Self-Control Relies on Glucose as a Limited Energy Source: Willpower Is More Than a Metaphor

Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1270, USA.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Impact Factor: 5.08). 03/2007; 92(2):325-36. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.325
Source: PubMed


The present work suggests that self-control relies on glucose as a limited energy source. Laboratory tests of self-control (i.e., the Stroop task, thought suppression, emotion regulation, attention control) and of social behaviors (i.e., helping behavior, coping with thoughts of death, stifling prejudice during an interracial interaction) showed that (a) acts of self-control reduced blood glucose levels, (b) low levels of blood glucose after an initial self-control task predicted poor performance on a subsequent self-control task, and (c) initial acts of self-control impaired performance on subsequent self-control tasks, but consuming a glucose drink eliminated these impairments. Self-control requires a certain amount of glucose to operate unimpaired. A single act of self-control causes glucose to drop below optimal levels, thereby impairing subsequent attempts at self-control.

Download full-text


Available from: Lauren Brewer, Apr 22, 2015
  • Source
    • "ion " ; Hagger , Wood , & Stiff , 2010 ; Baumeister & Heatherton , 1996 ) . To account for these findings , it is thought that self - control draws from a somewhat global , limited resource and that ex - hausting it reduces the amount ( or allocation ) of avail - able self - control resources to be deployed in the near future ( Baumeister , 2014 ; Gailliot et al . , 2007 ; Baumeister & Heatherton , 1996 ) . An alternative theory explains the decrement in self - control as a decrease in participants ' motivational state during the second task ( Inzlicht , Schmeichel , & Macrae , 2014 ) . Our results argue against the motivational account , as we found no pre - to - post changes in participants ' motivati"
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Controlling an inappropriate response tendency in the face of a reward-predicting stimulus likely depends on the strength of the reward-driven activation, the strength of a putative top-down control process, and their relative timing. We developed a rewarded go/no-go paradigm to investigate such dynamics. Participants made rapid responses (on go trials) to high versus low reward-predicting stimuli and sometimes had to withhold responding (on no-go trials) in the face of the same stimuli. Behaviorally, for high versus low reward stimuli, responses were faster on go trials, and there were more errors of commission on no-go trials. We used single-pulse TMS to map out the corticospinal excitability dynamics, especially on no-go trials where control is needed. For successful no-go trials, there was an early rise in motor activation that was then sharply reduced beneath baseline. This activation-reduction pattern was more pronounced for high- versus low-reward trials and in individuals with greater motivational drive for reward. A follow-on experiment showed that, when participants were fatigued by an effortful task, they made more errors on no-go trials for high versus low reward stimuli. Together, these studies show that, when a response is inappropriate, reward-predicting stimuli induce early motor activation, followed by a top-down effortful control process (which we interpret as response suppression) that depends on the strength of the preceding activation. Our findings provide novel information about the activation-suppression dynamics during control over reward-driven actions, and they illustrate how fatigue or depletion leads to control failures in the face of reward.
    Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 10/2015; · 4.09 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "That resource is largely assumed to be blood glucose. However, direct measurement of blood sugar levels (Fairclough and Houston, 2004; Gailliot et al., 2007) and metabolic rate (Huang et al., 2012) during cognitively demanding tasks show effects that are too small to account for the detrimental effects on performance that occur during a hypoglycemic state. We suggest that this apparent contradiction can be explained by accounting for the energy storage and buffer mechanism provided by astrocytic glycogen (c.f. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: While it is widely recognized that thinking is somehow costly, involving cognitive effort and producing mental fatigue, these costs have alternatively been assumed to exist, treated as the brain's assessment of lost opportunities, or suggested to be metabolic but with implausible biological bases. We present a model of cognitive cost based on the novel idea that the brain senses and plans for longer-term allocation of metabolic resources by purposively conserving brain activity. We identify several distinct ways the brain might control its metabolic output, and show how a control-theoretic model that models decision-making with an energy budget can explain cognitive effort avoidance in terms of an optimal allocation of limited energetic resources. The model accounts for both subject responsiveness to reward and the detrimental effects of hypoglycemia on cognitive function. A critical component of the model is using astrocytic glycogen as a plausible basis for limited energetic reserves. Glycogen acts as an energy buffer that can temporarily support high neural activity beyond the rate supported by blood glucose supply. The published dynamics of glycogen depletion and repletion are consonant with a broad array of phenomena associated with cognitive cost. Our model thus subsumes both the "cost/benefit" and "limited resource" models of cognitive cost while retaining valuable contributions of each. We discuss how the rational control of metabolic resources could underpin the control of attention, working memory, cognitive look ahead, and model-free vs. model-based policy learning.
    Frontiers in Neuroscience 09/2015; 9:289. DOI:10.3389/fnins.2015.00289 · 3.66 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Mischel and Ayduk (2004) proposed that a common mechanism, self-control, underlies the relationship between delay of gratification and future success. Self-control helps us to navigate our environment, taking us past salient temptations and toward the attainment of our goals (Gailliot et al., 2007). As desirable end states that one intends to attain through action (Kruglanski et al., 2002), goals dictate the deployment of self-control. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Self-control is required when the pursuit of focal goals conficts with the desire to indulge in temptations. As such, the characteristics of one’s focal goals may influence the likelihood of their attainment. The present work explored the hypothesis that highly restrictive goals increase the desire for, and the likelihood of indulging in, goal-damaging temptations. Highly restrictive goals can engender psychological reactance, a motivation to restore threatened freedom, by placing salient restrictions on the freedom to indulge in temptations. Consequently, one may indulge in those temptations in order to restore the threatened sense of freedom. Three experiments supported this hypothesis: Framing goals as highly restrictive caused greater desire for (Studies 1 and 2), and more behavioral indulgence in (Study 3), goal-damaging temptations. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
    SAGE Open 08/2015; 5(3). DOI:10.1177/2158244015602751
Show more