delay grat Flashcards
define self control
carver and sheier 1982
process in which people adopt and manage various goals and standards for their thoughts feelings and beh
ensure goals and standards are met
preference towards abstract higher order goals over concrete short term rewards
self reg vs self control
self control is a type of self reg but self reg is larger than just self control
ie homeostasis
dual motive conceptualisation of self control
fujita 2011
advocate distal>proximal motivations when in competition
only when conflict is recognised
proximal motivation threatens success towards distal goal
most common form of self control in research
as effortful inhibition of thoughts feelings or behaviour when activates spontaneously in response to a salient temptation in the environment
support for self control as effortful inhibition
papies stoebe and aarts 2007
exposure to words assoc with palatable foods distracts restrained eaters by activation pos hedonic thoughts on food
support for self control as effortful inhibition
impulses and sc failure
stronger pos assoc to smoking/drinking, tje more likel one is to smoke/drink in excess
support for self control as effortful inhibition
shiu and fedorkhin 1999/hinson james and whitney 2003
chose choc cake>fruit when rehearsing long digit string
- cog load exacerbates temp discounting of reward - more likely to opt for immediate>delayed
why is definition of self control as effortful inhibition problematic
overreliance on inhibition symptomatic of control definiciencies - vulnerable to cog load, distraction and depletion (fujita)
rather than a single, fallible strategy - sc should be maintianed as a range of strategies which allow agentic and poactive control and prevent self control failure
alt types of sc strategies
reg of availability and opportunity of temptation
unconscious or habitual sc
cognitive reconstrual
reg of availability and opportunity
thaler and shefrin 1981
avoid/limit exposure
no direct encounter - no need to effortfully inhibit
ie cgirstmas accounts and early withdrawal prevent impulsive spending
unconscious or habitual sc
fishbach et al 2013
automasticity of sc behaviour - activate goal striving in response to tempt cues
- automatically bias to promote goal in the face of temptation or implicit auto neg eval of temptation
ie auto approach/avoidance
relation of implmentation intentions to habitual sc
thought that implementation intentions link contextual/situational cues to goal striving means
- implement plan when in correct ocntext
cognitive reconstrual in sc
high or low construal
high - abstract, distal, focus on general
low - concrete, immediate, focus on unique
moore mischel and zeiss 1976
cog reconstrul in sc
food as pic or pic as food
abstract construal as pic hegihtened delay for reward
factors which may impact control strategies
conflict identification
lay theories/beliefs
commitment vs progress frame
deliberative vs implemental mindset
define conflict identification prob in self control
implementation of sc strategies requires on recog there be a conflict in the first place
recog a need to beh in best interests of higher order goal
define lay theories/beliefs prob in self control
limited vs unlimited theory
perceptions that sc limited, or trainable, or malleable impact how willing to persist, types of strategies that implement
define commitment vs progress frame prob in self control
progress permits failure as lenient to temptation
commitment permits consistency
deliberative vs implemental mindset prob of sc
deliberative plan, weigh pros and cons of diff goals
implemental carry out goal decisions/actions
eval of temptations
temptations are subjective
based on individual perceptions and experiences
define control motivation
motivation to avoid temptations, or at least for them to be infrequent
define capacity effort
effort to be exerted to maintain motivation, perform sc strategies and elicit successful sc
self control diagram - describe
recognise temptation, with goal brought to attention - recognise conflict
initiate control motivation - lead to control strategies and thus, self control behaviours
control motivation, strategies and behaviours are mediated by capacity effort/willpower
define the delay of grat paradigm
metcalfe and mischel 1999
one element within sc research to investigate
tests ability to avoid short term temptations in the prospect of longer term outcomes/rewards/goals
parses out individual diff in self reg capavilities
describe typical marshmallow test
mischel et al 1989
different ages of children place marshmallow in front ring bell if want to stop and eat otherwise wait for experimenter - if wait, get x2 marshmallows - see how long will wait for
basic findings from marshmallow test
ability to wait dependent on age - 2y/o much more difficult
preference for the delayed reward decreases with time (ainslie)
preference for delayed reward increases when reward value increases and when closer to reciept
describe ainslie rachlin model(1975)
value of reward changes as a function of the time remaining until reward reciept
longer delay = less value
temporal discounting
increases as reward approaches
shoda, mischel and peake 1990
delay grat and cog/social outcomes
ability to delay grat from a oung age is predictive of cog/social outcomes decades later
- wait longer = higher sat scores
hot and cold system of delayed gratification
metcalfe and mischel 1999
define the hot and cool system
dual systems account of self control
framework to understand processes that enable and undermine self control
hot and cold systems extend to the ppoint that an action is planned but seperate from response budder that initiates/determines behaviour
basic dual systems perspective
have one fast reflective system that aims towards immediacy, and one slower reflective system that processes and regulates behaviour
- automatic - fast, unconscious, reflecive, effortless
- reflective- slow, conscious, reflective, self regulator and effortful
development of dual systems
zajonc 1980
affect and cog believed to be controlled by two seperate systems
development of dual systems
schacter and singer 1962
arousal is a diffuse state
emotion precedes any immediate knowledge of it
define hot system
“go” system
emotional, fast, early in development
attenuated by stress
bottom up/stimuli controlled
define cold system
“know” system
cognitive, complex and reflective
slow and initiates self control
describe hot cognitions/hot spots
metcalfe and jacobs 1998
areas assoc with the limbic system and amygdala
emotional, reactive and not interconnected
undermines self control
fundamental for pavlovian conditioning
quick stimuli-response
concrete/emotional
describe cold cognitions/cold nodes
metcalfe and jacobs 1998
areas assoc with hipp and frontal/cortical integration
relate to complex thought and temp lag
specialised for complex spatiotempotal and episodic representaiton and thought - comprehension, semantics, wm, metacog and planning
elaborately connected - not immediate approach/avoid but reflective deliberation
abstract
what may influence the balance between the hot and cool system on determining behaviour
stess
developmental level
individual self reg dynamics/ability
how are the hot spots and cool nodes theorised to interact
both systems can hold at the same time any one stimulus rep
BUT
hot spots have corresponding cool nodes - when one active, so is the other
cool nodes have less corresponding hot spots
therefore not all stimuli will be represented as emotional
- cool node likely to mediate initially hot event
- insufficient cool node activation may spread to hot and motivate approach to temptation
how are hot spot and cool node interactions thought to play a role in development and sc outcome
ounger in development more hot spots than cool nodes
and less corresponding cool nodes to any one hot spot
therefore more impulsive- driven towards temptation
more cool nodes develop as get older = improved sc - link to maturity of hipp and cortical/frontal areas
pros to cold node integration onto hot spots
allow to mediate initially hot event
make goals salient, stay in pustuit of LT and overcome impulses
learning in the dual system model
nodes learn to the extent they are activated above some baseline level (biological) - some may be more or less chronically activated than others
degree of learning depend on bio predisposition, experiences, stress and maturity
priming in the dual system
temporary activation of hot or cool increases activity towards threshold
makes more likely that will influence behavioural action
+ increases likelihood of assoc activation (ie if lots of cool to an activated hot - more likely to control)
mischel and baker 1975
hot/cool representations and delay of gratification determination
ability to delay grat dependent on undelying cog representations
hot/cool reflect attention to motivational/concrete aspects, or abstract/cognitive aspects (cool)
define frustration tolerance
mischel and baker 1975
ability to supress goal object by cog avoiding/supressing attention to the reward until a goal is attained
mischel and baker 1975
study - means of frustration tolerance
method
marshmallows/pretzels
- consume relevant
- thing of hot aspects of tempt - consume irrelevant
- think of hot of diff food - transform relevant
- think cold aspects of tempt - transform irrelevant
- think of cold aspects of diff food
mischel and baker 1975
study - means of frustration tolerance
results
high delay: consume irrelevant (distract with hot) transform relevant (cold of tempt) low delay: consume relevant transoform irrelevant (hot too distract)
cog cool facilitate delay - enocurage distraction/attention away from hot of temptation
mischel and moore 1973
real vs non real
rewards as pics on slide “symolic”
delay sig increase
- more delay than comparable non-tempt distractor slides
mischel and moore 1973
real vs non real
explanation
imagery may act as a cue/reminder but because it is not ‘real’ and cannot be immediately attained it does nto increase hot/frustration
actual reward increases frustration because try to block hot but often fails
metcalfe and jacobs 1998
stress of delay grat
hot potentiate stress up to higher levels than cool
cool becomes increasingly dysfunctional - shift towards hot
(yerkes dodson)
advantages of stress on hot/cool system
low stress - facilitates complex thinking, planning and memory
high stress - facilitates quick, innate responses and allows immediate action where necessary
sapolsky 1996
problem with chronic stress on hot/cool system
if chronic:
correlate with decrease in hipp volume (episodic memory)
may encourage a permanent shift towards hot > cool
define baumeister and heatherton 1996
strength model - stress
stress increases emotion + irritation
limited cog strength - depleted resources
ie under cog load
lead to diminished control capacity
strategies that facilitate the cool system
internal/external hot spot dimunition
selective internal/external distraction
cognitive reframing of stimulus
strategies that facilitate the cool system
internal/external hot spot dimunition
internal - ignore stimulus presence/distract
external - obscure from view
strategies that facilitate the cool system
selective internal/external distraction
activate non-relevant hot/cool representations of external stimuli or internal activation of irrelevant hot nodes to divert cog affect energy
strategies that facilitate the cool system
cognitive reframing of stimulus
external stimulus represented abstractly
strategies that facilitate the cool system
external hot spot dimunition
mischel and ebbsen 1970
external obscure of tempt
75% wait 15+ mins more
strategies that facilitate the cool system
internal hot spot dimunition
rodrigues, mischel and shoda 1989
ignoring/diverting attention
6-12y/os attention to reward vs non reward related stimuli
attention to non relevant sig predict delay time
strategies that facilitate the cool system
internal/external hot spot dimunition
problem
requires the individual not think about, encounter or seek out the temptation which may be somewhat difficult to control
strategies that facilitate the cool system
selective external distraction
mischel and baker 1975
consume irrelevant
strategies that facilitate the cool system
selective external distraction
mischel 1972
slinky increase wait time by 15+ mins than those without a distractor
- MUST BE HOT DISTRACTOR (consume irrelevant)
- MUST BE IRRELEVANT (NOT SAME CAT)
strategies that facilitate the cool system
selective external distraction
mischel 1972 - value of distractor
only holds instrumental value when it acts to bridge the delay towards reciept of the tempting reward
strategies that facilitate the cool system
selective internal/external distraction
problem
may disinhibit if accidently think/look at the appetitive aspects of the reward
internal distraction dependen t on hot not being activated - susceptible to self sabotage
strategies that facilitate the cool system
selective internal distraction
mischel 1972
think of fun things to do while wait
ie singing
12+mins delay without physcial distractor
strategies that facilitate the cool system
cognitive reframing of stimulus
mischel and moore 1973
image increase delay by 9+mins than when real
strategies that facilitate the cool system
cognitive reframing of stimulus
moore, mischel and zeiss 1976
real/pic cog refram
pic as real or real as pic
frame = 18+ mins delay, even though is real
- dependent on mental depiction
metacognitive awareness of control strategies
knowledge about nature and value of self control strategies emerges systematically
become increasingly aware of the principles needed to maintain delay in pusuit of ones goal
mischel and mischel 1983
metacog awareness of sc strategies
1. covered or not?
3+8y/o
“do you want the reward exposed or covered?”
under 4 - no preference
4-5 - exposed (stubborn)
5+ - covered - explain as exposure increasing levels of frustration
mischel and mischel 1983
metacog awareness of sc strategies
2. hot or cool?
under 5 = no preference
5+ prefer cool>hot
- realise that focus on desirabiit makes harder to control
construal level account of self control
fujita 2006
define construal level account of sc
integrate bau and mischel
sc broadly conceptualised as making decisions and acting inaccordance with high>low level construals
the same event/stimuli may be represented in multiple ways
high and low independent of one another, and same event/object can elicit diff action tendencies
construal level
high level:
abstract
essential and core features via subjective mental representation
general features central to basic, overarching meaning
categorisation into fewer, broader units
contrual level
low level:
incedental features which makes the event/stimulus unique and concrete
categorisation into multiple, narrow units - add weight to secondary characteristics
determinants of construal level
amount of “psychological distoring” of event/stimuli
ie in terms of:
time
space
social distance
hypertheticality/abstraction
- greater distance = more high level construal
+ on the situation and individual diff (goals/values etc)
smith and branscombe 1987
construal priming
imagining an unrelated and distant future event enhances ones abstraction of thoughts
whilst imagining near-future events enhances more concrete and detailed processing
self control and construal
high construal = high control
vise versa
fujita et al 2006
study
method
iv:
1. HC: WHY pursue actions towards superordinate goal
2. LC: HOW ^ (i.e. actions to physical health maintenance)
DV: $ pay to recieve 4 items immediately or delayed in time
fujita et al 2006
study
RESULTS
LV prefer immediate > dela + pay more
high level = higher sc and less money
+ greater physical endurance on hand grip (domain general)
fishbach and shein 2014
problem with self control literature
bias
focus on conscious explicit processess
does not take into account that some self control processes may be automatic
counteractive control theory authors
fishbach zhang and trope 2010
define counteractive control theory
threat perception illicits explicit AND implicit processes so as to offset the influence of temptation
implicit dont require deliberation/will
counteractive control theory
fishbach and shah 2006
METHOD
goal and temptation stimuli presented on screen
(assignment and facebook)
RT to push/pull on joy stick
counteractive control theory
fishbach and shah 2006
RESULTS
individuals offset the influence of tempting activities by automatically avoiding these stimuli
- faster pushing responses
and by approaching stimuli related to an overarching goal
-faster pulling responses
self-control dispositions varied as a function of the magnitude of the self-control conflict, itself defined by how strongly individuals were attracted to temptations and held the longer term goal
counteractive control theory
fishbach et al 2003
if prime with temptation stimuli - auto activate goal stimuli
(ie donut = slim)
if prime with goal stimuli, auto inhibit info about temptation
counteractive control theory
how might implicit processes in sc work
may relfect memory traces from previous explicit self controls
- previous goal elaboration and therefore increases goal accessability
counteractive control theory
fishbach et al 2010
actual temptation activates auto neg attitudes towards it and auto positive attitudes towards goal related info
manner et al counteractive control theory2009
when partner made salient - men auto attend away from images of other womrn
counteractive control theory
forster liberman and higgins 2005
PROBLEM
asymmetric shifts only occur when in conflict and not once the conflict has been resolved
ie once the goal is complete, then dont identify conflict and dont auto inhibit temptation
counteractive control theory
fergson and bargh 2004
PROBLEM
only when high priority that auto?
ie eval of water is only more positive when thirsty
counteractive control theory
fishbach zhang and trope 2010
forster et al reinforce prob
implicit eval of academic/leisure onl show asymmetric shift in relation to salient current academic goals and not those previously completed
ie high school
counteractive control theory
aronson 1997
small motivation discrepancy
post-choice dissonance reduction
foregoing tempt percieved as a costly consequence of goal aherence generates cognitive dissonance (Aversive)
justify action already taken by decreasing value of temptation and increasing value of goal POST action
importance of implicit self control strategies on dual systems
dual systems apporaches assume automatic reactions are towards temptation and need slower processes to coutneract
BUT implicit can also facilitate goal adherence - depends on the direction of the attitude/motivation
