Two psychologists argue that psychological science struggles with the idea of self-control. It has identified self-control as both a “trait”—an essential part of personality that includes factors like conscientiousness, perseverance, and the ability to delay gratification—and a “state,” which refers to a temporary condition similar to willpower. These definitions contradict each other and often lead to confusion, the authors explain.
According to University of Toronto psychology professor Michael Inzlicht and University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign psychology professor Brent Roberts, who shared their insights in a review published in the journal Current Opinion in Psychology, “Self-control is a valued quality. Individuals with high self-control are admired and viewed as morally upright.” Research often shows that people who have high scores in various conscientiousness measures tend to excel academically, financially, and maintain healthier lives.
This has caused psychologists to link the temporary experience of willpower to other traits that lead conscientious individuals to succeed, the researchers noted.
“We previously thought that those who are highly conscientious simply use their willpower more frequently than their less conscientious counterparts,” Roberts explained. “However, this isn’t true. Conscientious individuals do not exercise more self-control than others; in fact, studies have revealed they spend less time suppressing their impulses. This finding was surprising when it emerged over a decade ago.”
The focus on willpower resulted in initiatives designed to enhance it, which were also intended to boost conscientiousness. While this approach occasionally produced some short-term benefits, the researchers observed that these effects usually diminish over time.
“People tend to return to their original levels of willpower and conscientiousness,” Inzlicht remarked. “Willpower is often delicate, inconsistent, and weak.”
Inzlicht asserts that research indicates other elements of “trait self-control” likely play a more significant role in providing the long-term advantages of this trait.
“This might include their diligence or organizational abilities,” he noted. “Or potentially their capacity to remain committed to a goal.”
“We are contemplating whether we should stop using the term ‘self-control’ when discussing traits and use conscientiousness instead,” the researchers wrote. “Imagine an alternate reality where we had chosen terms like ‘planfulness’ or ‘consideration of future consequences.’
“Achieving success in life might come more from careful planning and evaluation before facing a temptation, rather than from exerting willpower in the moment,” they posited. “Perhaps conscientiousness arises not from applying willpower, but from avoiding the need to apply it altogether.”
Ultimately, Inzlicht and Roberts stated their goal is to “emphasize the necessity for a broader understanding of self-control within psychological research and its applications.”
Roberts is also affiliated with the Carl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology at the University of Illinois.
This research received support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada.
