The significance of self-control

Abstract

Self-control is among the most widely studied constructs in the social sciences. For instance, more than 3% of peer-reviewed psychology articles in the past year were referenced by the key word “self-control” or closely related terms. The report by Moffitt et al. (1) in PNAS substantially advances this growing literature by demonstrating robust predictive associations between childhood self-control and a wide range of consequential life outcomes in a large, nationally representative sample of New Zealanders.

Full text

The significance of self-control
Angela L. Duckworth
1
Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104
S
elf-control is among the most
widely studied constructs in the
social sciences. For instance,
more than 3% of peer-reviewed
psychology articles in the past year were
referenced by the key word “self-control”
or closely related terms. The report by
Moffitt et al. (1) in PNAS substantially
advances this growing literature by dem-
onstrating robust predictive associations
between childhood self-control and a wide
range of consequential life outcomes in
a large, nationally representative sample
of New Zealanders.
Defining Self-Control
Monikers for self-control vary wi dely and
include delay of gratification, effortful
control, willpower, execu tive control ,
time preference, self-discipline, self-
regulation, and ego streng th. Moffitt et al.
(1) use the term self-control synony-
mously with conscientiousness, a large
class of personality traits that includes
responsibility, industriousness, and or-
derliness (2). The common thread run-
ning through diverse conceptualizations
of self-control is the idea of effortful
regulation of the self by the self. Self-
controlled indiv idua ls a re mor e adept
than their impulsive coun terparts at reg-
ulating their be havioral , em otional, a nd
attentional impulses t o achieve l ong-
term goals.
The notion of effortful self-governance
presumes an internal conflict between
mutually exclusive responses. One cannot,
alas, have one’s cake later and eat it now,
too. Critical to situations that call upon
self-control is that one response is obvi-
ously superior (e.g., saving one’s cake or,
more likely, forgoing the cake altogether)
yet the alternative, inferior response is
nevertheless more psychologically potent
(e.g., devouring the cake on the spot).
The seeming irrationality of acting against
our own best long-term interests has been
of perennial interest not only to social
scientists but also to philosophers (3);
and, arguably, every major religious tradi-
tion advocates forsaking pleasure in the
moment to realize greater, deferred
rewards (4).
Freud (5) theorized that successful so-
cialization was a process by which children
learn to suppress immediately gratifying
impulses to do what is best, for oneself and
for society, in the long term. Modern em-
pirical research has since confirmed that
the capacity for self-control strengthens
over the life course, well beyond child-
hood in fact and possibly into middle and
late adulthood (6, 7). Although older
individuals are, on average, more self-
controlled than younger individuals,
there are nevertheless salient differences
in self-control among individuals of the
same age.
Why Self-Control Matters
Moffitt et al. (1) focus on individual dif-
ferences in self-control among same-aged
individuals. Their major finding is that
self-control measured with observer,
parent, teacher, and self-report ratings
during the first decade of life predicts
income, savings behavior, financial secu-
rity, occupational prestige, physical and
mental health, substance use, and (lack
of) criminal convictions, among other
There may be no
such thing as “too much”
self-control.
outcomes, in adulthood. Remarkably,
the predictive power of self-control
is comparable to that of either general
intelligence or family socioeconomic
status.
Moffitt et al. (1) observe that the salu-
tary effect of childhood self-control on
adult functioning is evident at all points
along the self-control continuum. The
consistently beneficial effects of self-
control have two important implications.
First, there may be no such thing as “too
much” self-control, a possibility that has
been suggested but not tested directly in
a large, representative sample (8). Second,
policies, interventions, and cultural prac-
tices aimed at bolstering self-control may
improve the welfare of the general pop-
ulation rather than just a subset of severely
impaired individuals.
Moffitt et al. (1) find that the benefi ts
of self-control for adult functioning are
partially mediated by better decision
making during adolescence. Specifically,
self-controlled children are less likely
to smoke, drop out of high school, or
become parents during adolescence, and
staying out of those three kinds of trou-
ble statistically explains some of the ef-
fects of self-control on adult outcomes.
Partial rather than full mediation sug-
gests that there are, in addition, other
pathways by which self-control might
produce its beneficial effects. Among
other possibilities, self-controlled chil-
dren may thrive in adulthood because of
better academic performance (9, 10),
physical health (11), and interpersonal
relations (12).
Like other personality traits, self-control
in the Moffitt et al. (1) study demonstrates
moderate rank-order stability. Whereas
children do not as a rule change radically
in their rank-ordering on self-control,
those who do improve in self-control rel-
ative to same-aged counterparts fare bet-
ter in adulthood. Moffitt et al. consider
this finding as indirect evidence for the
potential benefits of interventions aimed
at increasing self-control in children.
Given the nonexperimental nature of
the Moffitt et al. study (1), we should
also keep in mind the possibility that un-
measured factors responsible for acceler-
ating the development of self-control
(including, for instance, competent par-
enting) may act independently as causal
antecedents of positive adult functioning.
Because of the ever-present possibility
of such confounds, random assignment
studies demonstrating the benefits of
self-control interventions make a stron-
ger case for self-control interventions
(13–15).
Importantly, the analyses presented by
Moffitt et al. statistically control for the
potential confounds of intelligence and
family background, two variables that in
prior studies have been associated with
self-control (16, 17). Moreover, to account
for the possibility of unmeasured as-
pects of the family environment driving
the predictive correlations between self-
control and later outcomes, Moffitt et al.
compare in a separate sample self-
controlled children with their less self-
controlled siblings. Consistent with their
main analyses, childhood self-control
continues to predict later outcomes, even
when controlling for family effects in this
quasi-experimental design.
It seems that less-evolved species are
not tortured in the same way as we
humans, who struggle to stay on diets, kick
smoking habits, stop biting our nails, put
an end to procrastinating, control our
tempers, and otherwise follow through on
resolutions we know will improve our
overall well-being. We human beings often
Author contributions: A.L.D. wrote the paper.
The author declares no conflict of interest.
See companion article on page 2693.
1
E-mail: duckworth@psych.upenn.edu.
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1019725108 PNAS
|
February 15, 2011
|
vol. 108
|
no. 7
|
2639–2640
COMMENTARY

want, and want to want, different things
(18). Moffitt et al. (1) provide con-
vincing evidence that some of us are better
than others at doing what we want to
want and, further, that the capacity to gov-
ern ourselves effectively in the face
of temptation has profound benefits
across every major domain of life
functioning.
1. Moffitt TE, et al. (2011) A gradient of childhood self-
control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proc
Natl Acad Sci USA 108:2693–2698.
2. Roberts BW, Chernyshenko OS, Stark S, Goldberg LR
(2005) The structure of conscientiousness: An empirical
investigation based on seven major personality ques-
tionnaires. Person Psychol 58:103–139.
3. Burnyeat MF (1999) Aristotle on learning to be good.
Aristotle’s Ethics: Critical Essays, ed Sherman N
(Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD), pp 205–230.
4. Koole SL, McCullough ME, Kuhl J, Roelofsma PHMP
(2010) Why religion’s burdens are light: From religios-
ity to implicit self-regulation. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 14:
95–107.
5. Freud S (1922) Beyond the Pleasure Principle (Liveright,
New York).
6. Roberts BW, Walton KE, Viechtbauer W (2006) Patterns
of mean-level change in personality traits across the
life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psy-
chol Bull 132:1–25.
7. Rothbart MK, Rueda MR (2005) The development of
effortful control. Developing Individuality in the Hu-
man Brain, eds Mayr U, Awh E, Keele SW (American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC).
8. Grant AM, Schwartz B (2010) Too Much of a Good
Thing: The Challenge and Opportunity of the Inverted-
U (University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA).
9. Duckworth AL, Seligman MEP (2005) Self-discipline
outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of
adolescents. Psychol Sci 16:939–944.
10. Mischel W, Shoda Y, Rodriguez MI (1989) Delay of
gratification in children. Science 244:933–938.
11. Tsukayama E, Toomey SL, Faith MS, Duckworth AL
(2010) Self-control as a protective factor against over-
weight status in the transition from childhood to ado-
lescence. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 164:631–635.
12. Tangney JP, Baumeister RF, Boone AL (2004) High self-
control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, bet-
ter grades, and interpersonal success. J Pers 72:
271–324.
13. Diamond A, Barnett WS, Thomas J, Munro S (2007)
Preschool program improves cognitive control. Science
318:1387–1388.
14. Durlak JA, Weissberg RP, Dymnicki AB, Taylor RD,
Schellinger KB The impact of enhancing students’ so-
cial and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-
based universal interventions. Child Dev, in press.
15. Duckworth AL, Grant H, Loew B, Oettingen G,
Gollwitzer PM (2010) Self-regulation strategies im-
prove self-discipline in adolescents: Benefits of mental
contrasting and implementation intention. Educ Psy-
chol 31:17–26.
16. Shamosh NA, Gray JR (2007) The relation between
fluid intelligence and self-regulatory depletion. Cogn
Emotion 21:1833–1843.
17. Evans GW, Rosenbaum J ( 2008) Self-regulation and
the income-achievement gap. Early Child Res Q 23:
504–514.
18. Frankfurt HG (1971) Freedom of the will and the con-
cept of a person. J Philos 68:5–20.
2640
|
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1019725108 Duckworth