Building consumer self-control: The effect of self-control exercises on impulse buying urges

Abstract

In this research, the effects of self-control exercises on impulse buying urges are examined. Drawing on the strength model
of self-control (Baumeister and Heatherton 1996, Psychological Inquiry 7:1–15), the present paper aims to shed light on impulsive
buying by exploring the impact of enhancement of self-control as a result of repeated physical and cognitive self-control
exercises over time. The findings showed that these self-control exercises reduced impulse buying urges. Directions for future
research are discussed.

Full text

Building consumer self-control: The effect of self-control
exercises on impulse buying urges
Abdullah J. Sultan & Jeff Joireman & David E. Sprott
#
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011
Abstract In this research, the effects of self-control exercises on impulse buying
urges are examined. Drawing on the strength model of self-control (Baumeister and
Heatherton 1996, Psychological Inquiry 7:1–15), the present paper aims to shed light
on impulsive buying by exploring the impact of enhancement of self-control a s a
result of repeated physical and cognitive self-control exercises over time. The
findings showed that these self-control exercises reduced impulse buying urges.
Directions for future research are discussed.
Keywords Impulse buying
.
Self-control
.
Self-regulation
.
Ego depletion
Impulsive buying has been estimated to account for over $4 billion in retail store
sales (Mogelonsky 1998). Given its pervasiveness, researchers have been keen to
identify the underlying causes of impulsive buying. One model that has recently
been used to understand impulsive buying is the strength model of self-control
(Baumeister and Heatherton 1996; Vohs and Faber 2007). Applied to impulsive
buying, the strength model assumes that a consumer’s ability to control urges to
engage in impulsive buying can (a) become temporarily depleted as a result of prior
self-control efforts (a depletion effect) and (b) be built up over time through repeated
self-control exercises (an exercise effect). The present research focuses on the latter
by exploring whether simple physical and cognitive exercises, practiced over the
course of 2 weeks, can reduce consumers’ urges and intentions to engage in
impulsive buying.
Mark Lett
DOI 10.1007/s11002-011-9135-4
A. J. Sultan (*)
Department of Management and Marketing, Kuwait University, P.O. Box 5486, Safat 13055, Kuwait
e-mail: asultan@cba.edu.kw
J. Joireman
:
D. E. Sprott
Department of Marketing, Washington State University, P.O. Box 644730, Pullman, WA 99164-4730,
USA

1 Theoretical background
Rook (1987, p. 191) defines impulse buying as “a sudden, often powerful and
persistent urge to buy something immedi ately” and suggests that impulsive buying is
more emotional rather than rational, while Bea tty and Ferrell (1998, p. 170) view
impulse buying as “a sudden and immediate purchase with no pre-shopping
intentions either to buy the specific product category or to fulfill a specific buying
task.” This behavior occurs after experiencing an urge to buy and tends to be
spontaneous (Beatty and Ferrell 1998). Our definition of impulse buying is aligned
with those of these researchers. That is, we believe that impulse buying may occur
after experiencin g an urge to buy, without going through a deliberate thought process
and weighing options carefully (cf. Dholakia et al. 2005). Whether one views
impulsive buying as an urge or a behavior, resear ch clear ly indi cates that there are
many factors that trigger impulse buying.
A central theme underlying much recent research on impulse buying is the
concept of self-control (Baumeister 2002; Faber and Vohs 2004). Hoch and
Loewenstein (1991) view consumer self-control as an ever-shifting conflict between
desire and willpower (cf. Dholakia 2000; Metcalfe and Mischel 1999; Shiv and
Fedorikhin 1999; Strack and Deutsch 2004). When the desire for a product surpasses
consumers’ intentions to not make a purchas e, impulse buying can occur. This
suggests that two separate mechanisms are involved with impulsive buying, namely
(1) the desire to buy and (2) the ability to exercise self-control over this urge.
Self-control refers to one’s “ability to control or override one’s thoughts,
emotions, urges, and behavior” (Gailliot et al. 2007, p. 325). A prominent view of
self-control is the strength model (Baumeister and Heatherton 1996; Baumeister et
al. 2000). This view recognizes the importance of stable individual differences in
trait self-control and temporary fluctuations in state self-control. For example,
research clearly supports the idea that self-control is a personality trait that remains
fairly constant over one’s lifetime (e.g., Mischel et al. 1989; Tangney et al. 2004).
Along these lines, researchers have linked lower levels of impulse buying to
personality traits related to self-control, including conscientiousness (Verplanken and
Herabadi 2001), consideration of future consequences (Joireman et al. 2005), and
elaboration on potential outcomes (Nenkov et al. 2008).
Other studies demonstrate that self-control is susceptible to temporary variations
based on the situation. According to the strength model, this occurs because self-
control operates like a muscle: in the short run, self-regulatory resources can become
consumed as a result of closely sequenced acts of self-control (just as a muscle can
become immediately fatigued following physical exertion; an ego depletion effect);
yet, over the long run, self-control can also be strengthened through repeated self-
control exercises (like a muscle can be strengthened over time through physical
training; an exercise effect).
1.1 Depletion effects
Ego depletion effects were first demonstrated by Muraven et al. (1998) who showed
that when participants initially regulated their emotions or engage d in thought
suppression, they subsequently evidenced reduced physical stamina, less persistence
Mark Lett

at unsolvable anagrams, and a weaker ability to regulate their emotions. In another
paper, Baumeister et al. (1998) reported similar results using different depletion
manipulations (eating radishes rather than cookies; engaging in attitude-inconsistent
behavior; and completing a complex set of editing procedures) and different
subsequent self-regulatory tasks (unsolvable puzzles and a test of passive
responding).
Building on these initial findings, many studies have supported the strength
model, several of which bear directly on consumer behavior. For example, Vohs and
Heatherton (2000 ) demonstrated that when chronic dieters first resisted a tempting
array of snacks, or regulated their emotions, they later showed less persistence at
unsolvable anagrams and ate more ice cream. Using dependent measures more
closely aligned with impulsive buying, studies have shown that controlling negative
emotions increases participation in lottery games (Bruyneel et al. 2009), and making
repeated choices—shown to deplete regulatory resources (Vohs et al. 2008) —
increases reliance on affective features of a product (Bruyneel et al. 2006). Other
research has demonstrated that responding to initial requests in multiple-stage
compliance techniques (foot-in-the-door) leads to self-regulatory depletion and
subsequent compliance with charitable requests (Fennis et al. 2009). More directly
relevant is recent research by Oaten and Cheng (2005) showing that academic stress
(brought on by exams) is associated with significant increases in smoking, eating
junk food, and impulsive spending, and by Vohs and Faber (2007)who
demonstrated that participants whose self-regulatory resources had been experimen-
tally depleted felt stronger urges to buy, were willing to spend more, and actually did
spend more in unanticipated buying situations.
1.2 Exercise effects
While most research on the strength model of self-control has focused on regulatory
depletion, an important implic ation of the strength model is that capacity for self-
control can, like a muscle, grow stronger over time through repeated self-control
exercises. In general, there are two ways in which self-regul atory strength could be
improved: power (an increase in the simple baseline capacity) and stamina (a
reduction in vulnerability to fatigue). A number of researchers have provi ded
evidence that supports the ways in which this muscular strength can be increased.
For example, Muraven et al. (1999) had participants perform one of three different
types of self-control exercises over a 2-week period (i.e., improving posture,
regulating emotion, or keeping a food diary). Results revealed that posture and food
diary exercises improved self-control resources (physical stamina) following a
thought-suppression task as compared to a control group. The emotion-regulation
exercise, however, yielded results no different from the no-exercise control group,
which may have been due to the fact that people often regulate emotions and hence
an emotion-regulation exercise provided no additional benefit.
A series of studies by Oaten and Cheng provided additional support for the
hypothesis that repeated self-control exercises improve self-control over time. These
studies focused on two outcome measures, including a visual tracking experiment
under distraction (a measure of sustained attention), and a collection of self-
regulatory behaviors (smoking, alcohol consumption, dietary habits, physical
Mark Lett

activity, and consumer behaviors). Oaten and Cheng (2006a) assigned students to a
physical exercise condition or a waitlist control condition. Those in the exercise
condition showed improvements on the visual tracking task (under conditions of ego
depletion) and increases in self-reported self-regulatory behaviors over time. In two
other studies, Oaten and Cheng (2006b, 2007) explored the impact of real-world
self-regulatory exercise by testing students at two points during an acad emic
semester (no exam baseline vs. exam period). Half of the students were randomly
assigned to engage in a regul ar study plan (Oaten and Cheng 2006a) or financial
monitoring (Oaten and Cheng 2007) over time. In both studies, performance on the
visual tracking experiment improved, and students reported improved self-control
across a variety of domains, including reductions in self-reported impulsive buying.
Overall, the preceding research provides empirical evidence that consumers can in
fact be trained to build up self-control resources over time through repeated self-
control exercises. In other words, consumers should show lower impulsive urges
following an extended period of self-control exercises (relative to contr ol condition
consumers who do not build up their self-control resour ces through repeated
exercises). Although the depletion model of self-control has been tested in numerous
settings, relatively little research has focused on testing the benefits of self-control
exercises on impulse buying, and much of the previous research on exercise effects
has focused on the impact of relatively challenging exercises. Thus, our primary goal
for this work is to explore the impact of simple physical and cognitive exercises,
practiced over a brief 2-week time span on impulsive buying urges and intentions.
2 Experiment
2.1 Method
Undergraduate students (n=178) from a large US university participated in exchange
for partial course credit. In the first phase of the study, participants completed two
individual difference measures, including the 9-item trait Buying Impulsiveness
Scale (BIS; Rook and Fisher 1995) and a 13-item brief trait Self-Control Scale (SCS;
Tangney et al. 2004). Two example items on the BIS read: “I often buy things
spontaneously” and “I see it, I buy it describes me” (1=strongly agree to 9=strongly
disagree). Two example items on the SCS read: “I am good at resisting temptation”
and “I have a hard time breaking bad habits” (recoded; 1=not at all to 9=very
much). Both scales demon strated acceptable reliability (BIS α =0.90; SCS α =0.83).
In the second phase of the study, participants were assigned to a control or an
exercise treatment condition, following procedures used in past research (Mur aven et
al. 1999). After a 2-week exercise (or no exercise) period, participants returned to the
lab and responded to the impulsive buying scenario.
To enhance the generalizability of our findings, we conducted two successive
(replication) studies involving two different types of exercise (cognitive and
physical, as subsequently detailed). In both studies, participants in the exercise
conditions performed assigned exercises for 2 weeks following the measurement of
the individual difference (i.e., trait BIS and trait SCS). By comparison, in both
studies, participants in the no exercise control conditions were not asked to perform
Mark Lett

any activities during the 2-week period between the initial and subseq uent phases of
the study. In the final phase, all participants were presented with a scenario depicting
an impulsive buying situation (Dholakia et al. 2006) and completed the focal
dependent measures (i.e., impulsive buying urges and intentions scenario; details to
follow).
In the first study (n=33), participants in the exercise condition were instructed to
engage in a cognitive exercise (i.e., the Stroop color naming task; Stroop 1935).
Specifically, participants were instructed to name the color of words presented on a
screen (e.g., if the word blue appears in red, the respondent should say “red” ).
Because the perceiver’s tendency is to name the word itself (rather than the color of
the text), the Stroop exercise requires cognitive control and an a bility to focus one’s
attention. While previous research has used the Stroop task as an ego depletion task
(Bruyneel et al. 2009), we reasoned that requiring participants to engage in the
Stroop task over a period of 2 weeks would build self-control resources, as
participants gradually learned to improve their performance on the task. In the
current study, the Stroop task was administered via a web site on which participants
were asked to type the color of ink in which each word (the name of a different
color) was printed. The color of the text was changed after each visit to reduce
participants’ familiarity with the exercise. To increase compliance, participants were
periodically sent an email reminding them to perform the Stroop exercise.
In the second study (n=145), participants in the exercise condition were
instructed to engage in a physical exercise (i.e., sitting up straight and walking
erectly). Specifically, participants were instructed to visit a website every few days
for a period of 2 weeks where they typed words appearing in an article provided to
them and were asked to maintain good posture (and to avoid bad posture) while
completing the task. Good and bad postures were illustrated on the website via
pictures of individuals sittin g appropriately (vs. inappropriately). Individuals in the
pictures were two PhD students unknown to the research participants. Further,
participants in the physical inte rvention were asked to walk erectly during the
2-week period on a daily basis. To ensure that they followed the correct method,
participants were provided with a procedure and pictures that would help them
sustain a good posture as they walked. As in the cognitive exercise study,
participants were periodically sent an email reminding them to log onto the website
and perform the relevant physical exercises.
After the 2-week exercise (or no exercise) period, all participants were brought to
the lab to respond to the impulse buying scenario developed by Dholakia et al.
(2006). Specifically, participants were asked to put themselves in the place of Ms.
(Mr.) A in the following impulse buying scenario and then indicate their urge and
intentions to buy the described shirt:
Ms. (Mr.) A is a 22-year old college student with a part-time job. It is two days
before she (he) gets the next paycheck and at present, she (he) has only $40 left
for necessities in her (his) bank account. In addition, she (he) does have two
credit cards that she (he) sometimes uses. Today, Ms. (Mr.) A needs to buy a
pair of shoes for an upcoming party this weekend. After work, she (he) goes
with her (his) friend Ms. (Mr.) B to the mall to purchase the shoes. As they are
walking in the mall, Ms. (Mr.) A sees a great looking shirt on sale. The helpful
Mark Lett

salesperson tells Ms. (Mr.) A that they hav e just one piece left in her (his) size,
and it is unlikely that they will get more pieces in this style in the future.
To verify the realism of the scenario, we asked a separate group of upper division
marketing majors (n=28) to read the scenario and (a) rate whether they believed the
scenario was realistic (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree); (b) rate whether
they believed the scenario was believable (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly
agree), and (c) indicate how likely they would be to encounter a situation similar to
the one described in the scenario (1 = very unlikely to 7 very likely). Reliability
analysis indicated that the three items could be combined to form a scale (alpha=
0.74). Importantly, the mean on this three-item realism scale (M=5.77, SD=0.99)
was comfortably above the scale midpoint of 4, t(27)=9.52, p<0.001. Analysis of
the individual items yielded identical results (all ps<0.001). Taken together, these
results suggest that participants viewed the scenario as realisti c.
Once they had read the scenario, participants in the main study indicated how
they would respond to the scenario. In keeping with Roo k ’s original definition, we
focus on the urge to engage in impulsive buying, assuming it represents an important
precursor of actual impulsive buying behavior (cf. Beatty and Ferrell 1998; Dholakia
2000; Dholakia et al. 2005; Herabadi et al. 2009). Participants indicated their urge to
buy the shirt with two items (α =0.89): “I would feel a strong urge to buy the shirt if
I were Ms. (Mr.) A” and “If I were Ms. (Mr.) A, I would want to purchase the shirt.”
Participants also indicated their behavioral intentions by responding to the statement:
“I will certainly buy the shirt.” All measures used a nine-point scale (1 = strongly
disagree to 9 = strongly agree).
While we aimed for balanced cell sizes, the exercise treatment conditions had
fewer participants (n=58) than the no exercise treatments (n=120), collapsing across
the cognitive/physical exercise studies. The uneven cell sizes were partly due to a
higher level of attrition among those in the exercise conditions. As one reviewer
aptly noted, this differential attrition deserves careful attention, given our focus on
self-control and impulsive buying. In theory, if participants who completed the
2-week exercise treatmen t were higher in trait SCS or lower in trait BIS than those
dropped out, these pre-existing individual differences might bias the results in favor
of the study’s main hypothesis (i.e., that those in the exercise treatment should show
lower impulsive buying urges) and render the results less meaningful. To check this
possibility, we conducted two different analyses. First, we compared the final
exercise and no exercise control conditions on the two individual difference
measures in question (i.e., BIS and SCS). Counter to the potential concern noted
above, resul ts revealed that the final exercise and no exercise conditions did not
differ on either the trait BIS (M
Exercise
=4.44, M
No Exercise
=4.17, t(175)=1.09, ns) or
the trait SCS (M
Exercise
=4.92, M
No Exercise
=5.07, t(175)=0.86, ns). Second, we
compared participants who stayed in the exercise conditions to those who dropped
out of the exercise conditions. Once again, counter to the raised concern, results
revealed that those who remained in the exercise conditions and those who dropped
out of the exercise conditions did not differ on either the trait BIS (M
Remained
=4.35,
M
Dropped Out
=4.16, t(250)=0.46, ns) or the trait SCS (M
Remained
=5.00, M
Dropped Out
=
5.05, t(250)=0.81, ns). In sum, while notably more people dropped out of the
exercise conditions than the no exercise conditions, the differential attrition did not
Mark Lett

systematically bias the conditions in fa vor of (or against) the e xperimental
hypothesis.
Of those who stayed in the exercise treatment conditions, compliance was
reasonably high. For example, 62% of participants who were assigned to the
cognitive exercise treatment performed the exercise more than four times during the
2-week period. On average, each website visit lasted for about 3 min. Moreover,
82% of participants who were assigned to the physical e xercise treatment performed
the exercise more than four times during the 2-week period. On average, they spent
5 min performing the exercise each time they logged onto the website.
2.2 Results
The primary goal of the present study was to test the hypothesis that distributed
exercise over time would lead to reductions in impulsive buying urges and
intentions. As noted above, to enhance the generalizability of our findings, we
conducted two successive (replication) studies to test this hypothesis (the cognitive
exercise study and the physical exercise study). In each study, participants were
randomly assigned to either the control condition or the exercise condition. To
analyze the data, we first conducted a 2 (Experimental Treatment: exercise versus no
exercise) × 2 (Intervention Type: cognitive versus physical) between-su bjects
ANOVA on purchase desirability and purchase intentions. Our main goal in these
analyses was to determine whether experimental treatment (exercise, no exercise)
interacted with intervention type (cognitive, physical), or whether the effect of the
treatment generalized over intervention type. Results revealed nonsignificant
interactions on both desirability and purchase intentions (both p values>0.36).
Results also revealed nonsignificant main effects of intervention type on both
desirability and purchase intentions (both p values>0.15). In sum, results reveal that
the effect of experimental treatment was not influenced by the intervention type.
Accordingly, for our primary analysis, we collapsed across intervention type and
focused solely on the effect of experimental treatment on purchase desirability and
intentions using independent sample t tests. Means were in the expected direction:
relative to those in the no exercise control group, participants in the exercise
treatment expressed a significantly lower desire to purchase the shirt (M
Exercise
=5.16,
M
No Exercise
=5.96, t(176)=2.03, p<0.05) and significantly lower purchase intentions
(M
Exercise
=2.98, M
No Exercise
=3.95, t(176)=2.65, p<0.01).
3 Discussion
The present research aimed to extend past research linking self-control enhancement
with impulsive buying urges. In the main experiment, we stre ngthened participants’
self-control resources, and reduced impulsive buying urges, via repeated physical
and cognitive exercises over the course of a 2-week time span, thus conceptually
replicating and extending several past studies (e.g., Muraven et al. 1999; Oaten and
Cheng 2006a, b, 2007). While prior studies have shown the benefits of physical
exercise (Oaten and Cheng 2006b) and posture exercises (Muraven et al. 1999), to
our knowledge, no prior studies have explored the benefits of repeated cognitive
Mark Lett

exercises, such as the Stroop task we used in the experiment. That a simple cognitive
exercise can enhance self-control (and reduce impulsive buying urges) is potentially
quite promising, especially for those who do not wish to, or cannot, engage in
physical exercise. Future studies testing the benefits of additional cognitive exercises
could yield practical insights into relatively easy and cost-free methods for
improving self-regulation.
4 Possible mechanisms underlying the exercise effect
Based on the strength model of self-regulation (Baumeister and Heatherton 1996), the
present results suggest that just as exercise can strengthen a muscle over time, repeated
physical or cognitive exercises can increase people’s self-control resources over time.
While the muscle analogy has served as a useful framework for understanding self-
control depletion and enhancement, it must be acknowledged that the current study
does not provide direct evidence for the mediating mechanisms responsible for these
effects. In fact, while ruling out several alternative explanations (e.g., increased self-
efficacy, reduced distress; Baumeister et al. 2006), very few studies have directly
demonstrated the mediating mechanisms responsible for depletion and enhancement
effects. However, several recent studies suggest that depletion and enhancement
effects are linked to real neurological and physiological mechanisms.
For example, Inzlicht and Gutsell (2007) recently demonstrated that ego depletion
effects are linked with reduced activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, a part of the
brain responsible for monitoring conflicts between intended and actual responses.
Typically, the conflict monitoring system transfers information about discrepancies
(intended vs. actual response) to a second regulatory system located within the
prefrontal cortex, which then brings responses in line with intended responses and
reduces the competing or unintended responses. Under conditions of ego depletion,
the conflict monitoring system is compromised, leading to a reduced ability to detect
discrepancies between intended and actual responses. Other research, however,
suggests that while the ACC monitors the need for control, it is the dorsolateral
prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) that is responsible for a person’s ability to enact self-
regulation (Richeson et al. 2003). Along similar lines, additional research suggests
that ego depletion compromises higher order thought processes located within the
prefrontal cortex (e.g., Schmeichel 2007; Schmeichel et al. 2003; Schmeichel et al.
2008; Vohs 2006). Complementing these findings, Gailliot et al. (2007) have
provided clear evidence that self-regulatory tasks lead to reductions in blood
glucose, and that administration of a glucose drink following a self -control task can
eliminate the typical ego depletion effect (cf. Gailliot and Baumeister 2007). When
combined the studies just reviewed suggest that self-control tasks are likely to reduce
the “fuel” necessary for optimal functioning of the conflict monitoring and
regulatory systems, whi ch, in turn, are responsible for subsequent self-regulation.
Taken one step further, this line of reasoning has potential implications for how
repeated self-control exercises over time enhance capacity for self-regulation. Recall
that in each of their studies, Oaten and Cheng (2006a, b, 2007)showedthatvarious
forms of exercise (physical exercise, financial monitoring, and academic study
program) resulted in improvements in performance on a visual tracking task that
Mark Lett

involved ignoring a distracting stimulus (a measure of attention regulation). We
suspect that Oaten and Cheng’s findings point to improvements in the conflict
monitoring system and corresponding reductions in susceptibility to self-regulatory
depletion. If true, this would help to explain why the current studies revealed that
physical and cognitive exercises reduced impulsive buying tendencies. Often, as in our
studies, impulsive buying involves abandoning a planned purchase in favor of a more
spontaneous purchase option that is available in the retail environment. This situation
would seem to map on well to both the visual tracking experiments of Oaten and
Cheng, and the functioning of the conflict monitoring system. If a consumer plans to
purchase one product, but then is faced with a tempting impulse purchase, there
should be a discrepancy between the intended response (the planned purchase) and the
unintended response (the impulse purchase). Assuming the consumer’s self-control
resources have been depleted, the conflict monitoring system (located in the ACC) and
executive control system (located in the DLPFC) should not function as well, which
should in turn increase the likelihood of impulsive buying. However, if a consumer
repeatedly engages in physical or cognitive exercises that require those systems to
adapt, those systems should become generally more efficient at monitoring conflict
between intended and impulse purchase options, and exerting control over unintended
responses, and the consumer may become better able to stay focused on the planned
purchase, and suppress the urge to engage in impulsive buying (cf. Dholakia 2000).
Future research, using a paradigm similar to the one employed by Inzlicht and Gutsell
(2007), could profitably explore these possibilities.
5 Practical implications
The current research suggests that impulsive behaviors can in fact be reduced when
people attempt to improve their self-control over time through exercise. If
individuals learn to strengthen their capacity for self-control through physical or
cognitive exercises, they might be able to reduce subsequent impulsive purchases
and hence exert control over their responses and purchasing behaviors. Therefore,
this research further develops our understanding of the causes of impulse buying and
offers a solution to help people control their behaviors by exercising self-control in
their daily life. Because our focus was on a hypothetical impulsive buying scenario,
future research should replicate these findings in more naturalistic settings.
6 Limitations and future directions
The present studies have some limitations that should be kept in mind and addressed
in future research. First, our study is based on relatively small samples. To have
further confidence in the stability of these results, additional replications and
extensions are encouraged that employ different samples. Despite this, the results of
the study were as predicted, replicating and extending past research on ego
depletion, exercise, and impulsive buying urges. Second, the attrition rate was higher
in the exercise treatment than in the no exercise treatment, theoretically introducing a
possible confound. However, participants in the exercise and no exercise treatments
Mark Lett

did not differ significantly on trait buying impulsiveness or trait self-control,
diminishing concerns that differential attrition confounded the results. Third, this paper
used a hypothetical scenario to operationalize impulse buying. Although this approach
has been used in previous research (Dholakia et al. 2006), and while our data further
validated the perceived realism of the scenario, future researchers should consider this
issue and test these concepts in real-world settings. Finally, while the present results
were consistent with predictions and past research, and while results generalized
across two forms of exercise, the present studies did not directly test the mechanism
underlying these effects. Drawing on recent work by Inzlicht and Gutsell (2007),
Richeson et al. (2003), Schmeichel et al. (2003, 2008), and Gailliot et al. (2007), we
outlined what we believe to be a promising explanation (ego depletion challenges,
while exercise enhances, the conflict monitoring system located in the ACC and the
executive control system located in the DLPFC, both of which are theoretically linked
with impulsive buying). One benefit of this explanation is that it is based on
neurological and physiological mechanisms that are directly open to testing.
Several other (nonmutually exclusive) mechanisms could help explain the results
and serve as profitable lines for future resear ch. One such explanation focuses on the
role meta-cognitive processes relate to self-regulation. Research demonstrates that
people implicitly believe that prior self-regulatory tasks lead to subsequent
decrements in self-control, but when those beliefs are challenged ego depletion
effects are elimin ated (Martijn et al. 2002). In a similar vein, recent research
indicates that perceived ego depletion is a more important determinant of subsequent
self-control failure than is actual depletion (Clarkson et al. 2010). These lines of
research could shed light on how repeated exerci se enhances self-control across a
variety of domains including impulsive buying, gambl ing, drinking, and eating.
Specifically, it is possible that, over time, as a person engages in physical or
cognitive exercises, they learn to challenge the belief that self-control is always
depleting. If true, these new “resiliency beliefs” could then serve as important
buffers against ego depletion in situations requiring self-control (e.g., when faced
with an impulse purchase decision). Future research testing this line of reasoning
would help further enlighten the ways in which repeated exercise over time
contributes to self-control.
References
Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Yielding to temptation: self-control failure, impulsive purchasing, and consumer
behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 670–676.
Baumeister, R. F., & Heatherton, T. F. (1996). Self-regulation failure: an overview. Psychological Inquiry,
7,1–15.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: is the active self a
limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252–1265.
Baumeister, R. F., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (2000). Ego depletion: a resource model of volition, self-
regulation, and controlled processing. Social Cognition, 18(2), 130–150.
Baumeister, R. F., Gaillot, M., DeWall, C. N., & Oaten, M. (2006). Self-regulation and personality: how
interventions increase regulatory success, and how depletion moderates the effects of traits on
behavior. Journal of Personality, 74(6), 1773–1802.
Beatty, S. E., & Ferrell, M. E. (1998). Impulse buying: modeling its precursors. Journal of Retailing, 74
(2), 169–191.
Mark Lett

Bruyneel, S., Dewitte, S., Vohs, K. D., & Warlop, L. (2006). Repeated choosing increases
susceptibility to affective product features. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23,
215–225.
Bruyneel, S., Dewitte, S., Franses, P. H., & Dekimpe, M. G. (2009). I felt low and my purse feels light:
depleting mood regulation attempts affect risk decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision
Making, 22, 153–170.
Clarkson, J. J., Hirt, E. R., Jia, L., & Alexander, M. B. (2010). When perception is more than reality: The
effects of perceived versus actual resource depletion on self-regulatory behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 98(1), 29–46.
Dholakia, U. M. (2000). Temptation and resistance: an integrated model of consumption impulse
formation and enactment. Psychology and Marketing, 17, 955–982.
Dholakia, U. M., Gopinath, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2005). The role of desires in sequential impulsive
choices. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98, 179–194.
Dholakia, U. M., Gopinath, M., Bagozzi, R. P., & Nataraahan, R. (2006). The role of regulatory focus in the
experience and self-control of desire for temptations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16, 163–175.
Faber, R. J., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). To buy or not to buy?: self-control and self-regulatory failure in
purchase behavior. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: research,
theory, and applications (pp. 509–524). New York: Guilford Press.
Fennis, B. M., Janssen, L., & Vohs, K. D. (2009). Acts of benevolence: a limited-resource account of
compliance with charitable requests. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 906–924.
Gailliot, M. T., & Baumeister, R. F. (2007). The physiology of willpower: linking blood glucose to self-
control. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 303–327.
Gailliot, M. T., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Maner, J. K., Plant, E. A., Tice, D. M., et al. (2007).
Self-control relies on glucose as limited energy source: willpower is more than a metaphor. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 325–336.
Herabadi, A. G., Verplanken, B., & van Knippenberg, A. (2009). Consumption experience of impulsive
buying in Indonesia: emotional arousal and hedonistic considerations. Asian Journal of Social
Psychology, 12,20–31.
Hoch, S. J., & Loewenstein, G. F. (1991). Time-in-consistent preferences and consumer self-control.
Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 492–507.
Inzlicht, M., & Gutsell, J. N. (2007). Running on empty: neural signals for self-control failure.
Psychological Science, 18, 933–937.
Joireman, J., Sprott, D. E., & Spangenberg, E. R. (2005). Fiscal responsibility and consideration of future
consequences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1159–1168.
Martijn, C., Tenbült, P., Merckelbach, H., Dreezens, E., & de Vries, N. K. (2002). Getting a grip on ourselves:
challenging expectancies about loss of energy after self-control. Social Cognition, 20,441–460.
Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: dynamics of
willpower. Psychological Review, 106,3–19.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (1989). Delay of gratification in children.
Science, 244(4907),
933–938.
Mogelonsky, M. (1998). Keep candy in the aisles. American Demographics, 20(July 1), 32.
Muraven, M., Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Self-control as a limited resource: regulatory
depletion patterns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 774–789.
Muraven, M., Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (1999). Longitudinal improvement of self-regulation
through practice: Building self-control strength through repeated exercise. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 139, 446–457.
Nenkov, G. Y., Inman, J. J., & Hulland, J. (2008). Considering the future: the conceptualization and
measurement of elaboration on potential outcomes. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 126–141.
Oaten, M., & Cheng, K. (2005). Academic examination stress impairs self-control. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 24, 254–279.
Oaten, M., & Cheng, K. (2006a). Longitudinal gains in self-regulation from regular physical exercise.
British Journal of Health Psychology, 11, 717–733.
Oaten, M., & Cheng, K. (2006b). Improved self-control: the benefits of a regular program of academic
study. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28,1–16.
Oaten, M., & Cheng, K. (2007). Improvements in self-control from financial monitoring. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 28, 487–501.
Richeson, J. A., Baird, A. A., Gordon, H. L., Heatherton, T. F., Wyland, C. L., Trawalter, S., et al. (2003).
An fMRI investigation of the impact of interracial contact on executive function. Nature
Neuroscience, 6, 1323–1328.
Mark Lett

Rook, D. W. (1987). The buying impulse. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 189–199.
Rook, D. W., & Fisher, R. J. (1995). Normative influences on impulsive buying behavior. Journal of
Consumer Research, 22, 305–313.
Schmeichel, B. J. (2007). Attention control, memory updating, and emotion regulation temporarily reduce
the capacity for executive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 241–255.
Schmeichel, B. J., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Intellectual performance and ego depletion:
role of the self in logical reasoning and other information processing. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 85,33–46.
Schmeichel, B. J., Volokhov, R. N., & Demaree, H. A. (2008). Working memory capacity and the self-
regulation of emotional expression and experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95,
1526–1540.
Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and mind in conflict: the interplay of affect and cognition in
consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 278–292.
Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 8, 220–247.
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
18, 643–662.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less
pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271–324.
Verplanken, B., & Herabadi, A. (2001). Individual differences in impulsive buying tendency: feeling and
no thinking. European Journal of Personality, 15, S71–S83.
Vohs, K. D. (2006). Self-regulatory resources power the reflective system: evidence from five domains.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16, 215–221.
Vohs, K. D., & Faber, R. J. (2007). Spent resources: self-regulatory resource availability affects impulse
buying. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 537–547.
Vohs, K. D., & Heatherton, T. F. (2000). Self-regulatory failure: a resource-depletion approach.
Psychological Science, 11(3), 249–254.
Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., Schmeichel, B. J., Twenge, J. M., Nelson, N. M., & Tice, D. M. (2008).
Making choices impairs subsequent self-control: a limited-resource account of decision making, self-
regulation, and active initiative. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 883–898.
Mark Lett