The essential characteristic of a self-control problem is failure
to do what you want to do, even though you have sufficient knowledge, skill and
opportunity. If you opt to have an additional glass of wine after weighing up the
short term pleasure against the longer term pain that might result, that
doesn't qualify as a self-control problem. But if after choosing to deny yourself
the additional glass you often give in to an impulse and have it anyhow, you
may have a self-control problem.
Opinions differ about the extent that individuals can
exercise will-power to deal with self-control problems, with support from their
families, friends and professional advisors. For many thousands of years
self-control problems were often viewed as evidence of possession by evil
spirits. More recently, the observation that action precedes thought has brought
into question the concept of free will and provided many people with a pseudo-scientific
reason to doubt their own capacity to exercise will-power. This has been accompanied
by a tendency for many people to re-define individual self-control problems as
social problems. For example, individual health problems associated with nicotine
addictions, alcoholism and obesity are frequently referred to as public health
problems.
The advent of behavioural economics and happiness economics
has unfortunately contributed to the view that individual self-control problems
are social problems that should be dealt with by public policies. In my view,
the efforts of economists to move beyond MaxU, the profession's conventional assumption
that individuals maximize their utility, should be welcomed. It has become
increasingly difficult to defend MaxU in many contexts in the face of evidence
(e.g. a paper by Alois Stutzer and Bruno Frey) that people who are experiencing
self-control problems tend to be relatively unhappy.
However, practitioners of behavioural and happiness economics
take a step too far when they imply that identification of self-control
problems is sufficient justification for government intervention to control
people's lives, or remove temptations from them. I have presented my views on
why that is so in Free to Flourish. In
brief, the nature of humans is such that individuals need to exercise their capacity
to make choices and to accept responsibility for them if they are to realise
their potential. In other words, humans need to be in control their own lives if they are to
flourish. It is also in the nature of humans to make mistakes, but the experience
of learning from mistakes has potential to make individuals more competent in
making decisions. By contrast, attempts by governments to protect people from themselves
run the risk of making them increasingly dependent on government.
One possible objection to the view that people should be
free to flourish is that this would be likely to result in worse outcomes for
those who have had self-control problems from an early age. The famous marshmallow experiment, conducted at Stanford by psychologist Walter Mischel, suggests that
children who have difficulty in deferring gratification to obtain greater
reward at four years of age are likely to be prone to self-control problems
throughout their lives. Findings of the Dunedin longitudinal study, reported byTerrie Moffitt et al, suggest that childhood self-control predicts such things
as physical health, substance dependence and personal finances later in life (at
age 32) about as well as intelligence and social class origins.
The findings of the Dunedin study also suggest, however, that
it is possible for people to learn to exercise greater self-control. Some children
moved up in self-control rank over the years of the study and this had a
positive impact on their well-being as adults.
There has been previous discussion on this blog of research
findings relating to ways in which people can learn to exercise greater self-control.
For example, on the basis of extensive psychological research, Roy Baumeister argues strongly that individuals have the potential to exercise a great deal of
self-control if they know how and want to do so.
Research by another psychologist, Tim Wilson, suggests that
autonomy support can be helpful. This involves helping young people
understand the value of different alternatives facing them and conveying a
sense that they are responsible for choosing which path to follow.
Another relevant area of research, that I have recently
begun to read about, concerns the role of construal. Research by Kentaro Fujita
et al suggests that self-control is enhanced by high-level construal (the use
of cognitive abstraction to extract the essential and goal-relevant features
common across a class of events) rather than low-level construal (the process
of highlighting the incidental and idiosyncratic features that render a particular
event unique). What that means is that I would be more likely to maintain my
resolve to have only one glass of wine with dinner (except for special occasions)
if I construe the second glass as a bunch of calories that will require me to
make greater sacrifices later to achieve my BMI target, rather than construing
it as an immediate pleasure and entitlement.
If high level construal can help people to manage their
self-control problems, that suggests to me that it is important for individuals
to find ways to inspire themselves to pursue higher level goals. Techniques
such as mBraining, discussed on this blog a few weeks ago, could help.
5 comments:
3 very quick things:
1.
"More recently, the observation that action precedes thought ..."
Don't you mean 'conscious' thought as opposed to unconscious/tacit thought/beleif??
2.
As the wise 'Basil Brush' (puppet) said: It's not will power that I don't have, it's won't power' ;)
3.
I've sent you an email with a couple of attachments :)
Welcome back, TBT.
Yes, I did mean that action precedes conscious thought - apparently by about 300 milliseconds.
And, as you say, Basil Brush was wise. He was also mischievous!
So, what I was getting at is that action is preceded by UNCONSCIOUS thought...
OK TBT, but I don't know when I am having an unconscious thought:)
What I am getting at is that I don't know whether anyone can distinguish an unconscious thought from anything else happening in a brain. When I scratch myself without being aware of it, the action of my hand would be preceded by something happening in my brain. Does that mean that there is an unconscious thought involved?
I suppose it does. Actually, there might be a series of unconscious thoughts involved - e.g. feeling an itch, the desire to scratch and (hopefully) some consideration of whether other people are present and whether scratching would be appropriate.
Yes, Winton, I'd agree with that general description.
Post a Comment