Understanding Self-Control as a Problem of Regulatory Scope

Abstract

Although the focus of research for decades, there is a surprising lack of consensus on what is (and what is not) self-control. We review some of the most prominent theoretical models of self-control, including those that highlight conflicts between smaller-sooner versus larger-later rewards, “hot” emotions versus “cool” cognitions, and efficient automatic versus resource-intensive controlled processes. After discussing some of their shortcomings, we propose an alternative approach based on tenets of construal level theory (Trope et al., 2021) that integrates these disparate models while also providing novel insights. Specifically, we model self-control as a problem of regulatory scope—the range of considerations one accounts for in any decision or behavior. Self-control conflicts occur when the pursuit of specific local opportunities threatens the ability to address motivational priorities that span a broader array of time, places, individuals, and possibilities. Whereas a more contractive consideration of relevant concerns may prompt indulgence in temptation, a more expansive consideration of concerns should not only help people identify the self-control conflict but also successfully resolve it. We review empirical evidence that supports this new framework and discuss implications and new directions. This regulatory framework not only clarifies what is and what is not self-control but also provides new insights that can be leveraged to enhance self-control in all its various forms.

Full text

Understanding Self-Control as a Problem of Regulatory Scope
Kentaro Fujita
1
, Yaacov Trope
2
, and Nira Liberman
3, 4
1
Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University
2
Department of Psychology, New York University
3
School of Psychological Sciences, Tel-Aviv University
4
Behavioral Economic Engineering and Social Cognition, University of Cologne
Although the focus of research for decades, there is a surprising lack of consensus on what is (andwhat is not)
self-control. We review some of the most prominent theoretical models of self-control, including those
that highlight conflicts between smaller-sooner versus larger-later rewards, “hot”emotions versus “cool”
cognitions, and efficient automatic versus resource-intensive controlled processes. After discussing some of
their shortcomings, we propose an alternative approach based on tenets of construal level theory (Trope et al.,
2021) that integrates these disparate models while also providing novel insights. Specifically, we model self-
control as a problem of regulatory scope—the range of considerations one accounts for in any decision or
behavior. Self-control conflicts occur when the pursuit of specific local opportunities threatens the ability to
address motivational priorities that spana broader array of time, places, individuals, and possibilities. Whereas
a more contractive consideration of relevant concerns may promptindulgence in temptation, a more expansive
consideration of concerns should not only help people identify the self-control conflict but also successfully
resolve it. We reviewempirical evidence thatsupports this new framework and discuss implications and new
directions. This regulatory framework not only clarifies what is and what is not self-control but also provides
new insights that can be leveraged to enhance self-control in all its various forms.
Keywords: construal level theory, regulatory scope, self-control, intertemporal choice, social dilemmas
People are frequently tempted to make decisions and act in a
manner that undermines the attainment of more valued outcomes.
For example, smokers continue to smoke in contradiction to their
cessation intentions, dieters indulge in their favorite comfort foods
despite their weight-loss concerns, and consumers spend profligately
in opposition to their savings goals. These self-control failures are
implicated in some of the most pressing societal problems, including
substance abuse, obesity, violence, and poor financial decision
making. On the other hand, self-control success is associated with
numerous positive outcomes, including academic achievement,
financial success, stronger interpersonal relationships, and enhanced
physical and mental health (e.g., Duckworth & Seligman, 2005;W.
Mischel et al., 1989;Moffitt et al., 2011;Tangney et al., 2004). Given
this, researchers across numerous scientific disciplines—including
psychology, neuroscience, economics, marketing, management, and
philosophy—have attempted to understand who, when, and why
some succeed whereas others fail in their self-control efforts.
Despite this concerted multidisciplinary effort, progress has been
limited by the lack of unifying theoretical models that meaningfully
integrate these disparate programs of research. There is a surprising
lack of consensus even on the most basic and fundamental question
of how to define self-control (e.g., Ainslie, 1975,2021;Berkman,
Hutcherson, et al., 2017;Berkman, Livingston, & Kahn, 2017;
Duckworth et al., 2016;Fujita, 2011;Rachlin, 1995). It is unclear
how research moves forward when researchers debate what is or
what is not an instance of the topic of inquiry.
The present work represents a preliminary step in addressing
this situation. We briefly survey popular theoretical models of self-
control and discuss their shortcomings. We then propose a novel
approach based on construal level theory (Liberman & Trope, 2008;
Trope & Liberman, 2010) that seeks to integrate these disparate
models while also providing new insight. Specifically, we model
self-control as a problem of regulatory scope—the range of
considerations one accounts for in any decision or behavior (Trope
et al., 2021). Self-control conflicts occur when the pursuit of specific
local opportunities threatens the ability to address motivational
priorities that span a broader array of time, places, individuals, and
possibilities. Whereas a more contractive consideration of relevant
concerns may prompt indulgence in temptation, a more expansive
consideration of concerns should not only help people identify the
self-control conflict but also successfully resolve it. We review
emerging empirical evidence that supports this new framework and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This article was published Online First September 12, 2024.
Julian G. C. Elliott served as action editor.
Kentaro Fujita https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3527-6002
Yaacov Trope https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1448-1960
Nira Liberman https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7496-9434
Support for the preparation of this article was provided in part by grants
from the National Science Foundation (Grant 1626733) and the John
Templeton Foundation (Grant: 15462; Subaward: SC18) Philosophy and
Science of Self-Control Project to Kentaro Fujita and by a United States–
Israel Binational Science Foundation Grant (No. 2020120) to Nira Liberman
and Yaacov Trope.
Kentaro Fujita played a lead role in writing–original draft and writing–
review and editing and an equal role in conceptualization. Yaacov Trope
played a supporting role in writing–review and editing and an equal role in
conceptualization. Nira Liberman played a supporting role in writing–review
and editing and an equal role in conceptualization.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kentaro
Fujita, Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, 1827 Neil
Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, United States. Email: fujita.5@osu.edu
Psychological Review
© 2024 American Psychological Association 2025, Vol. 132, No. 1, 50–75
ISSN: 0033-295X https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000501
50