Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 463–473

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

The psychological tradeoffs of self-control:

A multi-method investigation
Darya L. Zabelina, Michael D. Robinson *, Cali L. Anicha
Psychology Department, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105, United States

Received 17 July 2006; received in revised form 18 November 2006; accepted 14 December 2006
Available online 12 February 2007

Abstract

A recent measure of self-control seeks to tap individual differences in the ability to override impulse and
emotion (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). The importance of this individual difference variable is
potentially very large in domains such as emotion, psychopathology, academic success, and interpersonal
functioning. The present study (N = 52) seeks to extend our knowledge of this individual difference variable
and seeks to do so in relation to a hot/cool analysis of the construct. On the ‘‘hot’’ side, the study examined
relations between self-control and daily affective experience, and did so in a relatively implicit manner. On
the ‘‘cool’’ side, the study examined relations between self-control and personality consistency, and did so
using multiple methods. Supporting hypotheses, findings indicated that individuals high in self-control
reported less affect in their daily lives, were more consistent in their traits, and were viewed as less sponta-
neous and extraverted by informants. Thus, there seems to be a hot/cool tradeoff in that self-control pro-
motes consistency, but at the expense of affect and spontaneity.
 2007 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: Personality; Self-control; Affect; Emotion; Language; Congruence; Informants

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 701 231 6312; fax: +1 701 231 8426.
E-mail address: Michael.D.Robinson@ndsu.edu (M.D. Robinson).

0191-8869/$ - see front matter  2007 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.12.015
464 D.L. Zabelina et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 463–473

1. Introduction

Multiple authors have pointed to the duality of human existence. On the one hand, we are bio-
logical creatures with urges, emotions, and impulses. On the other hand, we are rational creatures
who can often suppress short-term biological states in service of long-term goals (Baumeister,
Muraven, & Tice, 2000). Freud (1926) refers to this duality in terms of a battle between the id
and the ego, and modern theories of self-regulation highlight similar intrapsychic tensions (Bau-
meister et al., 2000; Mischel & Ayduk, 2004). Inherent to such perspectives is the idea that id- and
ego-related forces trade off in their influence, and that individuals differ in this relative balance
(Mischel & Ayduk, 2004).
In personality research, such tradeoffs are captured by the construct of self-control or ego-
control, which has been developed most extensively by Jack and Jeanne Block (for a recent review,
see Block & Block, 2006). Under-controllers are thought to be spontaneous and interesting, but
somewhat self-indulgent and distractible. On the other hand, over-controllers are thought to be
dependable and calm, but somewhat bland and restricted. Therefore, there may be a tradeoff
to self-control in that being affectively spontaneous may be incompatible with being dependable
and consistent (Block, 2002).
However, prior to recent developments, there were few self-report measures of dispositional
self-control, and all of them were antiquated or limited in scope (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone,
2004). Fortunately, this gap in the personality literature has been rectified as there are now at least
two self-report measures seeking to tap individual differences in self-control (Letzring, Block, &
Funder, 2005; Tangney et al., 2004). Both are theory-informed and reliable, and both lines of
investigation have led to important conclusions concerning the dispositional correlates of self-
control, the major outlines of which will be reviewed below.
The present research assessed self-control using the Tangney et al. (2004) measure, but did so in
the context of Block’s (2002) theory concerning the psychological tradeoffs of low versus high lev-
els of self-control. In this context, it must be noted that the Tangney et al. (2004) study relied on
self-reported measures exclusively, and there were also sizable relations between self-control and
social desirability (r  .5). The authors suggested that further work on this construct would ben-
efit from a focus on outcomes that are more implicit and/or less vulnerable to distortion by self-
report, and the present study sought to meet this challenge. We did so within the context of a hot/
cool analysis of dispositional self-control.

1.1. A hot/cool analysis of dispositional self-control

Metcalfe and Mischel (1999) presented a formal analysis of hot and cool systems. The hot sys-
tem seems to operate by a feeling principle (i.e., if it feels right, do it) and is associated with emo-
tional reactivity and the potential for impulsive action. The cool system seems to operate by a
pragmatic principle (i.e., do it only if it makes sense to do it) and is associated with rational
self-interest, long-term goals, and a lack of impulsive decision-making (Metcalfe & Mischel,
1999). These systems have a counterpart in brain functioning in that ‘‘hot’’ decision-making relies
more on structures such as the amygdala and the basal ganglia, whereas ‘‘cool’’ decision-making
relies more on structures such as the anterior cingulate cortex and the lateral prefrontal cortex
(Lieberman, 2007).
 D.L. Zabelina et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 463–473 465

Also of interest here is the idea that there is an inverse relationship between hot and cool sys-
tems (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). Behaviorally, for example, children who focus on the desirabil-
ity of an object (e.g., its apparent palatability) display less ability to resist eating it, whereas
children who focus on the ‘‘cool’’ aspects of the desirable object (e.g., its shape) are better able
to delay gratification (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). Moreover, manipulations that emphasize hot
and cool aspects of the desired stimulus also affect the child’s ability to delay gratification (Met-
calfe & Mischel, 1999). This suggests a general principle whereby hot and cool modes of process-
ing are inversely related to some considerable extent.
The present study sought to apply this hot/cool analysis to dispositional self-control. A first
prediction was that lower levels of self-control would be associated with richer experiences of af-
fect in daily life. To examine this prediction, we used a protocol in which participants wrote about
their daily thoughts and experiences. From such written samples, we could code the extent to
which emotional and bodily experiences were prominent to the individual, based on Pennebaker’s
(Pennebaker, Francis, & Booth, 2001) linguistic coding software.
Our second hypothesis focused on the ‘‘cool’’ prediction that individuals higher in self-control
would be more consistent in their behavior, precisely because they are less influenced by momen-
tary affective states (Baumeister et al., 2000; Block, 2002). To examine this prediction, we used
three different measures of personality consistency often used in the literature. Regardless of
the specific measure, it was predicted that individuals higher in self-control would exhibit a greater
degree of personality consistency.
A third prediction sought to better characterize the trait correlates of self-control, and our ma-
jor interest involved informant ratings. Based on our hot/cool analysis, we predicted that individ-
uals high in self-control would be seen as less spontaneous and more introverted than individuals
low in self-control. Such results would further the idea that there is some degree of affective
restriction characteristic of high levels of self-control.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Fifty-two (30 female) participants from North Dakota State University completed the initial
session and the daily protocol reported below. They were given extra credit and $15 for their
participation.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Self-control scale

Tangney et al. (2004) created a self-report scale designed to measure dispositional self-control,
and we used this scale in the present study. The scale includes 36 items indicative of low (e.g., ‘‘I
which I had more self-discipline’’) and high (e.g., ‘‘I never allow myself to lose control’’) levels of
self-control. Participants indicated their level of agreement with each statement using a five-point
scale (1 = not at all like me; 5 = very much like me). Tangney et al. (2004) report extensive evi-
dence for the reliability and validity of the scale. In the present study, alpha was .98.
466 D.L. Zabelina et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 463–473

2.2.2. Daily affective experience

We desired to measure affective experience by self-report, but in a manner that would tap spon-
taneous everyday affect rather than beliefs about the self (Robinson & Clore, 2002). It is generally
thought that projective writing methods are well-suited to this purpose (McClelland, Koestner, &
Weinberger, 1989; Pennebaker, Mehl, & Niederhoffer, 2003). To tap spontaneous references to
affect without overly constraining the nature of the responses, we asked the simple question
‘‘What are you thinking?’’ each day for 7 days in a row.
Participants were instructed to use Microsoft word to answer the question each day. To stan-
dardize length, we asked for over 300 and less than 321 words per day. After performing a word
count and spell-check, participants were instructed to copy and paste the entry in a reply to our
email prompt for the particular day. The percentage of daily compliance was 100%, meaning that
all participants completed all seven reports. The average participant wrote 313 words per day
(range = 297–347). Average number of words did not correlate with any of the linguistic depen-
dent measures, which were in fact adjusted for word count.
For each participant, we compiled text across the seven days and then entered this text into the
linguistic coding software developed by Pennebaker et al. (2001). The software outputs percentage
frequencies for particular word categories. Our interest was in the frequency of references to affect
and bodily experience. Affect is defined in terms of the percentage of words that reference affective
states, whether positive or negative (M frequency = 4.24%; alpha = .86 across the seven days).
The program also outputs frequencies specific to positive (M frequency = 2.77%; alpha = .96)
and negative (M frequency = 1.47%; alpha = .74) affect, and we considered these affect subcate-
gories as well.
Another global category of central interest involved physical activities and processes. We were
interested in this global category (e.g., lust, eat: M frequency = 1.09%; alpha = .64) as well as a
more specific subcategory pertaining to bodily states (e.g., hungry, tired; M frequency = 0.04%; al-
pha = .58). We should note that even the least frequent word category above (i.e., references to bod-
ily states) would necessarily involve a relatively large number of words (i.e., 313 · 7 · 0.04% = 88
words). For further information on the software and its uses, see Pennebaker et al. (2001, 2003).

2.2.3. Q-sort instructions

Participants and informants performed modified Q-sorts involving 23 trait terms. The 23 trait
terms were compiled from various lists. First, to include a number of trait terms that were less
evaluatively extreme than most in the English language, we borrowed 10 items (Demanding, Fussy,
Mature, Rebellious, Sensitive, Sentimental, Shy, Talkative, Tough, and Wise) from Saucier (1994).
We then added 11 trait adjectives from Goldberg’s (1992) list of unipolar markers of the Big 5
(Anxious, Complex, Conscientious, Extraverted, Helpful, Inhibited, Practical, Relaxed, Selfish,
Sloppy, and Vigorous). Finally, we added two other traits (Adaptable and Spontaneous) that we
thought might be related to self-control. Regardless of the specific traits, however, our general
goal was to tap a variety of common traits, as would be useful in Q-sort procedures (Block, 1961).
During the laboratory session of the study, participants first completed a Q-sort to describe
themselves, specifically by ranking the 23 trait terms according to how well each described the self
in general (1 = most descriptive; 23 = least descriptive). Following this first Q-sort, we then asked
participants to perform six more Q-sorts to describe the self in specific role contexts (Suh, 2002).
We chose role contexts based on relevance to student life and more general importance. However,
 D.L. Zabelina et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 463–473 467

we also added some roles that were less important to increase the diversity of role relationships.
The six roles were with classmates, with close friends, with a professor or teaching assistant, with
strangers, with your parents, and with store clerks, in that order. For each role context, they ranked
the same 23 traits that were also ranked with respect to the general self.
Participants were also asked to provide names and email addresses of three informants who
knew the participant ‘‘at least reasonably well’’. We emailed each of the three informants and
asked them to give their general impressions of the participant according to the same 23 trait
terms mentioned above (1 = most descriptive; 23 = least descriptive). Informants were told that
the survey was short, relevant to the extra credit of the participant, and that these responses would
not be shared with the participant. They were instructed to reply to the email request with the
completed survey. Because we were interested in comparing Q-sort profiles across informants,
we excluded informant data if we received less than three completed reports for a particular par-
ticipant. Forty-four of the 52 participants had complete informant data.

2.2.4. Personality consistency measures

We sought to quantify personality consistency in three ways. The first measure sought to deter-
mine the extent to which the participant and the informants agreed on the personality of the par-
ticipant. To obtain a measure of self-other agreement, we correlated Q-sort rankings of the
general self with Q-sort rankings of each informant considered separately. For example, imagine
that we had given only three trait terms – anxious, fussy, and practical. If the hypothetical par-
ticipant gave rankings of 1, 2, and 3 to these traits, but informant 1 gave rankings of 1, 3 and
2 to these traits, then the extent of agreement between self and this informant would be r = .5.
We used analogous procedures, but including all 23 rankings. Each participant was therefore gi-
ven three correlations to reflect self-other agreement, one specific to informant 1, one specific to
informant 2, and one specific to informant 3. These three correlations of self-other agreement were
averaged to create one agreement score for each participant (M = .46; SD = .16).
A second measure of personality consistency pertained to consistency across social roles. Here,
we closely followed the procedures of (Suh, 2002; see also Block, 1961). The person’s consistency
across roles can be examined by factor analyzing the 6 (social role) · 23 (trait) matrix of rankings,
separately for each participant. To the extent that the participant offers very similar (different)
rankings for the distinct social roles, then the first factor from the factor analysis will explain a
large (small) percentage of variance (Suh, 2002). We therefore operationalized consistency across
role contexts in terms of the percentage of variance explained by the first factor in the participant-
specific (6 · 23) factor analysis (Block, 1961; Suh, 2002). These percentages averaged 53.39%
across participants (SD = 16.70%). Thus, participants gave similar but not identical rankings
across the distinct role contexts.
We obtained three informant reports per participant, and desired to examine personality con-
sistency in terms of the degree to which rankings were similar across informants. In this case, we
factor analyzed the 3 (informant) · 23 (trait) matrix of rankings, and did so separately for each
participant. To the extent that informants agree on their rankings, then the first factor of the fac-
tor analysis should predict a greater percentage of variance. This follows from the analysis above,
except here the first factor represents agreement among informants rather than self-perceptions of
consistency across social roles. Informants largely agreed on the personality of the participant,
although not completely so (M = 60.01%; SD = 17.05%).
468 D.L. Zabelina et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 463–473

2.3. Procedures

The study included three different sources of data. An initial assessment session was completed
in the lab and measured Q-sorts specific to the self. After performing these Q-sorts, participants
completed the Tangney et al. (2004) measure of self-control on computer. Subsequent to partic-
ipation in the initial assessment session, we emailed the informants listed by the participant and
also asked them to begin the daily thought-sampling portion of the study.

3. Results

3.1. Self-control and daily affect

We hypothesized that self-control would be inversely correlated with references to affect and
physiological processes in the daily linguistic protocol. As shown in Table 1, this prediction
was supported. Specifically, there were negative correlations between self-control and the use of
affect words, physiology words, and body descriptor words.
Table 1 also shows that the relationship between self-control and the subcategory of negative
affect words was significant, but that the relationship between self-control and the subcategory
of positive affect words was marginally significant. To examine whether relations between self-
control and affect were stronger for one valence than the other, we ran a General Linear Model
(GLM) analysis in which there was one within-subject variable related to Affect Valence (positive
versus negative) and one between-subjects variable related to self-control. The latter variable was
continuously scored but centered prior to analysis (Robinson, in press).
In the GLM analysis, the main effect for self-control was significant, F(1, 50) = 10.13, p < .01,
indicating that individuals higher (+1SD) in self-control made less frequent reference to their
emotional states (M = 1.91%) relative to individuals lower ( 1SD) in self-control (M = 2.34%).
There was also a main effect for Affect Valence such that references to positive emotional states
(M = 2.77%) were more frequent than references to negative emotional states (M = 1.47%),
F(1, 50) = 77.03, p < .01. However, in the same GLM analysis, there was no hint of an interaction

Table 1
Correlations between self-control and the daily affect measures
Variable
SC AW PEW NEW PW BW
* ** * *
SC – .41 .26 .32 .30 .35*
AW – .77* .61* .34* .34*
PEW – .04 .29* .19
NEW – .14 .29*
PW – .77*
Note: SC = self-control; A = affect words; PEW = positive emotion words; NEW = negative emotion words;
PW = physiology words; BW = body words.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .10.
 D.L. Zabelina et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 463–473 469

between self-control and Affect Valence, F = 0. Thus, higher levels of self-control were inversely
related to the use of affect words in daily life, and this was equally true of positive and negative
words.

3.2. Self-control and personality consistency

We computed three measures of personality consistency based on self-other agreement,

consistency across distinct social roles, and consistency across informants. We hypothesized that
self-control would predict all forms of personality consistency, and the resulting correlations are
reported in Table 2. As shown there, all three measures of personality consistency were positively
correlated, but only one of the three correlations was significant. Thus, each measure of person-
ality consistency appeared to tap unique sources of variance, a general point that seems consistent
with the prior literature (e.g., Funder, 1995).
Regardless of such considerations, self-control was positively correlated with all three forms of
personality consistency. That is, individuals higher in self-control exhibited a greater degree of
consistency across role contexts and informants, and also exhibited higher levels of self-other
agreement in their personality profiles. The use of informant data in two of the three indices indi-
cates that these positive correlations cannot be attributed to method variance involving self-re-
port. Thus, the link of self-control to personality consistency appears to be especially robust.

3.3. Self-control and trait correlates

To examine the traits ascribed to individuals low and high in self-control, we correlated this
dimension with general self-rankings and informant rankings for the 23 traits that defined the
Q-sorts. Presenting 46 correlations in a single table would be difficult and therefore Table 3 re-
ports significant correlations only. In relation to self-report, consider the second column of Table
3. With the exception of the trait adjective complex, the general pattern is consistent with the so-
cial desirability hypothesis (Tangney et al., 2004). That is, individuals high in self-control gave
higher rankings to helpful, mature, relaxed, and wise, all socially desirable traits, and gave lower
rankings to anxious, rebellious, and sloppy, all socially undesirable traits. However, the term help-
ful was a significant correlate for both self- and informant-rankings, supporting the general
hypothesis that higher levels of self-control may be a necessary precondition for prosocial behav-
ior over time (Letzring et al., 2005; Tangney et al., 2004).

Table 2
Correlations between self-control and the personality consistency measures
Variable
SC SI RCC IC
* *
SC – .40 .41 .33*
SI – .19 .48*
RCC – .11
Note: SC = self-control; SI = self-informant agreement; RCC = role context congruence; IC = informant congruence.
*
p < .05.
470 D.L. Zabelina et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 463–473

Table 3
Significant correlations between self-control and trait rankings, informant-report (left column) and self-report (right
column)
Informant correlation Self-report correlation
Shy .36 Helpful .32
Helpful .28 Mature .27
Extraverted .29 Relaxed .26
Spontaneous .32 Wise .26
Anxious .24
Complex .26
Rebellious .32
Sloppy .36
Note: All correlations were significant at the p < .05 level.

Aside from helpful, the other correlates of informant rankings were quite different and did not
conform to a social desirability pattern. Rather, the remaining three correlations highlight the dis-
tinction between spontaneous and extraverted behavior, more characteristic of individuals low in
self-control, versus shy behavior, more characteristic of individuals high in self-control. In sum, it
is apparent that high levels of self-control were associated with less expansive and spontaneous
behavior, as rated by observers. Note that this characterization of high levels of self-control fits
Block’s (2002) theorizing along these lines.

4. Discussion

4.1. Summary of results

The idea that self-control involves inhibition of emotion and impulse has gained extensive sup-
port in recent studies of social cognition (Baumeister et al., 2000). Yet, until recently, there was no
self-report scale appropriate to this broad conceptualization of self-control. This gap in the per-
sonality literature has recently been rectified by the validation of two new assessment instruments
(Letzring et al., 2005; Tangney et al., 2004). The present study assessed self-control using the
Tangney et al. measure, but followed the theory of Block (2002), which posits that there are psy-
chological tradeoffs to both low and high levels of self-control.
More specifically, we hypothesized and found that lower levels of self-control were associated
with more frequent references to affect and physiological states in daily life, as well as greater
extraversion and spontaneity as rated by informants. By contrast, we found that higher levels
of self-control were associated with a greater degree of personality consistency, as well as greater
shyness and less spontaneity as rated by informants. In interpreting the results, we revisit the hot/
cool framework (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999) that guided the predictions.

4.2. A hot/cool interpretation of the results

Hot influences are widely regarded as momentary in nature and potentially destabilizing, as
they are associated with emotions and behaviors that often conflict with longer-term self-interest
 D.L. Zabelina et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 463–473 471

(Baumeister et al., 2000). We suggest that individuals low in self-control favor affect in the guid-
ance of their behaviors. This explains why such individuals reported higher percentages of affect
and references to bodily states in their everyday lives. It also explains why their personality traits
were less consistent across role contexts and informants, as well as why their behaviors were rated
as more extraverted and spontaneous by informants. In short, the findings highlight the impor-
tance of momentary affective states among individuals low in self-control.
By contrast, we follow others in suggesting that individuals high in self-control favor long-term
goals in the guidance of their behaviors (Mischel & Ayduk, 2004; Tangney et al., 2004). Although
this general reliance on long-term goals may result in a greater degree of personality consistency
and higher levels of achievement, it may also be associated with affective lives that are relatively
bland (Letzring et al., 2005; Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). In support of this point, we found that
higher levels of self-control were associated with lower levels of linguistic affect, whether positive
or negative, and also fewer references to the physical and bodily processes that are viewed as
important to living in a body (Lakoff & Johnson, 1999).
The present results therefore indicate that there may be a tradeoff between richer affective lives
on the one hand versus higher levels of personality consistency on the other (Block, 2002). In rela-
tion to these points, consider the android character Data from the TV show Star Trek: The Next
Generation. Data was in most objective ways superior to his human counterparts. He was stron-
ger, smarter, and more rational under times of stress. Yet, his one consistent wish was to experi-
ence emotions, which he could not. Thus, although Data was exquisitely self-controlled, he lacked
the sort of spontaneity (or irrationality) that he attributed to his human counterparts. We suggest
that the highly self-controlled individual is a bit like Data in being highly reliable, but not very
spontaneous.

4.3. Additional conclusions and considerations

Tangney et al. (2004) had previously shown that self-control was inversely related to self-re-
ported negative affect in their studies, but they did not measure positive affect. This appears to
be an important omission because our coding of linguistic experience revealed that self-control
was inversely related to both positive and negative affect, and was also inversely correlated with
references to physiology and bodily states. Thus, the general picture to emerge from our study
is that self-control is inversely associated with affect, whether negative, positive, or bodily based.
This pattern suggests that self-control may inhibit affective experience in general, rather than neg-
ative affect in particular, and seems consistent with related theoretical suggestions by Block
(2002). This said, we clearly see the need for further research, particularly if it can incorporate
contextual, everyday measures of affective experience.
It is also useful to consider our results in light of those reported by Letzring et al. (2005). The
authors proposed a new self-report measure of self-control and examined its relations to infor-
mant and clinician ratings of personality. They report that low levels of self-control were associ-
ated with informant and clinician ratings suggesting a pattern of desirable and undesirable
correlates. On the desirable side, low levels of self-control were positively correlated with Q-sort
items such as talkative and negatively correlated with Q-sort items such as emotionally bland. On
the undesirable side, low levels of self-control were positively correlated with Q-sort items such as
self-indulgent and negatively correlated with Q-sort items such as calm.
472 D.L. Zabelina et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 463–473

We suggest that there is a good deal of continuity to the present findings and those reported by
Letzring et al. (2005). Specifically, outside observers appear to appreciate the spontaneous, extra-
verted nature of individuals low in self-control, while also appreciating the calm, dependable nat-
ure of individuals high in self-control. In the present studies, we were able to extend this
perspective on the psychological tradeoffs of self-control by focusing on novel measures to the lit-
erature, including those related to daily linguistic affect and personality consistency. The pattern
of our findings leads us to agree with Block (2002) that there are both benefits and costs to high
levels of self-control.

Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge support from NIMH (MH 068241).

References

Baumeister, R. F., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (2000). Ego depletion: a resource model of volition, self-regulation, and
controlled processing. Social Cognition, 18, 130–150.
Block, J. (1961). The Q-sort method in personality assessment and psychiatric research. Oxford, England: Charles C
Thomas.
Block, J. (2002). Personality as an affect-processing system: toward an integrative theory. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Block, J., & Block, J. H. (2006). Venturing a 30-year longitudinal study. American Psychologist, 61, 315–327.
Freud, S. (1926). The ego and the id. Honolulu, HI: Hogarth Press.
Funder, D. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: a realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102,
652–670.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4,
26–42.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and its challenges to western thought. New
York: Basic Books.
Letzring, T. D., Block, J., & Funder, D. C. (2005). Ego-control and ego-resiliency: generalization of self-report scales
based on personality descriptions from acquaintances, clinicians, and the self. Journal of Research in Personality, 39,
395–422.
Lieberman, M. D. (2007). The x- and c-systems: the neural basis of automatic and controlled social cognition. In E.
Harmon-Jones & P. Winkielman (Eds.), Fundamentals of social neuroscience (pp. 290–315). New York: Guilford.
McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed and implicit motives differ?
Psychological Review, 96, 690–702.
Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: dynamics of willpower.
Psychological Review, 106, 3–19.
Mischel, W., & Ayduk, O. (2004). Willpower in a cognitive-affective processing system: the dynamics of delay of
gratification. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: research, theory, and
applications (pp. 99–129). New York: Guilford Press.
Pennebaker, J. W., Francis, M. E., & Booth, R. J. (2001). Linguistic inquiry and word count. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Pennebaker, J. W., Mehl, M. R., & Niederhoffer, K. G. (2003). Psychological aspects of natural language use: our
words, our selves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 547–577.
Robinson, M. D. (in press). Lives lived in milliseconds: using cognitive methods in personality research. In: Robins, R.
W., Fraley, R. C., Krueger, R. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology. New York: Guilford
Press.
 D.L. Zabelina et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 463–473 473

Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Belief and feeling: evidence for an accessibility model of emotional self-report.
Psychological Bulletin, 128, 934–960.
Saucier, G. (1994). Separating description and evaluation in the structure of personality attributes. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 141–154.
Suh, E. M. (2002). Culture, identity consistency, and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 83, 1378–1391.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology,
better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271–322.
Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: a valid, reliable individual-differences metric.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology., 77, 1271–1288.