When and How to Control Consumption
The Dieter’s Dilemma: Identifying When and How to Control Consumption
Ayelet Fishbach, Kristian Ove R. Myrseth University of Chicago
From: Fishbach, A. & Myrseth, K. O. R. (Forthcoming). The Dieter’s Dilemma: Identifying When and How to Control Consumption. Dubé, L. (Ed.) Obesity Prevention: The Role of Society and Brain on Individual Behavior. Elsevier.
Fishbach and Myrseth 1
When and How to Control Consumption
ABSTRACT We demonstrate the two necessary stages for successful self-control in the face of tempting foods: (i) identification of self-control conflict and (ii) implementation of self-control strategies. Successful self-control requires that the individual identifies multiple opportunities to indulge as interrelated and that the same choice will be made for each opportunity. Only in this interrelated frame will the health-conscious individual perceive potentially serious costs of indulging in tempting, unhealthy foods. In the second stage, when a self-control conflict is identified, successful self-control depends further on the operation of counteractive self-control strategies. These strategies undermine the motivational strength of tempting foods and bolster the motivational strength of weight-watching goals. As a result of exercising self-control, the likelihood of adhering to health and weight-watching goals increases.
KEYWORDS: self-control, goals, temptations, counteractive control, highlighting, balancing
Fishbach and Myrseth 2
When and How to Control Consumption
1.
INTRODUCTION Drawn to plentitudes of tempting foods, the dieter’s challenge of restricting consumption
is two-fold. Not only must she employ the force of will to steer clear from temptation, but she must also know when such efforts are appropriate in the first place. Clearly, people need to eat and, unlike other temptations (e.g., cigarettes, drugs and alcohol), abstinence is not a solution. The question is then, when and under what circumstances should people exercise restraint? Having the one extra sandwich between meals might not amount to high costs alone, but having it every day might. Indulging in one chocolate alone will not cause significant problems for most dieters, but regular consumption might. Knowing when to exercise restraint is as important as knowing how to exercise restraint, and these two challenges together constitute the dieter’s dilemma. In this chapter, we review research on the two stages of the dieter’s dilemma. We first distinguish between the different challenges associated with each stage for success and failure at self-control. Subsequently, we review the research on conflict identification, focusing on factors that increase the dieter’s tendency to identify a self-control problem when facing tempting foods. Thereafter, we discuss the second stage, focusing on the role of counteractive self-control processes in promoting the pursuit of dieting and health goals.
2.
A TWO-STAGE MODEL OF SELF-CONTROL: IDENTIFICATION VERSUS
RESOLUTION While the psychological literature to date has mainly focused on the manifestations and mechanisms of self-control (Baumeister et al. 1994, Fishbach & Trope, 2007; Loewenstein, 1996; Mischel, et al. 1989), a precondition for self-control is that individuals perceive a self-
Fishbach and Myrseth 3
When and How to Control Consumption
control conflict and hence the necessity to harness temptation. Of course, there are circumstances in which the person will have no issue with recognizing a potential problem of indulging. We could imagine the gourmet diner facing a delicious dessert on the plate before her, knowing that having that dessert could trigger a dangerous allergic reaction; she should not have it. In this case, her capacity to exercise self-control efforts determines her likelihood of resolving the conflict in favor of the goal to stay healthy (and alive). In other circumstances, however, recognizing conflict may not prove obvious. For example, another dieter could be facing the same dessert, though without allergy concerns. Having this one dessert alone will but trivially affect her health, but having desserts in general may prove detrimental (e.g., Rachlin, 2000). The likelihood of her indulging in dessert, therefore, depends jointly on her (1) identifying choice conflict and (2) invoking effective self-control strategies given conflict identification. Of course, the problem of identification for the dieter is commonplace and characterizes most consumption decisions about food, since the cost of overeating on a single occasion is almost always trivial. On the basis of this analysis, we propose a two-stage model of self-control to describe the dieter’s dilemma (Myrseth & Fishbach, 2009a). According to this model (see Figure 1), individuals facing a tempting stimulus either will identify self-control conflict or not (Stage 1). If the individual identifies self-control conflict, the individual will employ self-control processes to promote goal-pursuit over indulgence in temptation (Stage 2). However, if the individual does not initially identify self-control conflict, the individual will choose temptation without invoking self-control processes. The individual who has identified a conflict might then succeed to stay clear of temptation, in which case we have successful goal pursuit. Alternatively, self-control processes
Fishbach and Myrseth 4
When and How to Control Consumption
may fall short, and we have a classic case of acrasia: lacking command over oneself. Although the individual’s failure in invoking effective self-control strategies after identifying a conflict will have consequences similar to those of the individual who failed to identify conflict (Stage 1), the etiologies of the two are distinct. These distinct etiologies for success and failure of selfcontrol are consequential for understanding and improving goal pursuit. 2.1
The First Stage: Conflict Identification The problem of identification arises only in circumstances under which the cost of a
single indulgence is trivial (or epsilon). We conceptually distinguish between “malignant” and “epsilon cost” temptation. The former is characterized by potentially serious costs associated with unit consumption (e.g., sugar for the dieter with diabetes). The latter is characterized by trivial costs (e.g., sugar for the dieter with no diabetes). Specifically, the unit consumption cost of epsilon temptation is trivial, but the extended consumption cost may prove quite serious. Epsilon cost temptation is distinct from malignant temptation by virtue of its ambiguous threat to goal pursuit (during Stage 1, Figure 1). The individual facing malignant temptation will likely identify self-control conflict, but conflict identification in the face of epsilon cost temptation is less clear. For most people, a serving of tempting food represents an epsilon cost temptation: there are trivial costs associated with consuming a serving of food, but potentially serious costs following extended consumption. Therefore, the question of conflict identification is central to understanding healthy eating. We propose the conditions necessary for the dieter to identify self-control conflict in the face of epsilon cost temptation. In general, the dieter must view the choice opportunity in relation to multiple similar choice opportunities. This interrelated choice frame has two key properties that distinguish it from another, isolated frame:
Fishbach and Myrseth 5
When and How to Control Consumption
(i) Width: The interrelated frame must be wide, such that the individual sees multiple choice opportunities. (ii) Consistency: The individual expects to make similar choices for each of the multiple opportunities. Successful resolution of the dieter’s dilemma depends on the width of the frame, as people make healthier food choices when they consider a wide (vs. narrow) time frame (Rachlin, 2000; Read et al. 1999). For example, when making a snack choice for the entire week, people may choose healthier options than when making a separate decision each day of the week (Kudadjie-Gyambi & Rachlin, 1996; Read et al. 1999). We have recently demonstrated the effect of a wide frame in a study that manipulated the mere perception of the time frame as wide versus narrow (Myrseth & Fishbach, 2009b). Participants in our study approached a food stand offering free carrots and chocolates, unaware that they were participating in a study. The poster adjacent to the food stand either announced “Spring Food Stand” (the wide frame), or “April 12 Food Stand” (the narrow frame). We found that those who approached the “Spring” food stand took more carrots (the healthy option) and fewer chocolates (the tempting option) than did those who approached the “April 12” food stand. This is because “spring” activated a wider time frame than a specific spring day, increasing the likelihood that participants approaching this stand considered the present choice in light of similar future opportunities. Thus, they more likely identified self-control conflict between staying healthy and indulging than did those approaching the “April 12” stand. However, adopting a wide time frame is not sufficient for identifying self-control conflict. In addition, individuals should see themselves making similar choices across multiple opportunities, leading them to highlight the same important goal across these opportunities.
Fishbach and Myrseth 6
When and How to Control Consumption
Research on the dynamics of self-regulation addresses this second criterion for conflict identification (Fishbach & Dhar, 2005; Fishbach et al. 2006; Fishbach & Zhang, 2008; Koo & Fishbach, 2008). This research examines how individuals’ frames of goal pursuit influence the pattern of self-regulation individuals follow. These frames can either lead to a highlighting dynamic of choice, by which pursuit of the overriding goal is chosen across choice opportunities, or to a balancing dynamic, by which goal pursuit and indulgence in temptation are balanced across opportunities. Specifically, this work suggests that choices consistent with goal-pursuit may signal either greater commitment to a goal or progress toward this goal. For example, after choosing to forego unhealthy food, a person may conclude either that she is more committed to her health goals or that she has made progress on the health goals. These different inferences from the same choice, to eat healthy food, will have opposite consequences for subsequent choice of action. As shown in Figure 2, a “commitment frame” leads to a dynamic of “highlighting” the important goal, whereas a “progress frame” leads to a dynamic of “balancing” this goal and short-term temptation. In a commitment frame, for example, choosing to eat healthy food increases the likelihood that a person will make another healthy choice at the next opportunity, because the strength of the health goal increases (high commitment). Conversely, choosing to eat unhealthy food decreases the likelihood of making healthy choices because the strength of the health goal decreases (low commitment). In contrast, in the progress frame, choosing to eat healthy food decreases the likelihood that a person will make another healthy choice, because the strength of the partially fulfilled goal decreases (high progress). Conversely, choosing to eat unhealthy food increases the likelihood of making a healthy choice because the strength of an unfulfilled goal is high (low progress).
Fishbach and Myrseth 7
When and How to Control Consumption
In a study that tested this model, Fishbach, Dhar, and Zhang (2006) manipulated the frame of healthy behaviors by priming (or not) super-ordinate health goals for gym users. They hypothesized that when gym users consider the overall meaning of their workout to their superordinate health goals, they would infer their personal commitment from their level of exercise, and so subsequent food consumption would be consistent with initial performance through a dynamic of highlighting (i.e., greater exercise – healthier eating). In contrast, when gym users focus on the action itself (no health goal reminder), they infer their level of progress from their level of exercise, and subsequent behavior would compensate for initial performance through a dynamic of balancing (i.e., greater exercise – unhealthier eating). Consistent with these predictions, when gym users were reminded of the super-ordinate health goal, those who learned that they exercised more than others intended to eat healthier food than those who learned that they exercised less (a highlighting dynamic). In contrast, when gym users were not reminded of the super-ordinate goal, those who learned that they exercised less than others intended to eat healthier food than those who learned that they exercised more (a balancing dynamic). It appears that when the super-ordinate health goal is salient and conflict is identified, thinking about exercise achievement may further reinforce commitments to the goal of maintaining good health, thus promoting consistent healthy behavior. But paradoxically, when the super-ordinate goal is not salient and a conflict is not identified, thinking about exercise achievement can reduce healthy food consumption because people engage in a balancing dynamic of choice, whereby consistency of choice is not expressed across opportunities. In another study that tested how inferences of goal progress may allow individuals to indulge, Fishbach and Dhar (2005) manipulated perceived goal progress by asking participants to indicate the discrepancy between their current and ideal weight on scales that either had
Fishbach and Myrseth 8
When and How to Control Consumption
endpoints of -5 lbs or -20 lbs. The same discrepancies in absolute terms (e.g., 3 lbs) would appear larger in the former than in the latter case, and so participants were expected to infer more goal progress for the -20 lbs scale than for the -5 lbs scale. Accordingly, those indicating discrepancies on the -20 lbs scale were more likely to subsequently choose an unhealthy chocolate over a healthy apple. That is, learning that one is closer to one’s ideal weight decreases efforts toward healthy eating when people do not identify a self-control conflict between eating healthy or not. Further studies find that merely thinking about future goal pursuits can influence present choice (Zhang et al. 2007). For example, when considering future workouts, gym users may conclude either that they are more committed to their health goal or that they will make progress toward the goal. These inferences will have opposite implications for what they presently decide to eat. People will indulge less in unhealthy foods when interpreting future workouts as commitment to health goals, but more when interpreting future workouts as progress. Moreover, to the extent that people are optimistic and believe more goal attainment is achieved in the future than in the past (Buehler et al. 2002; Newby-Clark et al. 2000; Weinstein, 1989), future expectations may even have greater impact than past behaviors on present choice. For example, considering the intention to work out in the future, more than considering past exercise, increased healthy food consumption under the commitment frame and decreased it under the progress frame. Research on the dynamics of self-regulation further shows that presenting choice alternatives as competing versus complementing influences the choice dynamic that individuals adopt, namely highlighting or balancing (Fishbach & Zhang, 2008). According to this research, presenting goal- and temptation-related choice options (e.g., healthy and unhealthy food) apart in
Fishbach and Myrseth 9
When and How to Control Consumption
two separate choice sets, versus together in one choice set (e.g., in two different bowls or in the same bowl), determines whether individuals perceive them as conflicting versus complementary. When the options are apart, they seem conflicting and thus promote a highlighting dynamic of choice; when the options are together, they seem complementary and hence promote a balancing dynamic of choice. In a highlighting dynamic, individuals employ self-control processes to secure goal pursuit. In a balancing dynamic, however, they proactively postpone goal pursuit in favor of instant gratification. That is, when individuals plan to balance between complementary alternatives, they do not see themselves making the same choice in the future, and so there is no self-control conflict. Therefore, they choose to indulge presently, with the intention of choosing goal-pursuit later. To demonstrate these effects, Fishbach and Zhang (2008) presented healthy and unhealthy food items in one of three presentation formats: (a) together in one image, to induce a sense of complementarity and a dynamic of balancing, (b) in two separate images, to induce a sense of competition and a dynamic of highlighting, or (c) in two separate experimental sessions, as a control condition (see Figure 3). They selected healthy and unhealthy food items that were similarly positive when evaluated independently (e.g., fresh tomatoes vs. cheeseburger). As expected, presenting these items together, in one image, increased liking for unhealthy foods because the items appeared complementary, whereas presenting them apart, in separate images, increased liking for healthy foods because the items appeared conflicting. In another study, these researchers measured liking for healthy and unhealthy courses on a restaurant menu. The courses were either presented together on one menu (e.g., “garden salad” and “chili cheese fries” were on the same appetizer list); or apart, in two separate parts of a menu (e.g., one side included the “garden salad” and the other included the “chili cheese fries” on the
Fishbach and Myrseth 10
When and How to Control Consumption
appetizer lists). The researchers found that mixing these courses together on a single menu rendered them complementary and increased the value of unhealthy courses. However, presenting them separately, on two parts of a menu, rendered them conflicting and increased the value of healthy courses. Moreover, when healthy and unhealthy foods were mixed together, fewer participants chose a healthy entrée compared with a healthy dessert. This is consistent with a balancing dynamic of choice, whereby immediate gratification takes precedent over subsequent goal pursuit. However, when healthy and unhealthy foods were separated into distinct sections on the menus, most participants chose both a healthy entrée and a healthy dessert, consistent with a highlighting dynamic of choice. Similar to reminding people of their super-ordinate goals, presenting choice alternatives apart, as conflicting with each other, facilitates successful self-control by helping people identify a conflict between maintaining good health and indulging. When items are presented together and seem complementary, people fail to perceive a self-control problem in the present choice, leaving goal pursuit for the future (“I start my diet tomorrow”). It follows that people’s concern with weight-watching should positively predict choice of healthy items when these items are presented apart from unhealthy items, signaling conflict between their important goals and temptations, but not when these items are presented together with unhealthy items, signaling no conflict. To examine this idea, Fishbach and Zhang (2008) offered participants a choice between a chocolate bar and a bag of baby carrots. They found that when the options were presented apart, in two different piles, more participants chose the healthy carrots than when the options were presented together. More importantly, when the chocolate and carrot options were presented apart, participants’ concern with weight-watching positively predicted their choice of carrots over chocolate. That is, dieters preferred carrots more than did non-dieters. However,
Fishbach and Myrseth 11
When and How to Control Consumption
when the foods were mixed into the same pile, participants’ concern with weight-watching did not predict choice, because they failed to identify the choice set as a self-control conflict. Therefore, they did not adhere to their goals. In summary, research reviewed here demonstrates that identification of self-control conflict depends, first of all, on a wide frame. That is, the individual needs to consider making multiple choices, such that the cost of yielding to temptation is potentially high. A wide frame, however, is not sufficient for identifying self-control conflict. In addition, individuals need to perceive a choice pattern that highlights one type of choice and promotes consistency. 2.2
The Second Stage: Choice Resolution To the extent that a self-control conflict is identified upon presentation of temptation, the
individual will exert self-control. Then, successful goal pursuit will depend on the effectiveness of self-control strategies. In this section we address the nature of the self-control strategies from the standpoint of counteractive control theory (Fishbach & Trope, 2005; Myrseth et al. 2009; Trope & Fishbach, 2000). This theory describes the processes by which individuals offset (i.e., counteract) the influence of temptations on goal pursuit. According to counteractive control theory, self-control strategies involve asymmetric shifts in motivational strength: an increase in the motivation to pursue a goal and a decrease in the motivation to pursue temptation. Such asymmetric shifts may result from behavioral strategies. For example, facing the tempting presence of cigarettes, alcohol, or fattening food, people may choose to skip purchase opportunities for these items and maintain only a small supply, thus constraining their availability (Ainslie, 1992; Schelling, 1984; Thaler & Shefrin, 1981; Wertenbroch, 1998). Because self-control is a process of asymmetric response, people also increase the availability of goal-related items. For example, individuals maintain a large supply of healthy products and
Fishbach and Myrseth 12
When and How to Control Consumption
take advantage of purchase opportunities to pre-commit themselves to goal-related choices: some purchase gym membership for the entire year or buy extra supply of healthy foods. Behavioral self-control strategies act directly on the physical availability of choice alternatives. Other self-control strategies act on the psychological representation of the choice alternatives and involve selective attention, encoding, and interpretation of these alternatives. For example, research finds that people promote goal-pursuit by forming “cool” or abstract representations of temptations, thereby reducing their appeal (Fujita et al. 2006; Kross et al. 2005; Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999; Mischel & Ayduk, 2004). Correspondingly, it is possible people promote goal-pursuit by forming a “hot” or concrete representation of goal-consistent behavior. Furthermore, self-control involves changes in the valuation of goals and temptations. That is, individuals experiencing self-control conflict counteractively bolster the value of goals and dampen the value of temptation. For example, Trope and Fishbach (2000) document that students bolster the value of studying for an important exam when they consider tempting leisure. More recently, Myrseth et al. (2009) explored the parallel devaluation of temptation in the domain of food consumption. They show that individuals devalue food temptations when these interfere with their dieting goals. Specifically, Myrseth and colleagues examined how availability of tempting food influences their evaluation. They argue that individuals with weight-watching goals, before choosing between having healthy or unhealthy food, will dampen their valuation of unhealthy food relative to healthy food. However, this pattern should attenuate after choosing, when tempting foods no longer threaten dieting goals. For example, the dieter contemplating the dessert menu in a restaurant will perceive the napoleon as more appealing when the dessert cart is in the kitchen than when it is in front of her; the unavailable napoleon is
Fishbach and Myrseth 13
When and How to Control Consumption
less threatening to her dieting goals. In support of this analysis, Myrseth and colleagues found that individuals choosing chocolates bars over health bars valued chocolates less than health bars before but not after they had made their choice. Once they had chosen the health bars, chocolates no longer represented a threat to their weight-watching goals, and participants did not engage counteractive valuation. Asymmetric shifts need not be of conscious, deliberative nature. That is, in contrast to common belief that self-control is an explicit response requiring conscious deliberation and executive processing resources (Mischel, 1996; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000), some self-control responses involve non-conscious modes of operation (Amodio et al. 2004; Fishbach et al. 2003; Fishbach & Shah, 2006; Gollwitzer et al. 2005; Moskowitz et al. 1999). These non-conscious responses are efficient and characterize successful self-regulators more than unsuccessful ones (Ferguson, 2008). For example, successful dieters will be more likely to exhibit implicit selfcontrol responses than will those who fail to follow their dietary goals (Fishbach et al. 2003). Non-conscious counteractive control takes several forms. One is that individuals alter the implicit value of goal- and temptation-related alternatives when goal pursuit conflicts with indulging in temptation. Outside of their conscious awareness, individuals boost the value of the goal while dampening the value of temptation (Fishbach et al. 2008). For example, in the presence of cues for unhealthy foods, Fishbach et al. find that individuals concerned with weightwatching increase the implicit positivity of concepts related to healthy alternatives (e.g., fruit, vegetable) by associating them with positive concepts. In another study, these authors find that weight-watching individuals further decrease the implicit positivity of concepts related to unhealthy foods (e.g., candy, cake) by associating them with negative concepts. As a result of
Fishbach and Myrseth 14
When and How to Control Consumption
the non-conscious processes, whereby individuals boost the value of healthy foods while devaluing unhealthy foods, the likelihood of choosing to eat healthy foods increases. Another form of implicit counteractive control entails changes in the accessibility of goals and temptations (Fishbach et al, 2003). Individuals shore up their goals by activating related constructs in response to interfering temptations and by inhibiting tempting constructs in response to cues for the overriding goal (see also Shah et al. 2002). For example, success in weight-watching entails activating concepts related to dieting when the dieter encounters a tempting chocolate cake, and inhibiting thoughts about fatty food when she is exercising. Fishbach and colleagues (2003) illustrated the former point with a subliminal sequential priming procedure (Bargh et al.1992; Fazio et al. 1995). The more important weight-watching was to participants the faster they recognized words relating to weight-watching (e.g., diet) upon subliminal priming of concepts related to conflicting temptation (e.g., chocolate). This pattern held only for weight-watchers, who were generally successful at maintaining their weight, suggesting that the implicit operations facilitate pursuit of health and weight-watching goals. Another technique for promoting goal pursuit over temptation is to keep distance from tempting objects, but maintain physical proximity to objects that facilitate goal-pursuit (Ainslie, 1992; Schelling, 1984; Thaler & Shefrin, 1981). For example, foreseeing problems that a previous romantic partner may impose, people may move to a different location and maintain close proximity to people who will help them cope. This asymmetrical response of approaching goals and avoiding temptations also occurs at the non-conscious level, whereby people automatically approach goal-related items and avoid temptations. To demonstrate this effect, Fishbach and Shah (2006) investigated dieters’ response time with a joystick for pulling words toward oneself (i.e., approaching) and pushing words away from oneself (i.e., avoiding). They
Fishbach and Myrseth 15
When and How to Control Consumption
found that committed dieters were quicker to push the joystick (avoiding) in response to temptation-related words (such as chocolate or sweets) than in response to goal-related words (such as slim or shape). That is, they automatically avoided the temptation. Not only do self-control processes act at the basic level of approach-avoidance, but approaching goals and avoiding temptation increases goal adherence. Accordingly, Fishbach and Shah (2006) demonstrated that participants, who completed a joystick task in which they responded to unhealthy food stimuli by pushing (avoiding) and to fitness stimuli by pulling (approaching), later expressed stronger preferences for healthy foods relative to those who completed the opposite task (who responded to food-stimuli by pulling and to fitness-stimuli by pushing). These results suggest that simply expressing subtle behavior consistent with one’s weight-watching or health goals might prove sufficient to strengthen the goals and thus to increase goal-consistent behavior. That is, the dieter who practices pushing away the dessert plate would increase her frequency of choosing healthy over unhealthy foods. In summary, this section has reviewed the processes of self-control. In line with counteractive control theory, we propose that self-control involves asymmetric changes in motivational strength. We further propose that individuals are more likely to succeed at goal pursuit the better they are at employing these self-control strategies. But notably, individuals apply these self-control strategies only to the extent that they have identified a self-control conflict. Specifically, research on counteractive control finds that self-control is elicited only when important goals are perceived to conflict with temptations, and when external mechanisms are not in place to ensure goal pursuit (Fishbach & Trope, 2005). Thus, the perception that temptation threatens goal pursuit (Stage 1) is necessary to activate subsequent self-control processes.
Fishbach and Myrseth 16
When and How to Control Consumption
3.
CONCLUSIONS The dieter’s dilemma has two components. First, individuals facing temping foods
identify or not conflict between indulging and pursuing weight-watching or other health goals. Second, if they have identified conflict in the first stage, they will subsequently draw on selfcontrol strategies to restrict consumption. If their strategies are successful, then they refrain from indulging. However, if their strategies fail, they will indulge, as will they if they do not identify conflict in the first place. We thus identify two distinct etiologies of indulgence in tempting foods, namely the absence of self-control conflict and the failure of self-control strategies. While a significant proportion of psychological research to date has focused on implementation of self-control strategies (e.g., see Baumeister et al, 1998; Mischel et al, 1989; Thaler & Shefrin, 1981), the nature of self-control dilemmas for dieters entails that conflict identification often is not trivial. This is because one act of indulgence will have little impact on one’s overall success at maintaining good health; only if this act is repeated across many opportunities may it seriously undermine the health goal. In this type of dilemma, conflict identification in the face of epsilon cost temptation will depend on the frame of the choice opportunity. Specifically, it will depend on whether the frame is wide, capturing multiple choice opportunities, or narrow, capturing a single opportunity, and whether the individual perceives that the same choice will be made for each opportunity. For example, the question of having one bit-size chocolate alone may not be sufficient to activate self-control strategies for most dieters, but the prospect of regularly having this opportunity probably is, though only to the extent that the present choice is thought to be the same as future ones. The second component of the dieter’s dilemma involves the implementation of selfcontrol processes. In line with research on counteractive control (e.g., Fishbach & Trope, 2007),
Fishbach and Myrseth 17
When and How to Control Consumption
we propose that the essence of these self-control operations involves an asymmetric motivational response: increasing the motivational strength of the goals (e.g., weight-watching) while decreasing the motivational strength of indulging in temptation (e.g., eating dessert). For example, to resist the chocolate, the dieter can elaborate on what makes healthy eating valuable while undermining the perceived appeal of the chocolate. We conclude that the problems of overeating may not be mere problems of acting against one’s better judgment, but also problems of determining better judgment in the first place. Better understanding the etiology of successful weight-watching and health maintenance would lay the groundwork for better remedies against excessive indulging.
Fishbach and Myrseth 18
When and How to Control Consumption
REFERENCES Ainslie, G. (1992). Picoeconomics: The strategic interaction of successive motivational states within the person. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Amodio, D.M., Harmon-Jones, E., Devine, P.G., Curtin, J.J., Hartley, S.L., Covert, A.E. (2004). Neural signals for the detection of unintentional race bias. Psychological Science, 15:88– 93. Bargh, J.A., Chaiken, S., Raymond, P., Hymes, C. (1996). The automatic evaluation effect: Unconditional automatic attitude activation with a pronunciation task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32:104–128. Baumeister, R.F, Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., Tice, D.M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74:1252-1265. Buehler, R., Griffin, D., Ross, M. (2002). Inside the planning fallacy: The causes and consequences of optimistic time predictions. In Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. et al. (Ed) Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 250-270). NY: Cambridge University Press. Fazio, R.H., Jackson, J.R., Dunton, B.C., Williams, C.J. (1995). Variability in automatic activation as an unobstrusive measure of racial attitudes: A bona fide pipeline? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69:1013–1027. Ferguson, M.J. (2008). On becoming ready to pursue a goal you don't know you have: Effects of nonconscious goals on evaluative readiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95:1268-1294.
Fishbach and Myrseth 19
When and How to Control Consumption
Fishbach, A., Friedman, R.S., Kruglanski, A.W. (2003). Leading us not unto temptation: Momentary allurements elicit overriding goal activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84:296-309. Fishbach, A. & Dhar, R. (2005). Goals as excuses or guides: The liberating effect of perceived goal progress on choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 32:370-377 Fishbach, A. & Shah, J. Y. (2006). Self Control in Action: Implicit Dispositions toward Goals and Away from Temptations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90:820-832. Fishbach, A. & Trope, Y. (2005). The substitutability of external control and self control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41:256-270. Fishbach, A. & Trope, Y., (2007). Implicit and Explicit Mechanisms of Counteractive SelfControl. In Shah, J. & Gardner, W. (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science, (pp. 281294), NY: Guilford Press. Fishbach, A. & Zhang, Y. (2008). Together or apart: When goals and temptations complement versus compete. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94:547-559. Fishbach, A., Zhang, Y, Trope, Y. (2008). Implicit Counteractive Evaluation. Manuscript in preparation, University of Chicago. Fishbach, A., Dhar, R., Zhang, Y. (2006). Subgoals as Substitutes or Complements: The Role of Goal Accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91:232–242. Fujita, K., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., Levin-Sagi, M. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90:351-367. Gollwitzer, P.M., Bayer, U.C., McCulloch, K.C. (2005). The control of the unwanted. In R. R. Hassin, R.R., Uleman, J., Bargh, J.A. (Eds.), The new unconscious (pp. 485-515). NY: Oxford University Press.
Fishbach and Myrseth 20
When and How to Control Consumption
Koo, M. & Fishbach, A. (2008). Dynamics of Self-Regulation: How (Un)accomplished Goal Actions Affect Motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94:183-195. Kross, E., Ayduk, O., Mischel, W. (2005). When asking “why” does not hurt: distinguishing Rumination from reflective processing of negative emotions. Psychological Science, 16:709–715. Kudadjie-Gyambi, E. & Rachlin, H. (1996). Temporal patterning choice among delayed outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65:61-67. Loewenstein, G. (1996). Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior. Organizational Behavior Human Decision Processes, 65:272-292. Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106:3-19. Mischel, W. (1996). From good intentions to willpower. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 197– 218). New York: Guilford Press. Mischel, W., & Ayduk, O. (2004). Willpower in a cognitive-affective processing system: The dynamics of delay of gratification. In Baumeister, R.F. & Vohs, K.D. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 99–129). New York: Guilford Press. Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., Rodriguez, M.L. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244:933-938. Moskowitz, G.B., Gollwitzer, P.M., Wasel, W., Schaal, B. (1999). Preconscious control of stereotype activation through chronic egalitarian goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77:167–184.
Fishbach and Myrseth 21
When and How to Control Consumption
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-Regulation and Depletion of Limited Resources: Does Self-Control Resemble a Muscle?. Psychological Bulletin, 126: 247-259. Myrseth, K.O.R., Fishbach, A., Trope, Y. (2009). Counteractive self-control: When making temptation available makes temptation less tempting. Psychological Science, 20, 159 – 163. Myrseth, K.O.R. & Fishbach, A. (2009a). A two-stage model of self-control: Conflict identification and choice resolution. Working paper, University of Chicago. Myrseth, K.O.R., Fishbach, A. (2009b). Activating Self-Control: Isolated versus Interrelated Temptations. Manuscript in preparation, University of Chicago. Newby-Clark, I.R., Ross, M., Buehler, R., Koehler, D. J., Griffin, D. (2000). People focus on optimistic scenarios and disregard pessimistic scenarios while predicting task completion times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6:171-182. Rachlin, H. (2000). The science of self-control. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Read, D., Loewenstein, G., Kalyanaraman, S. (1999). Mixing virtue and vice: Combining the immediacy effect and the diversification heuristic. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12:257-273. Read, D., Loewenstein, G., Rabin, M. (1999). Choice bracketing. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19:171-197. Schelling, T.C. (1984). Self-command in practice, in policy, and in a theory of rational choice. American Economic Review, 74:1. Shah, J.Y., Friedman, R., Kruglanski, A.W. (2002). Forgetting all else: On the antecedents and consequences of goal shielding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83:1261– 1280.
Fishbach and Myrseth 22
When and How to Control Consumption
Thaler, R.H. & Shefrin, H.M. (1981). An economic theory of self control. Journal of Political Economy, 89:392-406. Trope, Y. & Fishbach, A. (2000). Counteractive self control in overcoming temptation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79:493-506. Weinstein, N.D. (1989). Optimistic biases about personal risks. Science, 246:1232-1233. Wertenbroch, K. (1998). Consumption self control by rationing purchase quantities of virtue and vice, Marketing Science, 17:317-337. Zhang, Y., Fishbach, A., Dhar, R.W. (2007). When Thinking Beats Doing: The Role of Optimistic Expectations in Goal-Based Choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 34:567 578.
Fishbach and Myrseth 23
When and How to Control Consumption Figure 1: The two‐stage model of self‐control
Stage 1: Conflict identification
Stage 2: Conflict resolution Successful self‐ control strategies (restraint)
Identify self‐ control conflict Facing temptation
Do not identify conflict (indulging)
Unsuccessful strategies (indulging)
Fishbach and Myrseth 24
When and How to Control Consumption
Figure 2: Dynamics of self-regulation
Fishbach and Myrseth 25
When and How to Control Consumption
Figure 3: Presenting foods together or apart
Fishbach and Myrseth 26
