Reported Self-Control Is Not Meaningfully Associated With
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Dundee Reported self-control is not meaningfully associated with inhibition-related executive function Saunders, Blair; Milyavskaya, Marina; Etz, Alexander; Randles, Daniel; Inzlicht, Michael Published in: Collabra: Psychology DOI: 10.1525/collabra.134 Publication date: 2018 Licence: CC BY Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication in Discovery Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Saunders, B., Milyavskaya, M., Etz, A., Randles, D., & Inzlicht, M. (2018). Reported self-control is not meaningfully associated with inhibition-related executive function: A Bayesian analysis. Collabra: Psychology, 4(1), [39]. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.134 General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in Discovery Research Portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from Discovery Research Portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain. • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal. Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 26. Sep. 2021 Saunders, B., et al. (2018). Reported Self-control is not Meaningfully Associated with Inhibition-related Executive Function: A Bayesian Analysis. Collabra: Psychology, 4(1): 39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.134 ORIGINAL RESEARCH REPORT Reported Self-control is not Meaningfully Associated with Inhibition-related Executive Function: A Bayesian Analysis Blair Saunders*, Marina Milyavskaya†, Alexander Etz‡, Daniel Randles§ and Michael Inzlicht§,‖ Self-control is assessed using a remarkable array of measures. In a series of five data-sets (overall N = 2,641) and a mini meta-analysis, we explored the association between canonical operationalisations of self-control: The Self-Control Scale and two measures of inhibition-related executive functioning (the Stroop and Flanker paradigms). Overall, Bayesian correlational analyses suggested little-to-no relationship between self-reported self-control and performance on the Stroop and Flanker tasks. The Bayesian meta- analytical summary of all five data-sets further favoured a null relationship between both types of measurement. These results suggest that the field’s most widely used measure of self-reported self-control is uncorrelated with two of the most widely adopted executive functioning measures of self-control. Consequently, theoretical and practical conclusions drawn using one measure (e.g., the Self-Control Scale) cannot be generalised to findings using the other (e.g., the Stroop task). The lack of empirical correlation between measures of self-control do not invalidate either measure, but instead suggest that treatments of the construct of self-control need to pay greater attention to convergent validity among the many measures used to operationalize self-control. Keywords: self-control; cognitive control; inhibitory executive functioning; Bayesian statistics Classically defined as the overriding of unwanted impulses but seldom investigated empirically (cf., Duckworth & (Baumeister, 2014; Roberts, Lejuez, Krueger, Richards, Kern, 2011). Yet, the importance of understanding the & Hill, 2014), self-control is among the most celebrated nature of self-control measures cannot be understated. facets of higher cognition. Impulse control enjoys such Poor self-regulation has been identified as “the major theoretic prominence that inhibition has been proposed social pathology of the present time” (Baumeister et al., to underlie 80–90% of self-regulation (Baumeister, 2014; 1994, pp. 3; see also, Mischel, Shoda, & Rodriguez, 1989), Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994). Also remarkable with low reported self-control predicting poorer health, is the array of measures used to assess self-control—from finances, and wellbeing, and higher rates of mortality introspective self-report questionnaires to reaction-timed and criminal convictions (Moffitt et al., 2011; Tangney, tests of executive functioning. While such measures are Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). Therefore, understanding undoubtedly diverse, what seems to unite them is the operationalisations of the construct of self-control is idea that they each tap some ability to override unwanted critical. Most people have a lay conceptualisation of what dominant impulses (Baumeister et al., 2014; Baumeister, it feels like to resist temptation and to exert self-control. 2014; Hofmann, Schmeichel, & Baddeley, 2012; Inzlicht, However, are common empirical measures, that each Schmeichel, & Macrae, 2014). putatively assess the ability to resist impulses in their own That all these measures relate to a common construct right, statistically related to each other? Do people who called self-control has been assumed often by face- self-report high levels of self-control on questionnaire validity (e.g., “I am good at resisting temptations”; measures also show improved performance on laboratory Stroop performance requires inhibiting word-reading), tests of self-control? Here, we addressed these questions by examining the relationship between self-report measurements of self- * Psychology, School of Social Sciences, University of Dundee, GB control and performance measures of inhibition-related † Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, CA executive functioning through five novel data-sets and a ‡ Department of Cognitive Sciences, University of California, meta-analytical summary (N = 2,641). Irvine, US § Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, CA The Self-Control Scale ‖ Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, CA Developed by Tangney and colleagues (2004), the Self- Corresponding author: Blair Saunders Control Scale is a self-report questionnaire assessing ([email protected]) “the ability to override or change one’s inner responses, Art. 39, page 2 of 16 Saunders et al: Reported Self-control is not Meaningfully Associated with Inhibition-related Executive Function as well as interrupt undesired behavioural tendencies switching have also been identified as dissociable sub- (such as impulses) and refrain from acting on them” components (Miyake et al., 2000). More recent analyses (pp. 274, emphasis added). Consistent with prominent have suggested, however, that the inhibition component is theories (Baumeister et al., 1994), considerable emphasis particularly strongly related to the shared variance among was placed on inhibition in the development of the Self- executive functions (Miyake & Friedman, 2012). This latter Control Scale. Several items in the Self-Control Scale finding is consistent with the idea that inhibition-related include content that is face-valid in relation to inhibition processes play a central role in governing flexible goal- (e.g., “I am good at resisting temptation”; “I refuse things directed actions. that are bad for me, even if they are fun”). Beyond In the present studies, we used the Stroop and flanker inhibition, however, the Self-Control Scale assesses tasks as performance measures of inhibition-related multiple outcomes and processes that are more globally executive functioning. In the Stroop task, people identify reflective of self-discipline and goal-directed actions (e.g., the physical colour of a word while ignoring the lexical “I have trouble concentrating”; “I tend to be disorganised”; meaning of the word that may be either compatible “I say inappropriate things”; “I am lazy”; all reverse-scored). (the word “blue” in blue ink) or incompatible (the word Initial validation work demonstrated that higher “red” written in blue ink). Participants in the flanker Self-Control Scale scores were associated with better task must respond to a central target letter (e.g., “S” or psychological adjustment, reduced problematic food and “H”) while surrounding flanker letters prime either the alcohol consumption, increased relationship satisfaction, correct response on compatible trials (e.g., “SSSSS”), and more adaptive emotional responses (Tangney et al., or the incorrect response on incompatible trials (e.g., 2004). These relationships were largely confirmed in “HHSHH”). In both cases control is required to overcome a subsequent meta-analysis of 102 studies (de Ridder, the dominant but unwanted response tendency primed Lensvelt-Mulders, Finkenauer, Stok, & Baumeister, 2012). by the flankers or automatic word-reading processes on In short, self-control—as operationalised by the Self- incompatible trials. Control Scale—predicts the good-life. The Stroop and flanker tasks were originally conceived to Likely reflecting the wide scope of the Self-Control investigate cognitive interference, and were presented in Scale, this measure is strongly correlated with other broad within-subjects experimental designs (Eriksen & Eriksen, individual differences including conscientiousness (John, 1974; Stroop, 1935). However, these paradigms have been & Srivastava, 1999; Roberts, Jackson, Fayard, Edmonds, widely adopted as self-control measures in social and & Meints, 2009) and grit (Duckworth et al., 2007). personality psychology (Allom et al., 2016; Edmonds et Conscientiousness