Psychology

GENERAL COMMENTARY published: 12 November 2013

doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00849

The multiple pathways by which self-control predicts behavior Martin S. Hagger*

Health Psychology and Behavioural Medicine Research Group, Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Psychology and Speech Pathology, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia *Correspondence: martin.hagger@curtin.edu.au

Edited by:

Simine Vazire, Washington University in St. Louis, USA

Keywords: self-regulation, willpower, strength model, reflective process, impulsive process, implicit motivation

A commentary on

Taking stock of self-control: a meta- analysis of how trait self-control relates to a wide range of behaviors by De Ridder, D. T. D., Lensvelt-Mulders, G., Finkenauer, C., Stok, F. M., and Baumeister, R. F. (2012). Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 16, 76–99. doi: 10.1177/ 1088868311418749

Good self-control, that is, an individual’s capacity to override impulses, urges, temp- tations, desires, and ingrained habits, is adaptive as it allows people to engage in sustained, effortful behavior to attain long-term outcomes, often at the expense of short-term gains and gratification. Research has shown that good self-control is associated with academic attainment, good health, cohesive relationships, and career progression. In contrast, poor self-control is related to chronic con- ditions like cardiovascular disease and obesity, alcohol problems, eating disor- ders, financial debt, and unplanned preg- nancy. In a recent meta-analytic review, de Ridder and colleagues (2012) demon- strated a small-to-medium effect for trait measures of self-control on behavioral outcomes across multiple life domains. The review provides evidence that self- control is positively associated with adap- tive, desirable outcomes and negatively associated with maladaptive, undesirable outcomes, and most strongly related to behaviors classified as “habitual” or “automatic.”

The review also lends support for the predictions of numerous theories of self-control in which self-control is con- ceptualized as a trait or dispositional capacity that affects behaviors across

multiple domains. Findings are consistent with recent a model that conceptualizes self-control as a limited resource, which allows for good self-control but leads to self-regulatory failure once depleted (Baumeister et al., 2007; Hagger et al., 2009, 2010). According to the model, greater levels of trait self-control means more resources are available and better capacity for self-control (Baumeister et al., 2006). Drawing from de Ridder et al.’s findings and previous research and the- ory on self-control, I propose a compre- hensive model that outlines the multi- ple pathways by which trait self-control affects behavior. In the model, I present a set of specific, testable hypotheses of trait self-control-action relations that will provide a basis for future theoretical devel- opment and empirical research inves- tigating the mechanisms and processes involved. In the current analysis, con- sistent with De Ridder et al. (2012), I regard self-control as an individual dif- ference that reflects capacity and avail- ability of resources to engage in goal- directed behavior and overcome impulses and habitual responses.

I propose four pathways by which self- control affects behavior (see Figure 1). The first is a direct link between self- control and behavior (P1). This reflects the consistent association between dispo- sitional self-control and action observed in numerous studies of self-control (De Ridder et al., 2012). Direct effects of dispositional variables in models of inten- tional behavior, such as the theory of planned behavior, have been frequently identified, including the effects of per- sonality on behavior (Rhodes et al., 2002, 2004). The direct effects are independent of motivational processes or intentions,

a focal construct of the theory and one that is proposed to mediate all dis- tal influences, such as personality and individual differences, on action. It has been proposed that such direct effects unmediated by intention reflect the influence of implicit, spontaneous factors on behavior (Hagger et al., 2006).

I propose two additional pathways by which dispositional self-control affects behavior. The first reflects more delib- erative effects on action mediated by intention (P2). Tacit stored knowledge of capacity to engage in effortful action to attain a goal, and the ready avail- ability of self-control resources, means individuals will be more likely to form plans and intentions to perform that action in future. Intentions, in turn, lead to subsequent goal-directed action. This pathway is akin to the “cold” or reflec- tive system proposed in theories of self- control and action (e.g., Metcalfe and Mischel, 1999; Strack and Deutsch, 2004). The second pathway reflects the impul- sive route by which self-control impacts action (P3). This pathway requires less deliberation and is likely driven by more spontaneous, automated responses. This is akin to the “hot” or impulsive route to action in which behavior is controlled by more spontaneous or automatized pro- cesses. It is also consistent with research adopting social-cognitive frameworks that have included implicit measures of moti- vation and demonstrated the effects of such measures on behavior independent of intention (Keatley et al., 2013). This path- way may reflect the extent to which an individuals’ resource availability assists in determining the more impulsive, uncon- scious influences on action that have been well-rehearsed in the past and are therefore

www.frontiersin.org November 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 849 | 1

Hagger The multiple pathways of self-control

Trait-Self Control

Implicit Motives

Behavior

Intention P2

P3

P4

P2

Trait-Self Control

P3

P1

P5

FIGURE 1 | Proposed pathways for trait self-control on behavior. The direct broken path from self-control to behavior (P1) indicates a direct effect proposed to be mediated by the indirect effects through implicit motivation and intention/motivation. The broken lines from trait self-control to the intention-behavior (P4) and implicit motives-behavior pathways (P5) reflects moderation effects.

not dependent on intentional decision- making.

The proposed mediation effects (P2 and P3) reflect the extent to which self- control forms the basis of the deliberative and impulsive precursors of action. I also propose that self-control moderates the intention-behavior relationship (P4). This implies that the availability of self-control resources determines the extent to which individuals carry out their intentions. While self-control may be implicated in individuals’ formation of intentions in the first place, their availability will dic- tate whether they have the propensity to execute them. This has been hypoth- esized by other investigators, indicating that individuals with good self-control will be more effective in engaging in inten- tional action because resource availability dictates the level of effort and invest- ment that can be committed to pursuing the intended action (Hagger et al., 2009; Wills et al., 2011). Similarly, self-control resource availability will moderate the effect of implicit motives on action (P5). In this pathway, resources may determine the extent to which an individual is able to suppress impulsive determinants of action. Individuals with considerable resources will be more effective in suppressing this pathway. These interactive effects are pro- posed to be dynamic such that individu- als with good self-control are more likely to enact their intentions and suppress

their impulses, leading to a greater effect of P2 on behavior. Analogously, individuals with poor self-control are less likely to be able to engage in effortful planning and are less able to suppress the impulsive deter- minants of action, in which case the effect of P3 on behavior will be the most perva- sive in the model.

The proposed model provides clear, testable hypotheses regarding the pro- cesses by which trait self-control influences behavior. Specifically, I have modeled the deliberative and spontaneous routes by which self-control may affect behavior through direct, indirect, and interactive pathways. I invite researchers to develop robust tests of these hypotheses using cor- relational and experimental methods to validate the model empirically (Hagger and Chatzisarantis, 2009 that these are tested in different behavioral contexts in which self-control is pertinent to success and failure.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS Martin Hagger conceived the ideas pre- sented in the article and drafted the article.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would like to thank members of the Health Psychology and Behavioural Medicine Research Group, School of Psychology and Speech Pathology at

Curtin University for their comments on an earlier draft of this article.

REFERENCES Baumeister, R. F., Gailliot, M. T., Dewall, C. N.,

and Oaten, M. (2006). Self-regulation and personality: how interventions increase regu- latory success, and how depletion moderates the effects of traits on behavior. J. Pers. 74, 1773–1801. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006. 00428.x

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., and Tice, D. M. (2007). The strength model of self-control. Curr. Dir. Psychol. 16, 351–355. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 8721.2007.00534.x

De Ridder, D. T. D., Lensvelt-Mulders, G., Finkenauer, C., Stok, F. M., and Baumeister, R. F. (2012). Taking stock of self-control: a meta-analysis of how trait self-control relates to a wide range of behaviors. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 16, 76–99. doi: 10.1177/1088868311418749

Hagger, M. S., and Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2009). Assumptions in research in sport and exercise psy- chology. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 10, 511–519. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.01.004

Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., and Harris, J. (2006). From psychological need satisfaction to intentional behavior: testing a motivational sequence in two behavioral con- texts. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 32, 131–138. doi: 10.1177/0146167205279905.

Hagger, M. S., Wood, C., Stiff, C., and Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2009). The strength model of self-regulation failure and health-related behavior. Health Psychol. Rev. 3, 208–238. doi: 10.1080/17437190903414387

Hagger, M. S., Wood, C., Stiff, C., and Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2010). Ego depletion and the strength model of self-control: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 136, 495–525. doi: 10.1037/a00 19486

Keatley, D. A., Clarke, D. D., and Hagger, M. S. (2013). The predictive validity of implicit measures of self-determined motivation across health-related behaviours. Br. J. Health Psychol. 18, 2–17. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8287.2011. 02063.x

Metcalfe, J., and Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool- system analysis of delay of gratification: the dynamics of willpower. Psychol. Rev. 106, 3–19. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.106.1.3

Rhodes, R. E., Courneya, K. S., and Jones, L. W. (2002). Personality, the theory of planned behavior, and exercise: a unique role for extro- version’s activity facet. J. Appl. Soci. Psychol. 32, 1721–1736. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002. tb02772.x

Rhodes, R. E., Courneya, K. S., and Jones, L. W. (2004). Personality and social cognitive influ- ences on exercise behavior: adding the activity trait to the theory of planned behavior. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 5, 243–254. doi: 10.1016/S1469-02920 0004-9

Strack, F., and Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behav- ior. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 8, 220–247. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_1

Frontiers in Psychology | Personality Science and Individual Differences November 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 849 | 2

). It is also important

Hagger The multiple pathways of self-control

Wills, T. A., Pokhrel, P., Morehouse, E., and Fenster, B. (2011). Behavioral and emotional regulation and adolescent substance use problems: a test of mod- eration effects in a dual-process model. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 25, 279–292. doi: 10.1037/a0022870

Received: 08 October 2013; accepted: 24 October 2013; published online: 12 November 2013.

Citation: Hagger MS (2013) The multiple pathways by which self-control predicts behavior. Front. Psychol. 4:849. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00849 This article was submitted to Personality Science and Individual Differences, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology. Copyright © 2013 Hagger. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative

Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, dis- tribution or reproduction in other forums is permit- ted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted aca- demic practice. No use, distribution or reproduc- tion is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

www.frontiersin.org November 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 849 | 3