ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

People constantly experience a tug‐of‐war between their self‐control on one end and their temptations on the other. Although a great deal of research has examined such self‐control dilemmas, much of it has focused on the “push” of self‐control rather than the “pull” of temptations. To facilitate future work on this latter construct, we sought to create a taxonomy of temptations. Using a top‐down approach, we relied on the philosophical and historical concept of the seven deadly sins—gluttony, greed, lust, sloth, envy, pride, and wrath—to identify and define the most commonly experienced temptations. In support of this taxonomy, we review evidence for the role that self‐control plays in resisting each of these seven temptation domains, including work on trait self‐control and momentary exertions of self‐control. Where applicable, we identify areas where research is lacking and make suggestions for future work. Lastly, we discuss how this taxonomy offers researchers both theoretical and practical benefits.
ARTICLE
Lead us not into temptation: The seven deadly sins
as a taxonomy of temptations
Edward Burkley
1
|Melissa Burkley
1
|Jessica Curtis
2
|
Thomas Hatvany
1
1
Oklahoma State University
2
Arkansas State University
Correspondence
Edward Burkley, Department of Psychology,
Oklahoma State University, 116 N. Murray,
Stillwater, OK 74074.
Email: ed.burkley@okstate.edu
Abstract
People constantly experience a tugofwar between
their selfcontrol on one end and their temptations on the
other. Although a great deal of research has examined such
selfcontrol dilemmas, much of it has focused on the push
of selfcontrol rather than the pullof temptations. To
facilitate future work on this latter construct, we sought
to create a taxonomy of temptations. Using a topdown
approach, we relied on the philosophical and historical
concept of the seven deadly sinsgluttony, greed, lust,
sloth, envy, pride, and wrathto identify and define the
most commonly experienced temptations. In support of this
taxonomy, we review evidence for the role that selfcontrol
plays in resisting each of these seven temptation domains,
including work on trait selfcontrol and momentary exertions
of selfcontrol. Where applicable, we identify areas where
research is lacking and make suggestions for future work.
Lastly, we discuss how this taxonomy offers researchers
both theoretical and practical benefits.
1|INTRODUCTION
I can resist everything except temptation. Oscar Wilde (1893)
Life is full of temptations. Each day, we are forced to make decisions between what we know we should do
(e.g., eat a kale salad) and what we wish we could do (e.g., eat a cheeseburger). These everyday dilemmas reflect
a tugofwar between our selfcontrol on one end and our impulses and desires on the other (Baumeister, 2014;
Hofmann, Friese, & Strack, 2009; James, 1890).
Although a great deal of research has studied the selfcontrol side of this conflict, far less attention has been paid to the
desire side. The goal of this article was to provide a taxonomy of commonly experienced temptations. In doing so, we strived
to provide researchers with a tool for systematically identifying and analyzing the influence of temptations in everyday life.
DOI: 10.1111/spc3.12416
Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2018;e12416.
https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12416
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltdwileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/spc3 1of16
Although a few studies have attempted to identify the dominant temptation domains, this work has largely been
datadriven and, as a result, offers an unorganized view of temptations. To complement this bottomup approach, we
adopted a topdown approach to create our taxonomy. Specifically, we assert that the historical designation of the
seven deadly sinsgluttony, greed, lust, sloth, envy, pride, and wrathprovides a template for understanding what
tempts people most of the time.
In this article, we assert that the seven deadly sins are a useful taxonomy for people's major temptations.
As such, we review research that indicates how giving in to each of these temptation domains is linked to low
selfcontrol. Where applicable, we identify areas where research on a particular temptation is lacking and make
suggestions for future work.
2|THE BATTLE BETWEEN TEMPTATION AND RESTRAINT
In our textbook Motivation Science, we use the analogy of a rider on a stubborn mule to demonstrate the nature of
selfcontrol dilemmas (Burkley & Burkley, 2018). In this analogy, the untamed mule represents the pullof our
impulses and desires. Whenever we want something or want to do something, we feel desire (Hofmann & Van Dillen,
2012). Although we all experience the allure of desire, the exact nature of our desires vary in terms of their (a) focus
(what we desire) and (b) strength (how strongly we desire it; Hofmann & Van Dillen, 2012).
Desires in and of themselves are not problematic. But when a particular desire conflicts with a person's goals, then
they enter a selfcontrol dilemma and the desire becomes a temptation(Hofmann, Baumeister, Förster, & Vohs,
2012). For example, there is nothing inherently wrong with craving a donut. But that craving becomes problematic
(and is therefore deemed a temptation) when it conflicts with your goal to stay faithful to your diet. Thus, the term
temptation implies an incompatibility between people's desired behavior and their personal goals.
When these conflicts occur, effortful selfcontrol is often required to override the alluring temptation (Baumeister &
Vohs, 2007; Hofmann, Friese, & Roefs, 2009). Selfcontrol is defined as inhibiting, stopping, or changing an undesired
response (Vohs & Baumeister, 2004). So whereas the mule represents the pullof temptations, the rider represents the
pushof selfcontrol and restraint. In order to be successful, the rider must tame the impulsive mule and steer it back
onto the path toward goal achievement. The implication of this metaphor is that people may succumb to temptation for
one of two reasons: a strong mule or a weak rider.
Traditionally, selfcontrol research has focused primarily on the rider component by examining the factors that
increase or decrease selfcontrol performance (e.g., Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998; Carver & Scheier,
1982; Mischel, Shoda, & Peake, 1988). One of the more prominent effects to come from this literature is the tendency
for exertion on an initial selfcontrol task (e.g., resisting eating cookies) to reduce performance on a subsequent
selfcontrol task (e.g., less persistence on a boring task; for a recent review of depletion effects, see Masicampo,
Stephen, Martin, & Anderson, 2014). Over 300 published studies have demonstrated evidence in support of this
depletion effect,as well as an 83study metaanalysis (Hagger, Wood, Stiff, & Chatzisarantis, 2010). But this effect
has also received its fair share of criticism.
Concerns include the fact that depletion research often involves small samples, that it likely suffers from
publication bias, and that it sometimes fails to produce the expected effect (for a summary of criticisms, see Friese,
Loschelder, Gieseler, Frankenbach, & Inzlicht, 2018). For example, a metaanalysis of 116 studies found no evidence
of a depletion effect (Carter, Kofler, Forster, & McCullough, 2015), but critics have argued the correction techniques
used in this analysis were flawed (Garrison, Finley, & Schmeichel, 2018). Similarly, a highpowered replication study
conducted across multiple labs failed to find the effect (Hagger & Chatzisarantis, 2016); however, these studies have
been criticized for employing an invalid selfcontrol manipulation (Baumeister & Vohs, 2016). More recent replication
attempts using large (1,000+) samples and preregistered methods found evidence that prior exertion did have a small
but significant impact on subsequent selfcontrol performance (Garrison et al., 2018; Wagenmakers & Gronau, 2018).
Even among researchers who believe in the validity of the depletion effect, there is still extensive debate
regarding its underlying mechanism. Some believe selfcontrol is a limited resource and that, like a muscle, it wears
2of16 BURKLEY ET AL.
out with repeated use (Baumeister et al., 1998; Baumeister & Vohs, 2007; Gailliot et al., 2007). Others suggest that
prior exertion impacts people's motivation or willingness to exert selfcontrol, rather than their ability (Inzlicht,
Schmeichel, & Macrae, 2014; Muraven, Shmueli, & Burkley, 2006). Still, others argue that the depletion effect occurs
simply because people believe their selfcontrol is limited and exhaustible (Job, Bernecker, Miketta, & Friese, 2015;
Job, Dweck, & Walton, 2010). So although the current evidence suggests that selfcontrol exertion produces a small
but significant impairment on subsequent performance, more studies are needed to determine the robustness of this
effect, its boundary conditions, and its underlying mechanisms. And as important as these areas of investigation are,
they do not impede the specific purposes of this paper.
In addition to studying how momentary changes in selfcontrol affect task performance, researchers have also
examined how chronic differences in selfcontrol play a role. Trait selfcontrol refers to a dispositional tendency to be better
able to control one's impulses (de Ridder, LensveltMulders, Finkenauer, Stok, & Baumeister, 2012). Research consistently
shows that people low in trait selfcontrol demonstrate worse selfcontrol performance across a wide range of domains
than do those high in trait selfcontrol (see de Ridder et al., 2012, for metaanalysis). Thus, it appears that people's ability
or willingness to resist temptations is due, in part, to both their state selfcontrol and trait selfcontrol.
As previously stated, the majority of research on selfcontrol dilemmas focuses on the ridercomponent. Most deple-
tion studies present participants with the same desired object (e.g., chocolate chip cookies) and assume that each person is
equally tempted (or tempted at all). Rarely is the strength of a particular temptation measured or manipulated directly (but
see Hofmann, Friese, & Roefs, 2009; Hofmann, Friese, & Strack, 2009; Rawn & Vohs, 2011). However, the tide is starting to
change. Selfcontrol researchers are increasingly directing their efforts toward the topic of temptations (e.g., Hofmann,
Vohs, & Baumeister, 2012; Milyavskaya, Inzlicht, Hope, & Koestner, 2015). In fact, some suggest the study of desire and
temptations is the new hot spot in selfcontrol research(Hofmann & Van Dillen, 2012, p. 317). As a result, we now know
that prior selfcontrol exertion not only weakens the rider's restraint but also strengthens the mule's desires (Schmeichel,
HarmonJones, & HarmonJones, 2010; Wagner, Altman, Boswell, Kelley, & Heatherton, 2013).
3|WHAT TEMPTS US?
Although a great deal is known about how temptations emerge, how they are controlled, and how they impact
behavior (e.g., Fishbach & Shah, 2006; Hofmann & Van Dillen, 2012; Leander, Shah, & Chartrand, 2009), much less
is known regarding the types of temptations that people regularly experience. One promising step in this direction
comes from Hofmann and colleagues (Hofmann, Baumeister, et al., 2012; Hofmann, Vohs, & Baumeister, 2012).
Whereas most studies focus on one type of temptation in isolation, these researchers simultaneously examined
multiple temptation domains. Specifically, participants were presented with 15 desire categories: food,drinks,
alcoholic drinks,coffee,tobacco,other substances,sex,media,spending,work,socializing,leisure activities,sleep,hygiene,
and other. For 7 days, participants rated these desires at several times throughout the day. Of these, the desires that were
identified as most conflicting with existing goals (and therefore most consistent with the definition of temptation)were
leisure activities, sleep, spending, media use, and tobacco.
These studies are an important first step in examining the types of temptations people regularly experience.
Using a datadriven, bottomup approach, these researchers identified several commonly experienced temptation
domains. However, one issue with this work is that it was limited to the initial 15 domains created by the researchers.
Because these desires were not grounded in a theoretical or historical framework, it is possible that some important
temptations were omitted. To complement this work by Hofmann and colleagues, we employed a theorydriven,
topdown approach in this article to identify common temptation domains. To do so, we adopted a novel approach
by relying on a largely nonscientific concept: sin.
Although sinhas mostly been ignored in the psychological literature, it can be thought of as an extension of
moralitya topic that has received extensive empirical attention. Morality is defined as a set of culturally transmitted
norms and rules that identify rightand wrongbehaviors and, when followed, allow people to live together
BURKLEY ET AL.3of16
harmoniously (Baumeister & Exline, 1999; Hofmann, Meindl, Mooijman, & Graham, in press). One of the major
purposes of morality is to constrain human action in an attempt to reduce selfish behaviors. In fact, many researchers
believe this is the very reason why selfcontrol evolved in humans, to enable us to override our selfish impulses and
act in ways that promote a civilized culture (Baumeister, 2005). So despite the lack of overlap between morality and
selfcontrol in the literature, the two concepts are highly related (Baumeister & Exline, 2000; Hofmann et al., in press).
As such, each area of literature could greatly benefit from the other.
In this article, we assert that the moral concept of sin can be used to inform the literature on selfcontrol and
temptations. To accomplish this goal, we must first make a definitional distinction between temptation and sin. As
stated earlier, a temptation is any desire that conflicts with an individual's personal goal. So whether something is
tempting or not is defined by the individual. Instead, we assert that sin is defined by the society (see Ross, 1907,
for an early proponent of this assertion). When a particular temptation is so common among a group of people that
it conflicts with not only personal goals but also societal goals (e.g., social norms and laws) and could disrupt social
stability, that group is likely to deem it a sin.
4|THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS AS A TAXONOMY OF TEMPTATIONS
Of all the list of sins available throughout history, the most wellknown is the seven deadly sins. Initially created in the
14th century and subsequently modified over the years, the seven deadly sins were used to describe the temptation
domains that represented the most common vices of human nature. They were often referred to as capital vicesor
cardinal sinsbecause it was believed that much of the spectrum of human temptations could be reduced into this
handful of domains, much like the entire color spectrum can be reduced to a handful of primary colors. These seven
domains include gluttony, greed, lust, sloth, envy, pride, and wrath (each is defined in detail below).
Although the term seven deadly sinsemerged from Christian doctrine, these temptation domains have also
been discussed by other religions (e.g., Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam; Schimmel, 1992), the ancient Greeks (e.g.,
Aristotle and Plato), and philosophers (e.g., Bentham, 1817/1983; Hume, 1739/2001). This is because, despite
cultural differences, most societies share similar goals for safety, fairness, productivity, fertility, and harmony. For this
reason, variants of the seven deadly sins can be seen in numerous societies and in both religious and nonreligious
contexts. But the fact that these seven sin domains have withstood the test of time suggests that they represent a
powerful and useful taxonomy of people's most commonly experienced temptations.
We are not the first psychologists to use the concept of the seven deadly sins to explore human behavior
(Baumeister & Exline, 2000; Capps & Cole Jr, 2006; Latham, 2012; Nauta & Derckx, 2007; Veselka, Giammarco, &
Vernon, 2014). We are also not the first to suggest a possible link between these sins and selfcontrol. In their
exploration of virtue, Baumeister and Exline (1999, p. 1173) hinted at our approach when they stated, the seven
deadly sins all seem to have a major component involving failed selfcontrol,but did not explore further. Thus, to
our knowledge, we are the first to use this list of sins to develop a taxonomy of common temptations.
If these seven sins truly represent temptation domains, then resistance to these temptations should be reduced
when selfcontrol is weak. If this assertion is true, we should find that people are more likely to express gluttony,
greed, lust, sloth, envy, pride, and wrath when they (a) are chronically low in trait selfcontrol or (b) have exerted prior
selfcontrol. In the next section, we examine the extent to which the current literature supports these predictions.
5|THEROLEOFSELFCONTROL ACROSS THE SEVEN TEMPTATION
DOMAINS
5.1 |Gluttony
Gluttony involves an overconsumption of food, alcohol, or other substances (Baumeister & Exline, 1999; Lyman,
1989; Schimmel, 1992). Such overindulgences are problematic when they conflict with health goals. The recent
4of16 BURKLEY ET AL.
emergence of the term food pornto refer to tempting images of food offers just one clue as to the tempting nature
of this domain. Historically, gluttony was considered sinful because it was unhealthy for the person who
overconsumed and was also harmful to society because it left fewer resources for those who truly needed them.
Today, it is recognized that gluttony results in a wide range of personal and social costs, including obesity, addiction,
poor health and wellbeing, and medical expenses.
Research indicates that people chronically low in trait selfcontrol consume unhealthier foods (e.g., de Ridder et al.,
2012; Friese, Engeler, & Florack, 2015) and weigh more (Crescioni et al., 2011; Moffitt et al., 2011) than do those high
in selfcontrol. Furthermore, a 4month study of dieters found that those low in selfcontrol were less able to resist
their food desires, consumed more unhealthy foods, and lost less weight than their high counterparts (Hofmann,
Adriaanse, Vohs, & Baumeister, 2014). Beyond eating patterns, low trait selfcontrol has also been associated with
greater alcohol consumption (DeWall et al., 2014; Quinn & Fromme, 2010), drug use (e.g., marijuana, cocaine, and
opiates; Malouf et al., 2014), and alcohol and drugrelated problems (de Ridder et al., 2012; Moffitt et al., 2011).
A similar pattern can be seen in studies that manipulate selfcontrol. For instance, prior exertion leads people to
choose an unhealthy food option (Wang, Novemsky, Dhar, & Baumeister, 2010), break their diet and overeat
(Hofmann, Rauch, & Gawronski, 2007), consume more alcohol (Christiansen, Cole, & Field, 2012; Muraven, Collins,
& Nienhaus, 2002) and smokers to smoke (Shmueli & Prochaska, 2009). Beyond the lab, a 3week diary study found
that on days in which participants exerted a great deal of selfcontrol, they were more likely to drink alcohol, become
intoxicated, and violate their selfimposed drinking limits (Muraven, Collins, Morsheimer, Shiffman, & Paty, 2005).
And a study on food consumption found that participants who exerted prior selfcontrol ate more cookies during a
tastetesting task than did those with no prior exertion (Friese et al., 2015).
Interestingly, Wagner et al. (2013) used functional neuroimaging to examine the link between selfcontrol and
gluttony. Their results found that prior exertion increased the allure of gluttony by simultaneously (a) boosting
people's neural responses to appetizing food cues in the reward center of the brain (i.e., the orbitofrontal cortex)
and (b) decreasing connectivity between this region and an area known to play a role in selfcontrol (i.e., the inferior
frontal gyrus). Thus, it appears that prior selfcontrol exertion produces a double whammy that not only weakens the
rider but also strengthens the mule's gluttonous impulses.
5.2 |Greed
Greed involves an excessive desire for money and material possessions (Baumeister & Exline, 1999; Lyman, 1989;
Schimmel, 1992). From brickandmortar stores to infomercials and online retail, the modern world is filled with monetary
temptations. Indulging in these spending behaviors become problematic when they conflict with financial goals.
Recent descriptions of greed within the psychological literature tend to deviate from this historical definition
because they frame it as an excessive desire for all things, not just wealth (Krekels & Pandelaere, 2015; Seuntjens,
Zeelenberg, van de Ven, & Breugelmans, 2015). However, defining greed this broadly is problematic because it makes
it indistinguishable from other temptation domains (e.g., gluttony, lust, and envy). Furthermore, research linking
greed with selfcontrol has focused exclusively on the monetary nature of this temptation, rather than the broader
definition (e.g., Moffitt et al., 2011; Vohs & Faber, 2007). As such, we remain loyal to the narrower definition that
most closely fits the historical concept of greed as a desire for wealth.
Research shows that people low in selfcontrol have more credit card debt (Mansfield, Pinto, & Parente, 2003;
Moffitt et al., 2011), more money management problems (Moffitt et al., 2011), and more compulsive spending
(Achtziger, Hubert, Kenning, Raab, & Reisch, 2015; Vohs & Faber, 2007) than those high in selfcontrol.
Interestingly, Moffitt et al. (2011) found that trait selfcontrol in childhood was a stronger predictor of adult financial
problems than socioeconomic status or IQ.
Similarly, prior selfcontrol exertion leads people to find consumer products more tempting (Vohs & Faber, 2007),
assign products a higher price or valuation (Vohs & Faber, 2007), and be more willing to lie or cheat in order to obtain
money (Mead, Baumeister, Gino, Schweitzer, & Ariely, 2009). People are also more likely to engage in impulse buying
BURKLEY ET AL.5of16
when they have exerted prior selfcontrol. For example, students who exerted selfcontrol on a prior task spent more
of their money on impulsive purchases from the university book store (e.g., candy and coffee mug) than did those
who did not exert selfcontrol (this was especially so for people chronically low in control over their buying impulses;
Vohs & Faber, 2007).
5.3 |Lust
Lust involves an excessive desire for sexual gratification (Baumeister & Exline, 1999; Lyman, 1989; Schimmel, 1992).
Lust is characterized by greater sexual desire, sexual thoughts, promiscuous behaviors, sexual risktaking, and
infidelity within a committed romantic relationship (Baumeister, Catanese, & Vohs, 2001; Veselka et al., 2014). From
internet pornography to Tinder to websites like Ashley Madison that facilitate infidelity, it is clear that lust is a com-
mon temptation in modern culture. This is not to say that all sexual impulses are undesirablesexual desires are a
normal part of human naturebut people must often regulate their sexual appetites so as to abide by personal, reli-
gious, legal and/or social prescriptions and to stay faithful to a romantic partner (Galliot & Baumeister, 2007; Ritter,
Karremans, & van Schie, 2010). Thus, sexual overindulgences become problematic when they conflict with fidelity
goals, violate social norms, or interfere with healthy functioning.
Research indicates that people low in trait selfcontrol have more sexual thoughts (Galliot & Baumeister, 2007),
spend more time viewing sexually explicit material (Friese & Hofmann, 2012; Hofmann, Gschwendner, Friese, Wiers,
& Schmitt, 2008), report a stronger desire to meet an attractive other (Pronk, Karremans, & Wigboldus, 2010), and
are more likely to flirt with another person (Pronk et al., 2010). Furthermore, people low in selfcontrol are more likely
to engage in sex (de Ridder et al., 2012; Wills, Gibbons, Gerrard, Murry, & Brody, 2003), have risky or unprotected sex
(de Ridder et al., 2012; Malouf et al., 2014; Quinn & Fromme, 2010; Wills et al., 2003), contract sexually transmitted
diseases (Moffitt et al., 2011), and are more likely to engage in infidelity in the presence of sexual desire (McIntyre,
Barlow, & Hayward, 2015; Pronk et al., 2010) than their high counterparts.
Similarly, prior selfcontrol exertion leads people to have more sexual thoughts (Galliot & Baumeister, 2007), to
sit closer to an attractive other when sexual desire is present (McIntyre et al., 2015), and to engage in physical
intimacy with a romantic partner in a laboratory setting (e.g., kissing and caressing; Galliot & Baumeister, 2007).
Furthermore, prior selfcontrol exertion leads people who are currently in a committed relationship to accept a date
with someone other than their current partner (Ciarocco, Echevarria, & Lewandowski Jr, 2012) and to say they would
cheat on their partner within the context of a hypothetical scenario (Galliot & Baumeister, 2007; McIntyre et al.,
2015). For example, Ritter et al. (2010) had single and romantically committed people view pictures of an attractive
oppositesex other. They found that for single participants (who did not need to resist temptation), prior selfcontrol
exertion had no effect on their ratings of the attractive others. However, for participants in a committed relationship
(who needed to resist temptation to stay faithful to their partner), prior exertion had an impact. Romantically involved
participants with no prior exertion showed the least amount of interest in the attractive others, suggesting that they
successfully resisted the lustful temptation. But romantically involved participants with prior selfcontrol exertion
were just as interested in the attractive others as the single participants.
5.4 |Sloth
Although the modern understanding of the term slothimplies a laziness of the body, the original term for this sin,
acedia,refers to a laziness of the soul (Latham, 2012). Evagrius Ponticus, the monk who created the original seven
deadly sins list, considered acedia to be an especially concerning sin because it could lead monks to abandon their
religious commitments for other activities (Latham, 2012). Thus, instead of viewing sloth solely as idleness, we adopt
a definition that includes both modern and archaic aspects of this sin. Specifically, we define sloth as an excessive
desire to avoid boredom or work by pursuing either inactivity or leisurely activities. There is nothing wrong with a
little relaxation, but slothful behaviors become problematic when they conflict with work goals, social norms, and life
6of16 BURKLEY ET AL.
aspirations. This sin is characterized by laziness, procrastination, a lack of goals, and a preference for fun and easy
tasks over work or required duties. Thus, this sin can be thought of as avoiding one's primary goal by doing something
else, even if that something else is nothing.
Never before in mankind's history have there been so many opportunities to be slothful. From Instagram and Facebook
to Netflix and Candy Crush, we are constantly bombarded by distractions that lure us away from our studies and our work.
For instance, college students indicate they spend one third of their daily activities procrastinatingusually via sleeping,
playing video games, or watching TVand these percentages are on the rise (Kachgal, Hansen, & Nutter, 2001;
Pychyl, Lee, Thibodeau, & Blunt, 2000).
Research indicates that people low in trait selfcontrol have fewer goals (Malouf et al., 2014) and are more likely
to procrastinate, succumb to distraction, and disengage earlier from boring tasks (Ent, Baumeister, & Tice, 2015;
Ferrari & Emmons, 1995; Kanfer, Wanberg, & Kantrowitz, 2001). Those low in this trait also demonstrate poorer
academic and career success (de Ridder et al., 2012; Eisenberg, Duckworth, Spinrad, & Valiente, 2014; Roberts,
Kuncel, Shiner, Caspi, & Goldberg, 2007; Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004) and greater unemployment (Daly,
Delaney, Egan, & Baumeister, 2015). Finally, people low in selfcontrol are more likely to excessively engage in leisure
activities, making them more prone to internet addiction (Akın, Arslan, Arslan, Uysal, & Sahranç, 2015; LaRose, Lin, &
Eastin, 2003; Özdemir, Kuzucu, & Ak, 2014) and online gaming addiction (Kim, Namkoong, Ku, & Kim, 2008), than
people high in selfcontrol.
A similar pattern can be seen in experiments that manipulate selfcontrol. A wealth of research finds that prior
selfcontrol exertion leads people to reduce their effort and persistence on difficult, boring, or unsolvable tasks
(e.g., Baumeister et al., 1998; Burkley, 2008; Muraven, Tice, & Baumeister, 1998; Muraven et al., 2006; Wallace &
Baumeister, 2002). For example, Muraven et al. (1998) found that people who exerted prior selfcontrol quit an
unsolvable anagrams task sooner than those who did not exert selfcontrol.
Importantly, this link between selfcontrol exertion and lack of persistence has been established utilizing a wide
range of tasks (e.g., unsolvable anagrams, figure tracing task, squeezing a handgrip, holding hand in cold water, and
watching a boring video). Furthermore, selfcontrol exertion has been shown to increase a desire for restconducive
products (e.g., bed, hammock, and TV) and actual rest behavior, especially among people who believe their selfcontrol
resources are limited (Job et al., 2015; Muraven et al., 2006).
5.5 |Envy
Envy involves a negative emotion aroused in response to an upward social comparison that reflects a desire for, or
deprivation of, the advantages held by another (Parrott & Smith, 1993; Smith & Kim, 2007; Smith, Parrott, Diener,
Hoyle, & Kim, 1999). Social comparison is a normal part of human life, but when envious behaviors conflict with
relational goals or life aspirations, they become problematic. Envy also violates social norms (Foster, 1972; Heider,
1958), so people are often motivated to control it. Consistent with this assertion, neuroimaging data suggest that when
people are confronted with a superior other, brain activity increases in regions associated with emotional control
(Joseph, Powell, Johnson, & Kedia, 2008).
Within the empirical literature, two forms of envy have been identified. Malicious envy reflects a hostile feeling
toward the envied other and is rooted in a motivation to bring this other down (Crusius & Lange, 2014; van de
Ven, Zeelenberg, & Pieters, 2009). Benign envy reflects a more positive feeling of desire for what the envied other
has and is rooted in a motivation to build up oneself. Of the two, malicious envy is more clearly linked to the original
conception of envy as a sin (Lyman, 1989; Schimmel, 1992). Consistent with this idea, malicious (but not benign) envy
has been shown to relate to schadenfreude, which is defined as pleasure derived from another's misfortune (van de
Ven et al., 2015).
To date, there are no studies showing a link between trait selfcontrol and envy. This is likely because the concept
of envy as two components and a measure designed to assess these two components was only recently developed
(Lange & Crusius, 2015). However, this gap in the literature suggests future studies are needed on this topic.
BURKLEY ET AL.7of16
To date, only one set of studies has examined if people are more likely to express envy after prior selfcontrol
exertion (Crusius & Mussweiler, 2012). In one study, prior exertion led participants to selfreport being more envious
of betteroff others. In another study, half of the participants were given a task that required selfcontrol (i.e., digit
recall task) and half were not. Next, all participants were seated next to a fellow participant who had a better
resource than they had (i.e., a more desirable beverage). Participants then completed a measure of their implicit
tendency to approach or avoid the envied resource (i.e., joystick push or pull). The results indicated that participants
who exerted prior selfcontrol had a stronger approach tendency toward the betteroff other's resource. Thus, those
who exerted selfcontrol experienced more desire for the envied product than those who did not exert selfcontrol.
Although the Crusius and Mussweiler (2012) studies provide initial evidence for a connection between
selfcontrol and envy, more research is clearly needed. Coveting another's resources is just one way that this
temptation is expressed. For instance, envy has various cognitive consequencesincluding greater attention and
memory for information about envied others (Crusius & Lange, 2014; Hill, DelPriore, & Vaughan, 2011)and
behavioral consequences directed at the envied otherincluding hostile responses (Salovey & Rodin, 1984; Smith,
Parrott, Ozer, & Moniz, 1994), spreading gossip and rumors (Duffy, Scott, Shaw, Tepper, & Aquino, 2012), and
socially distancing oneself (Salovey & Rodin, 1984). Future research should explore if these cognitive and behavioral
consequences of envy are more likely to occur among people who have previously exerted selfcontrol.
5.6 |Pride
Pride is essentially the belief that one is better than others (Lyman, 1989; Schimmel, 1992). People are motivated to
privately view themselves in a positive light, and doing so benefits the individual (Sedikides & Strube, 1997; Taylor &
Brown, 1988). But people must often publically control their selfaggrandizing notions so as to not be viewed by
others as arrogant or egotistical (Vohs, Baumeister, & Ciarocco, 2005). As such, overly prideful responses can conflict
with relational goals, as well as social norms of compassion and humility.
Within the empirical literature, two forms of pride have been identified. Authentic pride reflects a feeling
associated with doingsomething and is linked with specific accomplishments (Tracy & Robins, 2007a). This is the
meaning ignited when we say we feel pride in our own successes or that of our child. Hubristic pride reflects a feeling
associated with beingsomething and reflects excessive admiration of the self (Tracy & Robins, 2007a, 2007b; cf.
Holbrook, Piazza, & Fessler, 2014). As such, hubristic pride is more in line with the conception of pride as a sin involv-
ing excessive admiration of the self or vainglory (Lyman, 1989; Schimmel, 1992; Tracy & Robins, 2014). Consistent
with this conceptualization, authentic pride correlates with prosociality, whereas hubristic pride correlates with nar-
cissistic and maladaptive selfviews (Cheng, Tracy, & Henrich, 2010).
People chronically low in selfcontrol tend to score higher on hubristic pride (and lower on authentic pride) than
do those high in selfcontrol (Carver, Sinclair, & Johnson, 2012). Similarly, within the clinical psychology literature,
people low in selfcontrol show higher levels of pathological narcissism, which can be viewed as a more extreme form
of hubristic pride, than do their high counterparts (Mowlaie, Abolghasemi, & Aghababaei, 2016). Finally, a study on
jail inmates found that those who were low in selfcontrol were higher in egocentricity than were those high in this
trait (Malouf et al., 2014).
Only one study to date has shown a link between prior selfcontrol exertion and pride. Specifically, women
watched a video and half were instructed to exert selfcontrol by ignoring words that appeared at the bottom of
the screen (Vohs et al., 2005). Next, all participants completed measures of narcissism and social desirability. The
results indicated that participants who exerted prior selfcontrol produced more narcissistic responses, and this
relationship was mediated by changes in social desirability. That is, selfcontrol exertion decreased their motivation
to be viewed in a socially favorable way, which in turn led them to engage in more prideful responses. Not only does
this study demonstrate a causal link between selfcontrol and pride, but it also suggests that concerns about what
others think of us are what keep our hubristic expressions in check.
8of16 BURKLEY ET AL.
Although this study provides a good start point in examining the connection between selfcontrol and pride,
more research on this topic is needed. Mimicking the trait selfcontrol literature, future research could explore if prior
exertion increases hubristic pride but decreases authentic pride. Other prideful responses could also be examined.
For example, a great deal of research has indicated that people tend to think they are better than average on a wide
range of traits, including driving ability, honesty, intelligence, and yes, selfcontrol (Alicke, 1985; Alicke, Klotz,
Breitenbecher, Yurak, & Vredenburg, 1995; Brown, 2012). In fact, people are so prideful in this regard that prisoners
actually rate themselves as more moral, honest, kind, and selfcontrolled than does the average nonprisoner
(Sedikides, Meek, Alicke, & Taylor, 2013). Future research could explore if this egotistic tendency increases after
selfcontrol exertion or if it is more likely among people low in trait selfcontrol.
5.7 |Wrath
Wrath involves excessive feelings of anger and desire for revenge directed toward people who have been insulting or
harmful (Lyman, 1989; Schimmel, 1992). Although wrath is sometimes referred to as the sin of anger (Veselka et al.,
2014), the original conception of this sin was specifically as a desire for vengeance rather than a tendency to become
angry at anything. For example, Dante (1955/13081321, p. 67) described wrath as love of justice perverted to
revenge and spite.We therefore adopt the narrower definition of this temptation domain as that of wrath. Such
a definition is akin to current models of aggression, which assert that the most important cause of human aggression
is provocation (Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Cowie, Naylor, Smith, Rivers, & Pereira,
2002; Finkel et al., 2012).
Although aggression and violence toward those who have hurt us or our group is an inherent part of human
nature, modern societies require their citizens to override these aggressive tendencies and allow justice to be
pursued in more socially appropriate ways (e.g., the law; Baumeister, 2005; DeWall, Baumeister, Stillman, & Gailliot,
2007). As such, a desire for revenge can become problematic when it conflicts with relational goals, social norms, and
governmental laws. For this reason, when our desire for wrath becomes ignited, we must exert selfcontrol to override
our aggressive reactions (Denson, DeWall, & Finkel, 2012; Finkel et al., 2012). Consistent with this assertion,
neuroimaging studies indicate that brain activity in regions associated with behavioral and emotional control increases
when people are provoked (Denson, Pedersen, Ronquillo, & Nandy, 2009; see also Denson, 2011; Raine, 2008).
Research has found that children and adolescents low in trait selfcontrol exhibit greater aggressive and delinquent
behaviors (Krueger, Caspi, Moffitt, White, & StouthamerLoeber, 1996; Murphy & Eisenberg, 1997). Likewise, adults low
in trait selfcontrol respond to angerprovoking situations more aggressively (Hofmann et al., 2008; JensenCampbell,
Knack, Waldrip, & Campbell, 2007; Kashdan, Goodman, Mallar, & DeWall, 2016; Tangney et al., 2004) and are more likely
to engage in acts of violence (e.g., pushing and hitting; Larson, Vaughn, SalasWright, & Delisi, 2015) than are those high in
this trait. Furthermore, a study on jail inmates found that those low in trait selfcontrol were higher in verbal and physical
aggression than were inmates high in selfcontrol (Malouf et al., 2014). Finally, among people who are currently in a roman-
tic relationship, those low in trait selfcontrol exhibit greater aggression toward their partner during a conflict (Finkel,
DeWall, Slotter, Oaten, & Foshee, 2009; Larson et al., 2015) and are less willing to accommodate and forgive their partner's
transgressions (Finkel & Campbell, 2001) than their high counterparts.
Similarly, prior exertion has been shown to make people less likely to forgive a romantic partner's transgressions
(Finkel & Campbell, 2001) and more likely to display aggression toward a partner after provocation (Finkel et al.,
2009; Watkins, DiLillo, Hofmann, & Templin, 2015). Outside of the relationship sphere, several studies indicate that
prior exertion leads to greater aggressive behaviors toward a stranger who has just offered an insult (Denson, von
Hippel, Kemp, & Teo, 2010; DeWall et al., 2007; Osgood & Muraven, 2016; for review, see DeWall, Finkel, &
Denson, 2011). Importantly, this link between selfcontrol exertion and aggression has been established utilizing a
wide range of aggression measures (e.g., hot sauce task, noise blasts, and harmful evaluations of a job rival). For
example, DeWall et al. (2007) found that people who were insulted were more likely to retaliate (via the hot sauce
task) if they had exerted prior selfcontrol.
BURKLEY ET AL.9of16
6|THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
There are several benefits to the approach we have taken in this article. First is that our taxonomy takes the seven
deadly sins, a concept that has largely been housed in either religion or pop culture, and transports it into the
scientific domain. To our knowledge, we are the first to provide an operational definition for sin and indicate how
it is distinct from temptation. Such an approach is unique because, as Baumeister and Exline (1999, p. 1189) noted,
psychology has aspired to being valuefree in its pursuit of the scientific ideal, and it is possible that this reluctance
to make value judgments has hampered the study of virtue.The same could be said of virtue's opposing force, sin.
Thus, our approach facilitates the small but growing body of literature examining sin through the lens of science.
Second, our seven deadly sins taxonomy offers both theoretical and practical benefits to researchers. As our
review indicates, this taxonomy was quite useful in organizing the existing selfcontrol literature and identifying topics
for future research. Researchers could also use this taxonomy to develop specific behavioral interventions, since such
interventions are more effective when targeted toward a specific problem or cause (Abraham & Michie, 2008). Our
taxonomy also provides operational definitions of each temptation that makes the boundary conditions and nuanced
differences between temptation domains more visible. As such, it offers a standardized model that can be used to
improve replication fidelity and facilitate theoretical development through metaanalyses. Finally, this paper highlights
the importance of including individual difference measures of these temptations in future selfcontrol research. This is
not to say that our taxonomy is exhaustive, but it offers a starting point by highlighting the temptations that have acted
as siren calls to humans for hundreds of years.
ORCID
Edward Burkley http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4702-4902
REFERENCES
Abraham, C., & Michie, S. (2008). A taxonomy of behavior change techniques used in interventions. Health Psychology,27,
379387.
Achtziger, A., Hubert, M., Kenning, P., Raab, G., & Reisch, L. (2015). Debt out of control: The links between selfcontrol,
compulsive buying, and real debts. Journal of Economic Psychology,49, 141149.
Akın, A., Arslan, S., Arslan, N., Uysal, R., & Sahranç, Ü. (2015). Selfcontrol management and internet addiction. International
Online Journal of Educational Sciences,7,95100.
Alicke, M. D. (1985). Global selfevaluation as determined by the desirability and controllability of trait adjectives. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,491, 6211630.
Alicke, M. D., Klotz, M. L., Breitenbecher, D. L., Yurak, T. J., & Vredenburg, D. S. (1995). Personal contact, individuation,
and the betterthanaverage effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,68, 804825. https://doi.org/10.1037/
00223514.68.5.804
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology,53,2751.
Baumeister, R. F. (2005). The cultural animal: Human nature, meaning, and social life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Baumeister, R. F. (2014). Selfregulation, ego depletion, and inhibition. Neuropsychologia,65, 313319.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology,74, 12521265.
Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical
views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review,5, 242273.
Baumeister, R. F., & Exline, J. J. (1999). Virtue, personality and social relations: Selfcontrol as the moral muscle. Journal of
Personality,67, 11651194.
Baumeister, R. F., & Exline, J. J. (2000). Selfcontrol, morality, and human strength. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
19,2942.
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2007). Selfregulation, ego depletion, and motivation. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass,1, 115128.
10 of 16 BURKLEY ET AL.
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2016). Misguided effort with elusive implications. Perspectives on Psychological Science,11,
574575.
Bentham, J. (1983). A table of the springs of human action. In A. Goldworth (Ed.), Deontology together with the springs of
action (p. 1817). Oxford, England: Clarendon. (Original work published.
Brown, J. D. (2012). Understanding the better than average effect: Motives (still) matter. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin,38, 209219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211432763
Burkley, E. (2008). The role of selfcontrol in resistance to persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,34, 419431.
Burkley, E., & Burkley, M. (2018). Motivation science. New York, NY: Pearson.
Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, selfesteem, and direct and displaced aggression:
Does selflove or selfhate lead to violence? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,75, 219229.
Capps, D., & Cole, A. H. Jr. (2006). The deadly sins and saving virtues: How they are viewed today by clergy. Pastoral
Psychology,54, 517534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1108900600207
Carter, E. C., Kofler, L. M., Forster, D. E., & McCullough, M. E. (2015). A series of metaanalytic tests of the depletion effect:
Selfcontrol does not seem to rely on a limited resource. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,144, 796815.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for personalitysocial, clinical and
health psychology. Psychological Bulletin,92, 111135.
Carver, C. S., Sinclair, S., & Johnson, S. L. (2012). Authentic and hubristic pride: Differential relations to aspects of goal
regulation, affect, and selfcontrol. Journal of Research in Personality,44, 698703.
Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., & Henrich, J. (2010). Pride, personality, and the evolutionary foundations of human social status.
Evolution and Human Behavior,31, 334347.
Christiansen, P., Cole, J. C., & Field, M. (2012). Ego depletion increases adlib alcohol consumption: Investigating cognitive
mediators and moderators. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology,20, 118128.
Ciarocco, N. J., Echevarria, J., & Lewandowski, G. W. Jr. (2012). Hungry for love: The influence of selfregulation on infidelity.
The Journal of Social Psychology,152,6174.
Cowie, H., Naylor, P., Smith, P. K., Rivers, I., & Pereira, B. (2002). Measuring workplace bullying. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
7,3551.
Crescioni, W. A., Ehrlinger, J., Alquist, J. L., Conlon, K. E., Baumeister, R. F., Schatschneider, C., & Dutton, G. R. (2011). High
trait selfcontrol predicts positive health behaviors and success in weight loss. Journal of Health Psychology,16, 750759.
Crusius, J., & Lange, J. (2014). What catches the envious eye? Attentional biases within malicious and benign envy. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology,55,111.
Crusius, J., & Mussweiler, T. (2012). When people want what others have: The impulsive side of envious desire. Emotion,12,
142153.
Daly, M., Delaney, L., Egan, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2015). Childhood selfcontrol and unemployment throughout the life
span: Evidence from two British cohort studies. Psychological Science,26, 709723.
Dante, A. (1955). The divine comedy (pp. 13081321). London, England: Penguin Classics. (Original work published.
de Ridder, D. T., LensveltMulders, G., Finkenauer, C., Stok, F. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2012). Taking stock of selfcontrol:
A metaanalysis of how trait selfcontrol relates to a wide range of behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
16,7699.
Denson, T. F. (2011). A social neuroscience perspective on the neurobiological bases of aggression. In M. Mikulincer, & P. R.
Shaver (Eds.), Human aggression and violence: Causes, manifestations, and consequences, Herzilya series on personality and
social psychology (pp. 105120). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Denson, T. F., DeWall, C. N., & Finkel, E. J. (2012). Selfcontrol and aggression. Current Directions in Psychological Science,21,
2025.
Denson, T. F., Pedersen, W. C., Ronquillo, J., & Nandy, A. S. (2009). The angry brain: Neural correlates of anger, angry
rumination, and aggressive personality. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,21, 734744.
Denson, T. F., von Hippel, W., Kemp, R. I., & Teo, L. S. (2010). Glucose consumption decreases impulsive aggression in
response to provocation in aggressive individuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,46, 10231028.
DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Stillman, T. F., & Gailliot, M. T. (2007). Violence restrained: Effects of selfregulation and its
depletion on aggression. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,43,6276.
DeWall, C. N., Finkel, E. J., & Denson, T. F. (2011). Selfcontrol inhibits aggression. Social and Personality Psychology Compass,
5, 458472.
BURKLEY ET AL.11 of 16
DeWall, C. N., Pond, R. S. Jr., Carter, E. C., McCullough, M. E., Lambert, N. M., Fincham, F. D., & Nezlek, J. B. (2014).
Explaining the relationship between religiousness and substance use: Selfcontrol matters. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,107, 339351.
Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L., Shaw, J. D., Tepper, B. J., & Aquino, K. (2012). A social context model of envy and social
undermining. Academy of Management Journal,55, 643666.
Eisenberg, N., Duckworth, A., Spinrad, T., & Valiente, C. (2014). Conscientiousness: Origins in childhood? Developmental
Psychology,50, 13311349.
Ent, M. R., Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. (2015). Trait selfcontrol and the avoidance of temptation. Personality and Individual
Differences,74,1215.
Ferrari, J. R., & Emmons, R. A. (1995). Methods of procrastination and their relation to selfcontrol and selfreinforcement:
An exploratory study. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality,10, 135142.
Finkel, E. J., & Campbell, W. K. (2001). Selfcontrol and accommodation in close relationships: An interdependence analysis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,81, 263277.
Finkel, E. J., DeWall, C. N., Slotter, E., Oaten, M. B., & Foshee, V. A. (2009). Selfregulatory failure and intimate partner
violence perpetration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,97, 483499.
Finkel, E. J., DeWall, C. N., Slotter, E. B., McNulty, J. K., Pond, R. S. Jr., & Atkins, D. C. (2012). Using I
3
theory to clarify when
dispositional aggressiveness predicts intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
102, 533549.
Fishbach, A., & Shah, J. Y. (2006). Selfcontrol in action: Implicit dispositions toward goals and away from temptations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,90, 820832.
Foster, G. M. (1972). The anatomy of envy: A study in symbolic behavior. Current Anthropology,13, 165202. https://doi.org/
10.1086/201267
Friese, M., Engeler, M., & Florack, A. (2015). Selfperceived successful weight regulators are less affected by selfregulatory
depletion in the domain of eating behavior. Eating Behaviors,16,58.
Friese, M., & Hofmann, W. (2012). Just a little bit longer: Viewing time of erotic material from a selfcontrol perspective.
Applied Cognitive Psychology,26, 489496.
Friese, M., Loschelder, D. D., Gieseler, K., Frankenbach, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2018). Is ego depletion real? An analysis of
arguments. Personality and Social Psychology Review,125.
Gailliot, M. T., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Maner, J. K., Plant, E. A., T ice, D. M., Schmeichel, B. J. (2007). Selfcontrol
relies on glucose as a limited energy source: Willpower is more than a metaphor. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,92, 325336.
Galliot, M. T., & Baumeister, R. F. (2007). Selfregulation and sexual restraint: Dispositionally and temporarily poor selfregulatory
abilities contribute to failures at restraining sexual behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,33, 173186.
Garrison, K. E., Finley, A. J., & Schmeichel, B. J. (2018). Ego depletion reduces attention control: Evidence from two
highpowered preregistered experiments. In Manuscript submitted for publication.
Hagger, M. S., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2016). A multilab preregistered replication of the egodepletion effect. Perspectives
in Psychological Science,11, 546573. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616652873
Hagger, M. S., Wood, C., Stiff, C., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2010). Ego depletion and the strength model of selfcontrol:
A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin,136, 495525.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley.
Hill, S. E., DelPriore, D. J., & Vaughan, P. W. (2011). The cognitive consequences of envy: Attention, memory, and
selfregulatory depletion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,101, 653666.
Hofmann, W., Adriaanse, M., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2014). Dieting and the selfcontrol of eating in everyday
environments: An experience sampling study. British Journal of Health Psychology,19, 523539.
Hofmann, W., Baumeister, R. F., Förster, G., & Vohs, K. D. (2012). Everyday temptations: An experience sampling study of
desire, conflict, and selfcontrol. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,102, 13181335.
Hofmann, W., Friese, M., & Roefs, A. (2009). Three ways to resist temptation: The independent contributions of executive
attention, inhibitory control, and affect regulation to the impulse control of eating behavior. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology,45, 431435.
Hofmann, W., Friese, M., & Strack, F. (2009). Impulse and selfcontrol from a dualsystems perspective. Perspectives on
Psychological Science,4, 162176.
12 of 16 BURKLEY ET AL.
Hofmann, W., Gschwendner, T., Friese, M., Wiers, R. W., & Schmitt, M. (2008). Working memory capacity and selfregulatory
behavior: Toward an individual differences perspective on behavior determination by automatic versus controlled
processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,95, 962977.
Hofmann, W., Meindl, P., Mooijman, M., & Graham, J. (in press). Morality and selfcontrol: How they are intertwined, and
where they differ. Current Directions in Psychological Science.
Hofmann, W., Rauch, W., & Gawronski, B. (2007). And deplete us not into temptation: Automatic attitudes, dietary restraint,
and selfregulatory resources as determinants of eating behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,43, 497504.
Hofmann, W., & Van Dillen, L. (2012). Desire: The new hot spot in selfcontrol research. Current Directions in Psychological
Science,21, 317322.
Hofmann, W., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2012). What people desire, feel conflicted about, and try to resist in everyday
life. Psychological Science,23, 582588.
Holbrook, C., Piazza, J., & Fessler, D. M. T. (2014). Conceptual and empirical challenges to the authenticversus hubristic
model of pride. Emotion,14,1732.
Hume, D. (2001). A treatise of human nature. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1739)
Inzlicht, M., Schmeichel, B. J., & Macrae, C. N. (2014). Why selfcontrol seems (but may not be) limited. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences,18, 127133.
James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology ( ed., Vol. I & II). New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.
JensenCampbell, L. A., Knack, J. M., Waldrip, A. M., & Campbell, S. D. (2007). Do Big Five personality traits associated with
selfcontrol influence the regulation of anger and aggression? Journal of Research in Personality,41, 403424.
Job, V., Bernecker, K., Miketta, S., & Friese, M. (2015). Implicit theories about willpower predict the activation of a rest goal
following selfcontrol exertion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,109, 694706.
Job, V., Dweck, C. S., & Walton, G. M. (2010). Ego depletionIs it all in your head? Implicit theories about willpower affect
selfregulation. Psychological Science,21, 16861693.
Joseph, J. E., Powell, C. A. J., Johnson, N. F., & Kedia, G. (2008). The functional neuroanatonomy of envy. In R. H. Smith (Ed.),
Envy: Theory and research (pp. 245263). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Kachgal, M. M., Hansen, L. S., & Nutter, K. J. (2001). Academic procrastination prevention/intervention: Strategies and
recommendations. Journal of Developmental Education,25,1424.
Kanfer, R., Wanberg, C., & Kantrowitz, T. (2001). Job search and employment: A personalitymotivational analysis and
metaanalytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology,86, 837855.
Kashdan, T. B., Goodman, F. R., Mallar, T. T., & DeWall, C. N. (2016). What triggers anger in everyday life? Links to the intensity,
control, and regulation of these emotions, and personality traits. Journal of Personality,84, 737749. https://doi.org/
10.1111/jopy.12214
Kim, E. J., Namkoong, K., Ku, T., & Kim, S. J. (2008). The relationship between online game addiction and aggression,
selfcontrol and narcissistic personality traits. European Psychiatry,23, 212218.
Krekels, G., & Pandelaere, M. (2015). Dispositional greed. Personality and Individual Differences,74, 225230.
Krueger, R. F., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., White, J., & StouthamerLoeber, M. (1996). Delay of gratification, psychopathology,
and personality: Is low selfcontrol specific to externalizing problems? Journal of Personality,64, 107129.
Lange, J., & Crusius, J. (2015). Dispositional envy revisited: Unraveling the motivational dynamics of benign and malicious
envy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,41, 284294.
LaRose, R., Lin, C. A., & Eastin, M. S. (2003). Unregulated internet usage: addiction, habit, or deficient selfregulation? Media
Psychology,5, 225253.
Larson, M., Vaughn, M. G., SalasWright, C. P., & Delisi, M. (2015). Narcissism, low selfcontrol, and violence among a
nationally representative sample. Criminal Justice and Behavior,42, 644661.
Latham, S. M. (2012). The science of sin: The psychology of the seven deadlies (and why they are so good for you). New York:
Three Rivers Press.
Leander, N. P., Shah, J.Y., & Chartrand, T. L. (2009). Moments of weakness: The implicit context dependencies of temptations.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,35, 853866.
Lyman, S. (1989). The seven deadly sins: Society and evil. Oxford, England: General Hall.
Malouf, E. T., Schaefer, K. E., Witt, E. A., Moore, K. E., Stuewig, J., & Tangney, J. P. (2014). The brief selfcontrol scale predicts
jail inmates' recidivism, substance dependence, and postrelease adjustment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,40,
334347.
Mansfield, P. M., Pinto, M. B., & Parente, D. H. (2003). Selfcontrol and creditcard use among college students. Psychological
Reports,92, 10671078.
BURKLEY ET AL.13 of 16
Masicampo, E. J., Stephen, R., Martin, S. R., & Anderson, R. A. (2014). Understanding and overcoming selfcontrol depletion.
Social and Personality Psychology Compass,8(11), 638649.
McIntyre, J. C., Barlow, F. K., & Hayward, L. E. (2015). Stronger sexual desires only predict bold romantic intentions and
reported infidelity when selfcontrol is low. Australian Journal of Psychology,67, 178186.
Mead, N. L., Baumeister, R. F., Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., & Ariely, D. (2009). Too tired to tell the truth: Selfcontrol resource
depletion and dishonesty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,45, 594597.
Milyavskaya, M., Inzlicht, M., Hope, N., & Koestner, R. (2015). Saying noto temptation: Wantto motivation improves
selfregulation by reducing temptation rather than by increasing selfcontrol. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
109, 677693.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Peake, P. K. (1988). The nature of adolescent competencies predicted by preschool delay of
gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,54, 687696.
Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Caspi, A. (2011). A gradient of childhood selfcontrol
predicts health, wealth, and public safety. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America,108, 26932698.
Mowlaie, M., Abolghasemi, A., & Aghababaei, N. (2016). Pathological narcissism, brain behavioral systems and tendency to
substance abuse: The mediating role of selfcontrol. Personality and Individual Differences,88, 247250.
Muraven, M., Collins, R. L., Morsheimer, E., Shiffman, S., & Paty, J. A. (2005). The morning after: Limit violations and the
selfregulation of alcohol consumption. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,19, 253262.
Muraven, M., Collins, R. L., & Nienhaus, K. (2002). Selfcontrol and alcohol restraint: An initial application of the selfcontrol
strength model. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,16, 113120.
Muraven, M., Shmueli, D., & Burkley, E. (2006). Conserving selfcontrol strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
91, 524537.
Muraven, M., Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Selfcontrol as limited resource: Regulatory depletion patterns. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology,74(3), 774789.
Murphy, B. C., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Young children's emotionality, regulation and social functioning and their responses
when they are a target of a peer's anger. Social Development,6,1836.
Nauta, R., & Derckx, L. (2007). Why sin? A test and an explanation of the social and psychological context of resentment and
desire. Pastoral Psychology,56, 177188.
Osgood, J. M., & Muraven, M. (2016). Does counting to ten increase or decrease aggression? The role of state selfcontrol
(egodepletion) and consequences. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,46, 105113.
Özdemir, Y., Kuzucu, Y., & Ak, Ş. (2014). Depression, loneliness and Internet addiction: How important is low selfcontrol?
Computers in Human Behavior,34, 284290.
Parrott, W. G., & Smith, R. H. (1993). Distinguishing the experiences of envy and jealousy. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,64, 906920. https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.64.6.906
Pronk, T. M., Karremans, J. C., & Wigboldus, D. H. J. (2010). How can you resist? Executive control helps romantically
involved individuals to stay faithful. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,100, 827837.
Pychyl, T. A., Lee, J. M., Thibodeau, R., & Blunt, A. (2000). Five days of emotion: An experience sampling study of undergraduate
student procrastination. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,15, 239254.
Quinn, P. D., & Fromme, K. (2010). Selfregulation as a protective factor against risky drinking and sexual behavior.
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,24, 376385.
Raine, A. (2008). From genes to brain to antisocial behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science,17, 323328.
Rawn, C. D., & Vohs, K. D. (2011). People use selfcontrol to risk personal harm: An intrainterpersonal dilemma. Personality
and Social Psychology Review,15, 267289.
Ritter, S. M., Karremans, J. C., & van Schie, H. T. (2010). The role of selfregulation in derogating attractive alternatives.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,46, 631637.
Roberts, B., Kuncel, N., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of
personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on
Psychological Science,2, 313345.
Ross, E. A. (1907). Sin and society: An analysis of latterday inquiry. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.
Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1984). Some antecedents and consequences of socialcomparison jealousy. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,47, 780792.
Schimmel, S. (1992). The seven deadly sins: Jewish, Christian, and classical reflections on human nature. New York, NY: The Free
Press.
14 of 16 BURKLEY ET AL.
Schmeichel, B. J., HarmonJones, E., & HarmonJones, C. (2010). Exercising selfcontrol increases approach motivation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,99, 162173.
Sedikides, C., Meek, R., Alicke, M. D., & Taylor, S. (2013). Behind bars but above the bar: Prisoners consider themselves more
prosocial than nonprisoners. The British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,53, 396403.
Sedikides, C., & Strube, M. J. (1997, 1997). Selfevaluation: To thine own self be good, to thine own self be sure, to
thine own self be true, and to thine own self be better. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
( ed., Vol. 29) (pp. 209269). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Seuntjens, T. G., Zeelenberg, M., van de Ven, N., & Breugelmans, S. M. (2015). Dispositional greed. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,108, 917933.
Shmueli, D., & Prochaska, J. J. (2009). Resisting tempting foods and smoking behavior: Implications from a selfcontrol theory
perspective. Health Psychology,28, 300306.
Smith, R. H., & Kim, S. H. (2007). Comprehending envy. Psychological Bulletin,133,4664. https://doi.org/10.1037/
00332909.133.1.46
Smith, R. H., Parrott, W. G., Diener, E. F., Hoyle, R. H., & Kim, S. H. (1999). Dispositional envy. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin,25, 10071020.
Smith, R. H., Parrott, W. G., Ozer, D., & Moniz, A. (1994). Subjective injustice and inferiority as predictors of hostile and
depressive feelings in envy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,20, 705711. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0146167294206008
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High selfcontrol predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better
grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality,72, 271322.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and wellbeing: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological
Bulletin,103, 193210.
Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007a). The psychological structure of pride: A tale of two facets. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,92, 506525.
Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007b). Emerging insights into the nature and function of pride. Current Directions in Psychological
Science,16, 147150.
Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2014). Conceptual and empirical strengths of the authentic/hubristic model of pride. Emotion,
14,3337.
van de Ven, N., Hoogland, C. E., Smith, R. H., van Dijk, W. W., Breugelmans, S. M., & Zeelenberg, M. (2015). When envy leads
to schadenfreude. Cognition and Emotion,29, 10071025. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2014.961903
van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2009). Leveling up and down: The experience of benign and malicious envy.
Emotion,9(3), 419429. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015669
Veselka, L., Giammarco, E. A., & Vernon, P. A. (2014). The dark triad and the seven deadly sins. Personality and Individual
Differences,67,7580.
Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2004). Understanding selfregulation: An introduction. In R. F. Baumeister, & K. D. Vohs
(Eds.), Handbook of selfregulation (pp. 19). New York, NY: Guilford.
Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., & Ciarocco, N. J. (2005). Selfregulation and selfpresentation: Regulatory resource depletion
impairs impression management and effortful selfpresentation depletes regulatory resources. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,88, 632657.
Vohs, K. D., & Faber, R. J. (2007). Spent resources: Selfregulatory resource availability affects impulse buying. Journal of
Consumer Research,33, 537547.
Wagenmakers, E. J., & Gronau, Q. (2018, March). Bayesian analysis of depletion replication results. In K. D. Vohs (Ed.), (Chair)
A preregistered depletion replication project: The paradigmatic replication approach. Atlanta, GA: Symposium presented at
the meeting of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology.
Wagner, D. D., Altman, M., Boswell, R. G., Kelley, W. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (2013). Selfregulatory depletion enhances
neural responses to rewards and impairs topdown control. Psychological Science,24, 22622271. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0956797613492985
Wallace, H. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2002). The effects of success versus failure feedback on further selfcontrol. Self and
Identity,1,3541.
Wang, J., Novemsky, N., Dhar, R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2010). Tradeoffs and depletion in choice. Journal of Marketing
Research,47, 910919.
Watkins, L. E., DiLillo, D., Hofmann, L., & Templin, J. (2015). Do selfcontrol depletion and negative emotion contribute to
intimate partner aggression? A labbased study. Psychology of Violence,5,3545.
BURKLEY ET AL.15 of 16
Wilde, O. (1893). Lady Windermere's fan: A play about a good woman. London: Methuen & Co.
Wills, T. A., Gibbons, F. X., Gerrard, M., Murry, V. M., & Brody, G. H. (2003). Family communication and religiosity related
to substance use and sexual behavior in early adolescence: A test for pathways through selfcontrol and prototype
perceptions. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,17, 312323.
Edward Burkley received his doctoral degree in social psychology from the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill and is an associate professor of psychology at Oklahoma State University. His research focuses on
selfcontrol, motivation, and goals. His research has been published in journals such as the Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology,Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, and Self and Identity. His research has been
featured in several media outlets, including New Scientist Magazine and the APA Monitor. In his free time, he
writes speculative fiction short stories, some of which have been published in Weirdbook and 2017 Year's Best
Body Horror (www.edwardburkley.com).
Melissa Burkley received her doctoral degree in social psychology from the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill and worked for over a decade as a professor at Oklahoma State University. Her work focuses on
stereotypes, prejudice, gender, and implicit racism. Her research has been published in professional journals
including the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, and Social
Cognition. Her research has been featured in a number of media outlets, including The New York Times,
Cosmopolitan,Esquire, and Oprah Winfrey radio; and she has served as a consultant for TIME and O Magazine.
She also writes two psychologythemed blogs: The Social Thinkerfor Psychology Today and The Writer's
Laboratory(www.melissaburkley.com).
Jessica Curtis received her doctoral degree in experimental psychology from Oklahoma State University and is an
assistant professor at Arkansas State University. Her research focuses on motivation, goals, and social influence.
Thomas Hatvany received his doctoral degree in experimental psychology from Oklahoma State University and is
an assistant professor at Shippensburg University. His research focuses on motivation, goals, social influence, and
the self.
How to cite this article: Burkley E, Burkley M, Curtis J, Hatvany T. Lead us not into temptation: The seven
deadly sins as a taxonomy of temptations. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2018;e12416. https://doi.org/
10.1111/spc3.12416
16 of 16 BURKLEY ET AL.
... Lange and Crusius (2015) emphasize that some envious fictional characters such as Shakespeare's Iago in Othello or Pushkin's Salieri paint a grim picture of people consumed by envy, motivating them to their despicable deeds. Burkley et al. (2018) point out that envy is one of the 'cardinal sins,' also known as deadly sin used to describe the temptation domains that represent the most common vices of human nature. Because of these examples and connotations, people do not like to be described as envious. ...
... Hence, benign envy is characterized, according to Van de Veen (2016) and Boardman, Raciti & Lawley (2018) by the motivation to level up to a superior performance when compared to another person. It is possible to discuss that benign envy reflects a more positive feeling of desire for what the envied one has and is rooted in a motivation to build up oneself (Burkley et al., 2018). In this case, benign envy leads to a positive motivation, where the main purpose is to improve one's position and to narrow the gap when we compare ourselves with others (Dong et al., 2020). ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Envy is a negative emotion that is based on social comparison and impacts the person's behavior. It is important to highlight that envy can be considered a universal and timeless feeling, which is part of a person's psychic structure, interfering in an individual's choices. In addition, discussions about consumer behavior and envy can be a good opportunity to understand how this emotion interferes in the products and services choices. For this reason, this theoretical essay aims to present some propositions that include a discussion about envy, social comparison, and consumer behavior. Thus, the purpose of the propositions is to begin to discuss the relationship between the constructs described and draw relevant paths for the discussion of the relationship between consumption and envy. In this scenario, self-improvement is discussed, thus, to better understand these relations, we seek to link the theories of social comparison and envy in the construction of consumption choices. 1 Let's talk about envy and its impacts on consumer behavior. Abstract Envy is a negative emotion that is based on social comparison and impacts the person's behavior. It is important to highlight that envy can be considered a universal and timeless feeling, which is part of a person's psychic structure, interfering in an individual's choices. In addition, discussions about consumer behavior and envy can be a good opportunity to understand how this emotion interferes in the products and services choices. For this reason, this theoretical essay aims to present some propositions that include a discussion about envy, social comparison, and consumer behavior. Thus, the purpose of the propositions is to begin to discuss the relationship between the constructs described and draw relevant paths for the discussion of the relationship between consumption and envy. In this scenario, self-improvement is discussed, thus, to better understand these relations, we seek to link the theories of social comparison and envy in the construction of consumption choices.
... Despite their intensive efforts to build customer loyalty, many firms are finding it challenging and have failed in the attempt (Michael, 2007). Burkley, Burkley, Curtis and Hatvany (2018) argue that one of the main reasons for this outcome is that the modern customer experiences a high level of temptation. ...
... As a result, Herjanto, Scheller-Sampson and Andreani (2019) concluded that such temptations reduce customer faithfulness or retention. Scholars argue that psychological factors are complex and multifaceted (Langdrige, Sheeran & Connolly, 2007) and therefore, a better understanding of the effect of psychological factor on consumer temptation is urgently needed (Burkley et al., 2018). ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
The lucrative global consumer market attracts the attention of practitioners and academics alike. One key aspect of consumer behavior, loyalty, is purported to derive from consumers' experience related to levels of temptation. Psychologists have argued that customer temptation is an important subset of desire or an immediate need to become involved in a particular behavior. It is believed that a combination of external factors (i.e. advertising exposure, pricing strategies, product differentiation) and psychological factors (i.e. self-satisfaction and self-discourse) determine the level of consumer temptation. This particular study aims to create a roadmap for future research by offering a new model of the customer temptation phenomenon by investigating the psychological antecedents to temptation and the moderating effect of the instrumental and hedonic motivations, as fundamental to understanding consumer temptation across the consumption phenomena.
Preprint
Full-text available
Why do many human societies condemn apparently harmless and pleasurable behaviors, such as lust, gluttony, drinking, drugs, gambling, or even music and dance? Why do they erect temperance, hedonic restraint, sobriety, decency and piety as cardinal moral virtues? While existing accounts consider this puritanical morality as an exception to the cooperative function of moral intuitions, we propose that it stems, like other moral concerns, from moral intuitions targeting cooperative challenges. Specifically, we argue that it emerges in response to a key feature of cooperation, namely that the latter is (ultimately) a long-term strategy, requiring (proximately) the self-control of appetites for immediate gratification. Puritanical moralizations condemn and praise behaviors which, although not intrinsically cooperative or uncooperative, are perceived as affecting people’s propensity to cooperate, by modifying their ability to resist short-term impulses conflicting with cooperative motivations. Drinking, drugs, unruly feasts, dances, and immodest clothing are condemned as stimulating people’s short-term impulses, thus facilitating uncooperative behaviors (e.g. adultery, violence, economic free-riding). Immoderate indulgence in harmless bodily pleasures (e.g. lust, masturbation, gluttony) is perceived as addictively reinforcing short-term impulses, thus making harder the self-control of future temptations to cheat. Moralizations of ascetic temperance, daily self-discipline, and pious ritual observance are perceived as nurturing the self-restraint consubstantial to a cooperative character, able to resist selfish temptations when the latter arise. We review psychological, historical, and ethnographic evidence supporting this account, and discuss its implications regarding the cross-cultural variations and cultural evolution of puritanical norms.
Thesis
Full-text available
The endless and rapid development of technology has revolutionised the way in which we approach ourselves and interact with each other; the introduction of social media has made communication increasingly ubiquitous and effortless. Although we are connected more than ever before, the consequences of technological progress on our society remain a fundamental subject of research. Due also to the fast rate at which the adoption and popularisation of social platforms takes place, it is difficult for the effects upon individuals’ well-being to be clearly observed. Data from all over the world show an increasing trend of social media usage and depression, both prevailing among digital natives. In the course of these years, different studies have been carried out to test a possible relationship between the two phenomena, however, results are contrasting and do not always show the same patterns. This study aims to examine how social media usage might expose us to higher risks of depression through pressure and temptation, by distorting reality, behaviour, values and by promoting everlasting consumerism.
Article
Full-text available
Two preregistered experiments with more than 1,000 participants in total found evidence of an ego depletion effect on attention control. Participants who exercised self-control on a writing task went on to make more errors on Stroop tasks (Experiment 1) and the Attention Network Test (Experiment 2) compared with participants who did not exercise self-control on the initial writing task. The depletion effect on response times was nonsignificant. A mini meta-analysis of the two experiments found a small (d = 0.20) but significant increase in error rates in the controlled writing condition, thereby providing evidence of poorer attention control under ego depletion. These results, which emerged from preregistered experiments in large samples of participants, represent some of the most rigorous evidence yet of the ego depletion effect. Postprint available here: https://psyarxiv.com/pgny3/
Article
Full-text available
Good self-control has been linked to adaptive outcomes such as better health, cohesive personal relationships, success in the workplace and at school, and less susceptibility to crime and addictions. In contrast, self-control failure is linked to maladaptive outcomes. Understanding the mechanisms by which self-control predicts behavior may assist in promoting better regulation and outcomes. A popular approach to understanding self-control is the strength or resource depletion model. Self-control is conceptualized as a limited resource that becomes depleted after a period of exertion resulting in self-control failure. The model has typically been tested using a sequential-task experimental paradigm, in which people completing an initial self-control task have reduced self-control capacity and poorer performance on a subsequent task, a state known as ego depletion. Although a meta-analysis of ego-depletion experiments found a medium-sized effect, subsequent meta-analyses have questioned the size and existence of the effect and identified instances of possible bias. The analyses served as a catalyst for the current Registered Replication Report of the ego-depletion effect. Multiple laboratories (k = 23, total N = 2,141) conducted replications of a standardized ego-depletion protocol based on a sequential-task paradigm by Sripada et al. Meta-analysis of the studies revealed that the size of the ego-depletion effect was small with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) that encompassed zero (d = 0.04, 95% CI [−0.07, 0.15]. We discuss implications of the findings for the ego-depletion effect and the resource depletion model of self-control.
Article
Despite sharing conceptual overlap, morality and self-control research have led largely separate lives. In this article, we highlight neglected connections between these major areas of psychology. To this end, we first note their conceptual similarities and differences. We then show how morality research, typically emphasizing aspects of moral cognition and emotion, may benefit from incorporating motivational concepts from self-control research. Similarly, self-control research may benefit from a better understanding of the moral nature of many self-control domains. We place special focus on various components of self-control and on the ways in which self-control goals may come to be seen as moral issues (i.e., moralized).
Article
This article describes the nature and significance of the distinction between the emotions of envy and jealousy and reports 2 experiments that empirically investigated it. In Experiment 1, Ss recalled a personal experience of either envy or jealousy. In Experiment 2, Ss read 1 of a set of stories in which circumstances producing envy and jealousy were manipulated independently in a factorial design. Both experiments introduced new methodologies to enhance their sensitivity, and both revealed qualitative differences between the 2 emotions. Envy was characterized by feelings of inferiority, longing, resentment, and disapproval of the emotion. Jealousy was characterized by fear of loss, distrust, anxiety, and anger. The practical importance of this distinction, the reasons for its confusion, and general issues regarding the empirical differentiation of emotions are discussed.
Article
An influential line of research suggests that initial bouts of self-control increase the susceptibility to self-control failure (ego depletion effect). Despite seemingly abundant evidence, some researchers have suggested that evidence for ego depletion was the sole result of publication bias and p-hacking, with the true effect being indistinguishable from zero. Here, we examine (a) whether the evidence brought forward against ego depletion will convince a proponent that ego depletion does not exist, and (b) whether arguments that could be brought forward in defense of ego depletion will convince a skeptic that ego depletion does exist. We conclude that despite several hundred published studies, the available evidence is inconclusive. Both, additional empirical and theoretical work is needed to make a compelling case for either side of the debate. We discuss necessary steps for future work toward this aim.
Article
This chapter first describes the functional neuroanatomy for emotional processing in general and outlines neuroscientific techniques used to study emotional processing. Second, it discusses neuroimaging findings on the core features of envy, including research on inferiority and social comparison, deservingness and unfairness, and hostility. Third, it presents neuroimaging findings on secondary features of envy such as guilt, embarrassment, and shame. Fourth, it discusses recent research on schadenfreude (pleasure at the misfortune of others) that has been shown to be a frequent consequence of envy when an envied person suffers. Finally, it sketches out a hypothesized functional neuroanatomical network for envy, drawing on research from envy, facets of envy, and other related emotions. The chapter then suggests research questions for testing with future human neuroimaging studies that have envy and related emotions as their focus.
Article
What makes us human? Why do people think, feel, and act as they do? What is the essence of human nature? What is the basic relationship between the individual and society? These questions have fascinated people for centuries. Now, at last, there is a solid basis for answering them, in the form of the accumulated efforts and studies by thousands of psychology researchers. We no longer have to rely on navel-gazing and speculation to understand why people are the way they are; we can instead turn to solid, objective findings. This book not only summarizes what we know about people; it also offers a coherent, easy-to-understand though radical, explanation. Turning conventional wisdom on its head, the author argues that culture shaped human evolution. Contrary to theories that depict the individual's relation to society as one of victimization, endless malleability, or just a square peg in a round hole, he proposes that the individual human being is designed by nature to be part of society. Moreover, he argues that we need to briefly set aside the endless study of cultural differences to look at what most cultures have in common; because that holds the key to human nature. Culture is in our genes, although cultural differences may not be. This core theme is further developed by a tour through the main dimensions of human psychology. What do people want? How do people think? How do emotions operate? How do people behave? And how do they interact with each other? The answers are often surprising, and along the way, the author explains how human desire, thought, feeling, and action are connected.