Taking the New Year's Resolution Test seriously: eliciting individuals’ judgements about self-control and spontaneity

IF 5.1 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
Kevin P. Grubiak, Andrea Isoni, Robert Sugden, Mengjie Wang, Jiwei Zheng
{"title":"Taking the New Year's Resolution Test seriously: eliciting individuals’ judgements about self-control and spontaneity","authors":"Kevin P. Grubiak, Andrea Isoni, Robert Sugden, Mengjie Wang, Jiwei Zheng","doi":"10.1017/bpp.2021.41","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Self-control failure occurs when an individual experiences a conflict between immediate desires and longer-term goals, recognises psychological forces that hinder goal-directed action, tries to resist them but fails in the attempt. Behavioural economists often invoke assumptions about self-control failure to justify proposals for policy interventions. These arguments require workable methods for eliciting individuals’ goals and for verifying occurrences of self-control failure, but developing such methods confronts two problems. First, it is not clear that individuals’ goals are context-independent. Second, facing an actual conflict between a desire and a self-acknowledged goal, a person may consciously choose not to resist the desire, thinking that spontaneity is more important than self-control. We address these issues through an online survey that elicited individuals’ self-reported judgements about the relative importance of self-control and spontaneity in conflicts between enjoyment and health-related goals. To test for context-sensitivity, the judgement-elicitation questions were preceded by a memory recall task which directed participants’ attention either to the enjoyment of acting on desires or to the satisfaction of achieving goals. We found little evidence of context-sensitivity. In both treatments, however, judgements that favoured spontaneity were expressed with roughly the same frequency and strength as judgments that favoured self-control.","PeriodicalId":29777,"journal":{"name":"Behavioural Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioural Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2021.41","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Self-control failure occurs when an individual experiences a conflict between immediate desires and longer-term goals, recognises psychological forces that hinder goal-directed action, tries to resist them but fails in the attempt. Behavioural economists often invoke assumptions about self-control failure to justify proposals for policy interventions. These arguments require workable methods for eliciting individuals’ goals and for verifying occurrences of self-control failure, but developing such methods confronts two problems. First, it is not clear that individuals’ goals are context-independent. Second, facing an actual conflict between a desire and a self-acknowledged goal, a person may consciously choose not to resist the desire, thinking that spontaneity is more important than self-control. We address these issues through an online survey that elicited individuals’ self-reported judgements about the relative importance of self-control and spontaneity in conflicts between enjoyment and health-related goals. To test for context-sensitivity, the judgement-elicitation questions were preceded by a memory recall task which directed participants’ attention either to the enjoyment of acting on desires or to the satisfaction of achieving goals. We found little evidence of context-sensitivity. In both treatments, however, judgements that favoured spontaneity were expressed with roughly the same frequency and strength as judgments that favoured self-control.
认真对待新年决心测试:引出个人对自我控制和自发性的判断
当一个人经历了眼前的欲望和长期目标之间的冲突,认识到阻碍目标导向行动的心理力量,试图抵制这些力量,但尝试失败时,就会发生自我控制失败。行为经济学家经常援引关于自我控制失败的假设来证明政策干预的建议是合理的。这些论点需要可行的方法来引出个人的目标和验证自我控制失败的发生,但开发这种方法面临两个问题。首先,尚不清楚个人的目标是否与上下文无关。其次,面对欲望和自我承认的目标之间的实际冲突,一个人可能会有意识地选择不抵制欲望,认为自发性比自制力更重要。我们通过一项在线调查来解决这些问题,该调查引发了个人对自我控制和自发性在享受和健康目标之间冲突中的相对重要性的自我报告判断。为了测试上下文敏感性,在判断启发问题之前进行记忆回忆任务,该任务将参与者的注意力引导到根据欲望行事的乐趣或实现目标的满意度。我们几乎没有发现上下文敏感性的证据。然而,在这两种治疗中,倾向于自发性的判断与倾向于自我控制的判断表达的频率和强度大致相同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
2.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信