model of Ridder suggest that people who have a high level of (trait)
self-control (Baumeister and Heatherton, 1996; Muraven and self-control generally do not actually use effortful inhibition to
Baumeister, 2000). The strength model is one of the most resolve self-control dilemmas, but instead use their self-control
prominent, heavily debated models of self-control, and refers to install ‘smart,’ relatively effortless strategies for long-term goal-
to self-control as ‘... an act of self-control by which the self congruent behaviors.
alters its own behavioral patterns so as to prevent or inhibit its One of these proposed self-control strategies is the
dominant response’ (Muraven and Baumeister, 2000, p. 247). automatization of adaptive behaviors. Recent studies have
The most significant proposition from this model entails the ‘ego supported this proposition by showing that people with higher
depletion’ phenomenon. Based on the models tenet that self- levels of trait self-control have habits that align with their
control is effortful, ego depletion describes the self-control failure long-term goals. People with high trait self-control have stronger
that can follow from earlier effortful self-control exertion due to habits for studying and healthy eating (Galla and Duckworth,
depletion of a limited self-control resource. Importantly however, 2015), as well as for exercising (Gillebaart and Adriaanse, 2017).

Frontiers in Psychology | [Link] 2 July 2018 | Volume 9 | Article 1231

Gillebaart Operational Definition of Self-Control

Interestingly, higher self-control does not necessarily mean and actions that guide people’s behavior toward desired end states
stronger habits across the board. A study by Adriaanse et al. (Carver and Scheier, 2012). These desired end states may be
(2014) demonstrated that people with higher levels of self-control long-term goals, but can also refer to other standards or norms.
in fact have a weaker habit for eating unhealthy snacks. The From this definition it is obvious that self-regulation and self-
important conclusion from these studies is therefore not that control are closely related concepts. In fact, they can be become
people with high self-control have stronger habits, but rather so intertwined, that the terms are being used interchangeably.
that their response to environmental cues is automatized in The distinction between self-regulation and self-control can
the direction that is in line with their long-term goals. This apparently be so complex, that in the same line of research, the
allows for an effortless way of resolving self-control dilemmas. distinction is sometimes explicitly made (e.g., Baumeister and
A meta-analysis on the association between self-control and Vohs, 2003), where other times the two terms are seemingly
a range of behaviors supports this notion by demonstrating treated as referring to the same thing (e.g., Baumeister et al.,
stronger effects of self-control on automatic behaviors than on 2007). However, lumping the two terms together as if they are
deliberate behaviors (De Ridder et al., 2012). Taking automatic the same thing does not do either of the concepts justice.
self-control behaviors into account, the notion of ‘effort’ that has I propose that the terminological and theoretical dispute
also been central when defining self-control needs to be revisited. between self-regulation and self-control that follows from recent
Further research into effortless self-control strategies has developments in research on self-control processes can be
indicated that people with high self-control use their self-control resolved by referring back to fundamental theoretical frameworks
to create environments for themselves that are in congruence of self-regulation that include feedback loops, such as the
with their long-term goals. An example of such a strategy is cybernetic TOTE model (Powers, 1973). Carver and Scheier
pro-active avoidance (Ent et al., 2015; Gillebaart and De Ridder, (1981, 1982) identified three main ingredients of self-regulation:
2015). People with higher levels of self-control initiated behavior standards, monitoring, and operating. In order to self-regulate
aimed at avoiding temptations, and when given the option more successfully, there needs to be some sort of desired end state
often chose to work in an environment void of distraction (Ent or standard that is identified by the individual. Without such a
et al., 2015). Avoiding a temptation at an early stage allows for standard, there is no direction for self-regulation, and also no
relatively effort-free self-control, as regulation of an impulsive motivation to steer or alter any behavior in a specific direction.
state becomes more difficult as this state unfolds over time (Gross, In order to apply self-regulatory effort, an individual needs to be
2014). Avoiding temptations, and thus self-control dilemmas, able to monitor any discrepancies between the current state and
thus leads to less need to use effortful self-control (i.e., effortful the standard (‘Test’), as well as any progress that is taking place.
inhibition of impulsive tendencies). This is reflected in daily life Finally, one needs to be able to actually control behavior into the
as well, as a diary study on self-control and daily experiences of desired direction (‘Operate’). The result serves as input for the
desire, temptation, and conflict demonstrated that higher self- second ‘Test’ phase. The feedback loop is exited if the current
control was associated with fewer experienced temptations, and state is in line with the desired state or standard. Importantly,
fewer instances of self-control conflict and resisting temptations both setting standards or goals, and monitoring any discrepancies
(Hofmann et al., 2012). Moreover, if people with high self-control are part of this self-regulation feedback loop. Self-regulation
do encounter self-control dilemmas, they are able to resolve those therefore involves much more than simply controlling behavior,
dilemmas in a more efficient way compared to their low self- but rather provides the entire scaffolding for successful goal
control counterparts (Gillebaart et al., 2016). Taken together, pursuit.
research shows that there are different strategies for self-control, The crucial self-control element within the self-regulation
differing in how much effort they cost, whether they focus on feedback loop is ‘Operate.’ The difference between self-regulation
inhibition or initiation, how automatized they are, and where and self-control therefore is that self-regulation ability allows
they are applied on the self-control dilemma timeline. people to formulate goals, standards, and desired end-states, as
These recent studies on self-control and automatic, habitual well as to monitor any discrepancies between one’s current state
and strategic self-control behaviors further emphasize the need and these desired end-states, whereas everything that one does
to have a good look at the definition of self-control as being to steer one’s behavior toward the desired end state constitutes
effortful, and focused on inhibition. In fact, considering these self-control. Phrased differently, everything that takes place in
new developments in the field of self-control, the self-control Carver and Scheier’s ‘Operate’ phase is what we would call self-
definition is in desperate need of an update. However, including control. Although this distinction or categorization has been
initiatory self-control and effortless self-control in the definition alluded to before (e.g., Baumeister and Vohs, 2003), and shares
of self-control does pose a theoretical question: to what extent some aspects with a recent analysis of self-control as being a
are we still talking about self-control, and to what extent are value-based choice (Berkman et al., 2017), its importance for the
we talking about the more broadly defined concept of self- current developments in the field has not been acknowledged up
regulation? One may argue that we can hold on to our classic until now.
definition(s) of self-control, by simply stating that the self-control This ‘operational’ definition of self-control in itself may not
strategies that include initiation, smart use of strategies, and do be new, but it does emerge anew from the current developments
not rely on effort, are actually not self-control strategies, but in the field that shift away from classic theories and definitions.
rather are part of what we call ‘self-regulation.’ Self-regulation can At the same time, it also departs from these definitions, leaving
be defined as the whole system of standards, thoughts, processes, room for a new perspective. Specifically, taking this perspective

Frontiers in Psychology | [Link] 3 July 2018 | Volume 9 | Article 1231

Gillebaart Operational Definition of Self-Control

on the concept of self-control allows for inclusion of classic as with high self-control seem to (successfully) use. Importantly,
well as contemporary work on self-control. It also goes beyond this definition does not exclude the more narrow or classic
the phenomenon of ego depletion, and allows for including state definitions of self-control that have focused on effort and
self-control as well as the more dispositional trait self-control, inhibition, but rather allows for a broader perspective that
which is in fact predictive of many positive and negative life integrates these different aspects. A sidenote that comes
outcomes (Tangney et al., 2004). Moreover, ‘operate’ may have with this analysis is that there may be situations in which
been identified as the self-control component of self-regulation, monitoring itself may become a self-control issue (e.g., when
yet what is meant by ‘operate’ is in need of clarification and one anticipates large discrepancies with the goal). In these cases,
specification. As stated earlier, in the current perspective I a second feedback loop for the subgoal of monitoring one’s
propose that everything that one does to adjust one’s behavior current state is created. In these instances, the operating phase
toward a desired end state is part of ‘operate,’ and therefore part (and therefore self-control) may also refer to the action of
of self-control. This means that effortful as well as effortless self- monitoring.
control, inhibition as well as initiation, and deliberate as well as The ‘operational’ definition of self-control also allows for
automatic actions can all be included into this definition of self- a new line of empirical questions, answering of which would
control, without convoluting the distinction between self-control deepen our knowledge of self-control. For example, self-control
and self-regulation. For example, suppressing one’s impulses to strategies, whether it is inhibition or initiation, smart or effortful
give into temptations that are not in line with our long-term in nature, automatic or deliberate, all guide behavior and
goals (i.e., desired end states) is ‘operating,’ and so is inhibiting are ‘stored’ in the operate phase. However, one may wonder
an unwanted response. Similarly, habitually avoiding the candy whether there are preferred strategies in general, or differing per
isle in the supermarket falls under ‘operating’ in order to reach individual, or per situation. A certain ‘ranking’ of self-control
a long-term goal of staying healthy. Likewise, being able to delay strategies is not implausible, as some require fewer resources than
gratification by an instant, smaller reward in order to receive a others (e.g., habits vs. effortful inhibition), and the timeline of
larger delayed reward is ‘operating’ in terms of the self-regulation a self-control dilemma affects what type of strategy is needed
feedback loop. to resolve it Duckworth et al. (2016). Redefining self-control
with a fresh perspective therefore allows research into self-
control success, and smart self-control strategies, to flourish and
CONCLUDING REMARKS ultimately advances the field.

The most interesting consequence of this conceptualization of

self-control is the fact that defining self-control as the set AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
of skills, capacities, and behaviors that we need to ‘operate’
in a self-regulation feedback loop allows for inclusion of the The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and
recently identified ‘smart’ or ‘effortless’ strategies that people approved it for publication.

REFERENCES Carver, C. S., and Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: a useful conceptual
framework for personality–social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychol. Bull.
Adriaanse, M. A., Kroese, F. M., Gillebaart, M., and De Ridder, D. T. D. (2014). 92, 111–135. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.92.1.111
Effortless inhibition: habit mediates the relation between self-control and Carver, C. S., and Scheier, M. F. (2012). Attention and Self-Regulation: A Control-
unhealthy snack consumption. Front. Psychol. 5:444. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014. Theory Approach to Human Behavior. Berlin: Springer.
00444 Cheung, T. T., Gillebaart, M., Kroese, F., and De Ridder, D. T. D. (2014). Why
Ainslie, G. (1975). Specious reward: a behavioral theory of impulsiveness and are people with high self-control happier? The effect of trait self-control on
impulse control. Psychol. Bull. 82, 463–496. doi: 10.1037/h0076860 happiness as mediated by regulatory focus. Front. Psychol. 5:722. doi: 10.3389/
Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Yielding to temptation: self-control failure, impulsive fpsyg.2014.00722
purchasing, and consumer behavior. J. Consum. Res. 28, 670–676. doi: 10.1086/ De Ridder, D. T. D., de Boer, B. J., Lugtig, P., Bakker, A. B., and van Hooft,
338209 E. A. (2011). Not doing bad things is not equivalent to doing the right thing:
Baumeister, R. F., and Heatherton, T. F. (1996). Self-regulation failure: an overview. distinguishing between inhibitory and initiatory self-control. Pers. Individ. Dif.
Psychol. Inq. 7, 1–15. doi: 10.1207/s15327965pli0701_1 50, 1006–1011. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2011.01.015
Baumeister, R. F., and Vohs, K. D. (2003). “Self-regulation and the De Ridder, D. T. D., Lensvelt-Mulders, G., Finkenauer, C., Stok, F. M., and
executive function of the self,” in Handbook of Self and Identity, 1, Baumeister, R. F. (2012). Taking stock of self-control: a meta-analysis of how
eds M. R. Leary and J. P. Tangney (New York, NY: Guilford Press), trait self-control relates to a wide range of behaviors. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 16,
197–217. 76–99. doi: 10.1177/1088868311418749
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., and Tice, D. M. (2007). The strength model of Duckworth, A. L., Gendler, T. S., and Gross, J. J. (2016). Situational strategies
self- control. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 16, 351–355. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007. for self- control. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 11, 35–55. doi: 10.1177/174569161562
00534.x 3247
Berkman, E. T., Hutcherson, C. A., Livingston, J. L., Kahn, L. E., and Inzlicht, M. Duckworth, A. L., and Kern, M. L. (2011). A meta-analysis of the convergent
(2017). Self-control as a value-based choice. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 26, 422–428. validity of self- control measures. J. Res. Pers. 45, 259–268. doi: 10.1016/[Link].
doi: 10.1177/0963721417704394 2011.02.004
Carver, C. S., and Scheier, M. F. (1981). The self-attention-induced feedback loop Duckworth, A. L., and Seligman, M. E. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in
and social facilitation. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 17, 545–568. doi: 10.1016/0022- predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychol. Sci. 16, 939–944.
1031(81)90039-1 doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01641.x

Frontiers in Psychology | [Link] 4 July 2018 | Volume 9 | Article 1231

Gillebaart Operational Definition of Self-Control

Elfhag, K., and Morey, L. C. (2008). Personality traits and eating behavior in the Kirby, K. N., and Herrnstein, R. J. (1995). Preference reversals due to myopic
obese: poor self-control in emotional and external eating but personality assets discounting of delayed reward. Psychol. Sci. 6, 83–89. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.
in restrained eating. Eat. Behav. 9, 285–293. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2007.10.003 1995.tb00311.x
Ent, M. R., Baumeister, R. F., and Tice, D. M. (2015). Trait self-control and the Metcalfe, J., and Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of
avoidance of temptation. Pers. Individ. Dif. 74, 12–15. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2014. gratification: dynamics of willpower. Psychol. Rev. 106, 3–19. doi: 10.1037/0033-
09.031 295X.106.1.3
Evans, J. S. B. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social Milyavskaya, M., Berkman, E., and De Ridder, D. T. D. (2018). The many faces of
cognition. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59, 255–278. doi: 10.1146/[Link].59. self-control: tacit assumptions and recommendations to deal with them. Motiv.
103006.093629 Sci. doi: 10.1037/mot0000108
Fujita, K. (2011). On conceptualizing self-control as more than the effortful Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., and Rodriguez, M. I. (1989). Delay of gratification in
inhibition of impulses. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 15, 352–366. doi: 10.1177/ children. Science 244, 933–938. doi: 10.1126/science.2658056
1088868311411165 Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H.,
Galla, B. M., and Duckworth, A. L. (2015). More than resisting temptation: et al. (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and
beneficial habits mediate the relationship between self-control and positive life public safety. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 2693–2698. doi: 10.1073/pnas.
outcomes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 109, 508–525. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000026 1010076108
Gathergood, J. (2012). Self-control, financial literacy and consumer over- Muraven, M., and Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited
indebtedness. J. Econ. Psychol. 33, 590–602. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2011.11.006 resources: does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychol. Bull. 126, 247–259.
Gillebaart, M., and Adriaanse, M. A. (2017). Self-control predicts exercise behavior doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.247
by force of habit, a conceptual replication of Adriaanse et al.(2014). Front. Powers, W. T. (1973). Behavior: The Control of Perception. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Psychol. 8:190. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00190 Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., and Peake, P. K. (1990). Predicting adolescent cognitive and
Gillebaart, M., and De Ridder, D. (2017). “Positioning self-control in a dual- self- regulatory competencies from preschool delay of gratification: Identifying
systems framework,” in Routledge International Handbook of Self-Control in diagnostic conditions. Dev. Psychol. 26, 978–986. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.
Health and Well-Being, eds D. T. D. De Ridder, M. A. Adriaanse, and K. Fujita 26.6.978
(New York, NY: Routledge), 35–46. Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., and Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-
Gillebaart, M., and De Ridder, T. D. (2015). Effortless self-control: a novel control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and
perspective on response conflict strategies in trait self-control. Soc. Pers. Psychol. interpersonal success. J. Pers. 72, 271–324. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.
Compass 9, 88–99. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12160 00263.x
Gillebaart, M., Schneider, I. K., and De Ridder, D. T. (2016). Effects of trait self- Tice, D. M., and Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Longitudinal study of procrastination,
control on response conflict about healthy and unhealthy food. J. Pers. 84, performance, stress, and health: the costs and benefits of dawdling. Psychol. Sci.
789–798. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12219 8, 454–458. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00460.x
Gross, J. J. (2014). “Emotion regulation: conceptual and empirical foundations,” in Vohs, K. D., Finkenauer, C., and Baumeister, R. F. (2011). The sum of friends’ and
Handbook of Emotion Regulation, ed. J. J. Gross (New York, NY: Guilford Press), lovers’ self- control scores predicts relationship quality. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 2,
3–20. 138–145. doi: 10.1177/1948550610385710
Hofmann, W., Baumeister, R. F., Förster, G., and Vohs, K. D. (2012). Everyday
temptations: an experience sampling study of desire, conflict, and self-control. Conflict of Interest Statement: The author declares that the research was
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 102, 1318–1335. doi: 10.1037/a0026545 conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
Hofmann, W., Friese, M., and Strack, F. (2009). Impulse and self-control from a be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
dual-systems perspective. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 4, 162–176. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-
6924.2009.01116.x Copyright © 2018 Gillebaart. This is an open-access article distributed under the
Hofmann, W., Luhmann, M., Fisher, R. R., Vohs, K. D., and Baumeister, R. F. terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution
(2014). Yes, but are they happy? Effects of trait self-control on affective well- or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and
being and life satisfaction. J. Pers. 82, 265–277. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12050 the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or
Giroux. reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Frontiers in Psychology | [Link] 5 July 2018 | Volume 9 | Article 1231