Running head: SELF-CONTROL, ECONOMICS, PSYCHOLOGY 1

The History Self-Control Research: A Quick Overview

Huakai Liao

Claremont McKenna College

Author Note

Huakai Liao, Claremont McKenna College, Claremont, California.

SELF-CONTROL, ECONOMICS, PSYCHOLOGY 2

Abstract

The current project seeks to explore the history of self-control study in the

fields of economics and psychology by identifying milestone researches. This article

will discuss few neuroscience works as well. First, a primitive correlational study

was conducted by using the Google Scholar data and the Google Trend data to

analysis whether publics' interests and scholars' interest in this topic correspond.

Upon examining the dataset, several other interesting findings of the trend of

research were found. This article will discuss several well-known economic models,

such as hyperbolic discounting model, dual-self model of intertemporal choices, cue-

triggered theory of consumption. In the field of psychology, this article will trace

how the strength model was developed and what questions it received. However,

several flaws about the current literature will also be mentioned. Finally, a possible

application of the collective findings, a self-control improvement program, was

suggested.

Keywords: self-control, self-regulation, economics, psychology

SELF-CONTROL, ECONOMICS, PSYCHOLOGY 3

The History of Self-Control Research: A Quick Overview

“Time is nature’s way of keeping everything happening at once.”

-- Woody Allen (“Biography”, n.d.)

The ability of human organism to override, interfere, and otherwise alter its own

responses is probably one of the most startling ability of human selfhood.1 The study of

self-control has been regarded by many psychologists and economists as one of the most

important issue to study (Baumeister, Heatherton, Tice, 1994, ix; Bernheim, Ray, &

Yeltekin, 2013; Shoda, Mischel, Peake, 1990). The understanding of self-control has

been an important topic of discussion in both fields for the last 20 years.

The purpose of this article is to trace the history of the study of self-control and

examine how researches from different fields influence each other. Although economists

and psychologists claim to study the same topic of self-control, there are three main

differences in how they approach the problem. First, they differ in where their interest in

self-control lies in. While psychologists are more interested in the makings of self-

control, economists are more interested in how self-control affects other aspects of

human life, such as poverty or decision-making. They also differ in their definitions of

the term. Economists, on one hand, generally define self-control as the degree to which

one individual follows the optimal plan decided by that individual previously.

Psychologists, on the other hand, tend to define self-control as the ability for an

individual to alter his/her natural response. In addition, they differ in what strategies they

recommend to combat self-control issues. Economists tend to recommend people to rely

on external mechanisms to improve self-control, whereas psychologists tend to focus on

how people can increase willpower to improve self-control.

1 This sentence was used in my another assignment in a social psychology class.

SELF-CONTROL, ECONOMICS, PSYCHOLOGY 4

Neuroscientists have also expressed growing interest in this topic (Hare, Camerer,

& Rangel, 2009; Heatherton & Wagner, 2011). While economists and psychologists

more or less have their own approaches of looking at the issue, neuroscientists have done

work in studying the underlying neurobiological mechanisms of self-control in light of

both approaches. Although there are many interesting works done in this field, the current

study places more emphasis on the study of self-control in psychology and economics. It

is important to note that physiologists also have done some work in this domain (DeWall,

Deckman, Gailliot, & Bushman, 2010; Gailliot & Baumeister, 2007). However, due to

the limited scope of the current study, those works will not be discussed.

Correlational Study

As a primitive assessment of trend of previous studies on self-control and public's

interest in academic works, I conducted a correlational study using a dataset of 1000

paper related to self-control and the Google Trends data (Google Trends, n.d.). The

dataset was collected by querying the Google scholar website with the keyword—“self-

control.”2 It appears that three sociologists, Hartshorne, May, and Maller, were the first

three modern scholars who expressed strong interests in this topic in their documented

works. In 2009, they published a book entitled Studies in the nature of character, II

Studies in service and self-control. Figure 1 also showed that the number of articles

published on this topic spiked in late 1970s and again in 2007. Since 2007, the number of

articles dramatically decreased again. The study also tried to look for some of the most

milestone year in the research on this topic. Another "average citation counts per year”

2 I tried to use other keywords, such as self-regulation, etc. However, the program begun to run
significantly slow as more query was fired. It is most likely due to Google's anti-robot engine. Plus, I
really don't want to shut everyone's access to Google Scholar right during finals week. Future studies
can be a remote server to do this.
SELF-CONTROL, ECONOMICS, PSYCHOLOGY 5

value was computed by the dividing the number of citations of published works in each

year with the number of published works. It is true that this is rather obtrusive measure of

different scholars’ works. However, this merely served as a primitive assessment.

In addition, a correlational analysis was performed to access if there is a

relationship between public’s interests and scholars’ interests. Another dataset was

obtained by using Google Trend with the following keywords: “self-regulation”, “self-

control”, “self-discipline”, “self-motivation”, and “willpower” (Figure 3). A composite

score was made by adding the number of search queries of the keywords. “The numbers

on the graph reflect how many searches have been done for a particular term, relative to

the total number of searches done on Google over time” (Google Trend Support, n.d.). ,

Surprisingly, there was a significant correlation between the number of published articles,

and the number of public search queries (r = -.901, p = .002).3 There was a nonsignificant

correlation of -.485 between the “average citation counts per year” and the number of

published articles (p = .223). Possible explanation for the negative correlation can be that

scholars' interest may follow publics' interest in later time.

Economics

Hyperbolic-discounting Theories

Economists’ interests in self-control spur very early on. The very origin of such

interest goes back to Strotz’s classical work, Myopia and Inconsistency in Dynamic

Utility Maximization (1995). Strotz’s interest in studying self-control stems from his

interest in intertemporal choice, the phenomena of people making different decisions at

different points in time. Although he did not acknowledge he was studying self-control in

3Also, Google Scholar's data may not be entirely trusted. When I tried to export the data, it appears
that it is giving me the actual search quantity instead of a percentage. I searched through several
different websites: it is most likely a bug in their system.
SELF-CONTROL, ECONOMICS, PSYCHOLOGY 6

the paper, he was among the few economists who first paid attention to the phenomena of

self-control, i.e. why individuals would impose constraints on their own future behavior

(Thaler & Shefrin, 1981). In writing the paper, Strotz sought to give a primitive answer to

the question: if an individual A has to choose a consumption plan for a certain period in

the future to maximize his utility as evaluated at the present moment and he will have

freedom to reconsider the plan, will he abide by it or not? Through a series of proofs,

Strotz concluded at the answer of generally no.

In answering the question, Strotz realized the problem can be represented by

functions to describe the relationship between the current preference and future

preference. After proving the relationship cannot be explained by an exponential

discounting function with a constant exponent, he proposed a new discounting function.

Through further analyses, he concluded that the current consumption plan generally will

not be followed, except when a special condition of certainty is met.

Following Strotz, many economists have begun exploring the field of self-control

with an approach similar to Strotz’s (Pollak, 1968; Blackorby et al., 1973; Peleg & Yaari,

1973; Hammond, 1976; Yaari, 1977; Carillo & Mariotti, 2000). In recent years, McClure

et al. (2004, 2007) advanced the theory by proposing a dual-evaluation theory, which

suggests that different brain regions, such a lateral prefrontal (PFC), parietal cortex (Par)

etc. activate differently to immediate rewards and delayed rewards.

Dual-self Models of Intertemporal Choices

In 1981, Thaler and Shefrin proposed a new economic theory of self-control by

modeling an individual as an organization. Unlike previous works which treats the

problem of self-control as simply a problem of changing preferences, Thaler and

SELF-CONTROL, ECONOMICS, PSYCHOLOGY 7

Shefrin’s framework looked at the problem as a conflict between the two selves of one

economic man at any given point in time. They argued that previous works in hyperbolic

discounting model of self-control, which interpret the phenomena by introducing a new

set of preference, turned the utility into a tautology. With reasoning like previous

interpretation, people would introduce a new kind of preferences whenever we interpret

new phenomena. Thus, they argued that a dual-self model was needed; otherwise, the

idea of self-control became paradoxical.

Here, Thaler and Shefrin treated an individual as an organization consisted of

both a "farsighted planner" and a "myopic doer" (p. 392). While the planner rarely

changes and concerns about lifetime utility, doer is constantly changing and only

concerns about the present utility. Except for the fact that the planner does not consume

and derive utility from the consumption of the doer, they can be treated as an independent

individual. Thus, the relationship between the planner and the doer can be thought of as

similar to that between an employer and an employee. Many strategies commonly used

within organizations to handle employer/employee conflict can thus be used here, such as

precommitment.

The model takes on the assumption that an individual's psyche has several

relatively independent energy systems. Although the idea of two-selves was not entirely

new in economics as Adam Smith (1969) used similar model, the notions of psyche and

energy systems indeed stem from psychodynamic theory in psychology (Freud, 1958).

Neurobiological study also found evidence for the notion that multiple

independent valuation systems compete with each other for behavioral control (Hare,

Camerer, & Rangel, 2009). Although Hare et al. did not suggest the study was evidence
SELF-CONTROL, ECONOMICS, PSYCHOLOGY 8

for the dual-selves theory, it has since been cited as evidence for the theory (Brocas &

Carrilo, 2008). In short, it is suggested that while the brain region, ventromedial

prefrontal cortex (vmPFC), is the basis for a value signal encoded in goal-directed

decisions, another brain region, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) modulates this

signal.

Cue-Triggered Theory of Consumption

Stemming from interests in formulating new theories about addiction, Bernheim

and Rangel proposed a new cue-triggered theory of consumption. The theory sees

previous experiences and environmental cues as important contributing factors to self-

control issue. Previous experience sensitizes an individual to be more susceptible to

environmental triggers, which lead to self-control failure. They also argued that people

can adopt strategies, such as voluntarily removing options that can be detrimental in the

future or avoiding bad environmental cues. Upon examining the evidence about their

hypotheses on addictive behavior, they also found that poor self-control increase the odd

of becoming addicted (p. 1565).

Self-Control and Poverty

There has also been a growing interest in studying the relationship between self-

control and poverty since recent researches showed the absence of self-control is a

correlate of poverty. Two works deserve special mention. By modeling self-control issue

as a standard intertemporal choice problem, Bernheim, Ray, and Yeltekin (2013)

proposed that poverty undermines people's ability to exercise self-control. Adopting the

same approach as Strotz’s, Bernheim et al. modeled self-control as an intrapersonal game

played by a hypothetical current decision maker against a hypothetical future decision

SELF-CONTROL, ECONOMICS, PSYCHOLOGY 9

maker. The decision maker is assumed to make decisions in a time-inconsistent manner.

All other factors are standard, such as fixed rate of return for both accumulation and

depletion etc. Assuming that people maintain self-discipline by adopting private rules,

Bernehim et al. chose to examine the problem by interpreting each personal rule as a

subgame-perfect Nash equilibria. Two income level thresholds were found: above the

first threshold level of assets, people will accumulate unbounded assets because people

have to follow personal rule for asset loss can be painful at that point. Below the other

threshold level of asset, people will ultimately deplete their entire liquid asset because no

personal rule will be adopted. People do not adopt many personal rules because the

possible asset loss is too small, and people have not learned how to save. The existence of

the second threshold suggests the existence of a "poverty trap": whatever asset people can

gain will lead to depletion. The study thus suggests future policies could encourage

people to establish a target and lock up all funds through a special kind of commitment

device until the target is achieved.

In the same year, Mani, Mullainathan, Shafir, and Zhao published an

experimental study, which demonstrates that poverty indeed impedes cognitive function,

including self-control.4 The study uses two complementary experimental designs. In the

first experiment, the experimenter first induced poor and rich participants to think about

similarly size financial challenges and then measure their cognitive functions. Poor

participants were significantly more affected by the challenges. A second field

experiment in India was conducted to further examine the relationship in natural settings.

To control for possible confounding differences between poor and rich groups, the study

4Although the authors did not use the exact term of self-control, authors admitted in their late works
that this study can be seen as a self-control study (Mullainathan and Shafir, 2013).
SELF-CONTROL, ECONOMICS, PSYCHOLOGY 10

chooses Indian sugarcane farmers as participants because they experience natural cycle of

poverty before (poor) and after harvest (rich). Indian farmers also have different harvest

cycles arbitrarily and this feature can help control for the impact of changing months.

Cognitive functions of farmers were measured before and after harvest seasons.

Significant change in self-control ability was found too. Although the researchers did not

interpret the data with Bernheim et al.'s frameworks, their study serves as supporting

evidence for Bernheim et al.'s theories.

Psychology5

Psychology theorists’ interests in the topic started as early as economists’ (since

1960s) but there have not been many experimental works until 1980s. Psychology

journals had not begun to feature a large number of articles on the domain until 1980s

(Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994). It is interesting to note that some of the

aforementioned theorists were in fact economists.

Unlike economists, psychologists have not begun formulating an explicit model

of self-control until 1998. Through numerous correlational and experimental studies, an

array of factor was proposed as possible contributors or components of self-control, such

as attention, motivation, disposition, fatigue, stress, and continuous practices of self-

control.

Strength Model

In 1998, the strength model was raised and had dominated the field until 2007

(Muraven, Tice, & Baumeister, 1998; Hagger, Wood, Stiff, & Chatzisarantis 2007).

There are five key characteristics of the strength: 1) self-control strength is required for

the executive part of self to exercise. 2) An individual can only control a finite number of

5 Although no exact sentences were used in my other assignment, many the ideas were similar.
SELF-CONTROL, ECONOMICS, PSYCHOLOGY 11

urges at any given time. 3) All self-control exercises draw from the same energy

resource. 4) Therefore, a person's level of self-control strength is one of the most

important contributing factors to the success or the failure of self-control. 5) Exertion of

self-control depletes the amount of energy resources available and cannot be exercised

again until the resource is replenished (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). Along with the

strength model, the same research team proposed the term “ego depletion” to describe the

phenomena of depleting self-control after a strenuous self-control task (Baumeister,

Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998). As the theory evolved, Gailliot and Baumeister

added an important addendum, “the glucose brain-fueling hypothesis”, to the model in

2007. The hypothesis states that not only do self-control exercises draw from the same

resource but also all draw from the energy of glucose in the blood.

Cultural Belief Hypothesis

Although numerous studies have been conducted to validate the hypothesis, it was

soon questioned Job, Dweck and Walton in 2010 (Gailliot et al., 2007). Job, Dweck, and

Walton proposed that the ego-depletion effect actually depend on a person's belief about

whether willpower is fixed. The researchers conducted three experiments and one

longitudinal study. In particular, the second experiment manipulated participants’ implicit

theories about willpower and measured the change in participants’ performance in the

Stroop task, a standard measure of ego depletion (Job, Dweck, & Walton, 2007; Gailliot

et al., 2007). Since the proposition, several studies have been conducted to examine this

hypothesis (Beedie & Lane, 2011; Sanders, Shirk, Burgin, & Martin, 2012).

In addition, Hagger et al. finished a meta-analysis of 83 strength model studies in

the same year and found several new moderating factors, which are not suggested by the
SELF-CONTROL, ECONOMICS, PSYCHOLOGY 12

strength model theory. Among the 83 studies, although most support the ego-depletion

effect and thus the strength model, a few studies did report nonsignificant results. Further

examination suggested that skill, motivation, subjective fatigue, self-efficacy, affect, and

experimenter demand can be alternative explanations. In studies in which participants

were asked to complete two self-control tasks consecutively in an attempt to demonstrate

the limited self-control strength hypothesis, motivation was found to be a viable

alternative explanation for self-control failure. Subjective fatigue was also suggested to

be a mediating factor in the ego-depletion effect can be cited to support the cultural belief

hypothesis below. It is possible that the ego-depletion effect only takes place because

people subjectively feel fatigue. After all, subjective fatigue evoked by participating in

cognitive tasks was found to elevate physiological signs of fatigue and worsen

performance on following tasks (Hagger et al., 2007, p. 505).

In lieu of these studies, Job, Bernecker, and Carol proposed the “cultural belief

hypothesis”—“a culturally shaped belief hypothesis common in modern society creates

conditions in which glucose facilitates cognitive performance and self-regulation” (2013,

p. 14837). The evidence that self-regulatory resource depletes blood glucose was also

found in neuroscience (Heatherton & Wagner, 2011).

Critique

Although works in different domains do draw references from each other, more

interdisciplinary efforts should be encouraged. Not only would less interdisciplinary

work limit our scope but also could hinder the development of the fields. A good example

is the development of the cultural belief hypothesis. It is not until 2007 that psychologists

started to seriously reconsider the strength model. It is less known that an article
SELF-CONTROL, ECONOMICS, PSYCHOLOGY 13

published in 2005 on the journal of consumer research already presented counter

evidence to the strength model and proposed the hypothesis that lay theories of self-

control affects willpower (Mukhopadhyay & Johar, 2005).

Drawing reference from Dweck’s view that individuals’ implicit theories would

lead to different behavioral patterns, they proposed that lay theories about self-control set

up the strength model behavioral pattern proposed by Muraven and Baumeister (2000)

(Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Authors demonstrated that consumers’ lay theories of self-

control directly affect goal-directed behavior. Goal-directed behavior change was

measured by the number of New Year's and other resolutions participants made, people's

rating of how successfully they are at achieving those resolutions, etc. The researchers

conducted four experiments. The first experiment tested the effect of manipulating lay

theories about goal setting behavior. The second experiment then reversed participants'

original beliefs about self-control to further test the exact determining factor. In the third

and fourth experiments, researchers extend findings from previous studies by conducting

field experiments.

A search through all related articles finds that no studies related to the cultural

belief hypothesis cited the paper when in fact Job, Dweck, and Walton’s studies in 2010

were quite similar to Mukhopadhyay and Johar’s. In both studies, the first experiment

measured while the second experiment manipulated, implicit theories. Both studies

conducted field studies in the end too. Psychological researches about the cultural belief

hypothesis could speed up if they draw reference from Mukhopadhyay and Johar’s study.

Current psychological studies also should look into effects of environmental cues.

Although cultural belief hypothesis implies that a decision maker, who believes he/she
SELF-CONTROL, ECONOMICS, PSYCHOLOGY 14

has unlimited self-control power, would have more self-control, Bernheim and Rangel’s

analyses suggest such decision-maker could be more susceptible to bad environmental

cues. Because such decision maker does not believe he/she could suffer from self-control

problems, he/she would not adopt cue-avoidance strategy and thus might eventually fail

at self-control.

The implications suggested by current literatures are questionable too. In both

realms of realms of psychology and economics, increasing self-control implies more

ability to override individual’s natural response, thus making better decisions. However, a

closer look at the statement will find it questionable. For example, suppose a student sets

a goal of continuously exercising self-control until he/she is done with all his/her works.

Fatigue accompanying with such long work hours can cause the student to produce

uncreative or problematic works. Recent studies in positive psychology have repeatedly

found that productivity increases when people are happy. After working for a long time

and exercising self-control many timers, people may become very unhappy. They may be

very unproductive at that point. In lieu of the aforementioned call for interdisciplinary

research, there should also be more interdisciplinary studies on the implication of

previous studies.

Application

A comprehensive self-control improvement program can be implemented with the

collective findings from the three domains. The very first program can target toward

freshman in college. College students are “famous” for lack of self-control and low

productivity. In addressing these problems, the program could first educate them on

theories about self-control. Job et al.’s works found that lay theories of self-control lead
SELF-CONTROL, ECONOMICS, PSYCHOLOGY 15

to worse self-control (2013). To prevent the aforesaid problem of no cue-avoidance

strategy, students can engage in scenarios to pre-expose them to environmental cues and

warn them to avoid those situations. The cue-triggered theory about consumption

suggests that successful self-control experience would increase the odd of successful self-

control in the future (Bernheim & Rangel, 2004). These scenario exercises could also

prevent the occurrence of plagiarism. I imagine many occurrences of plagiarism take

place because people were panicking before the assignment was due, and they did not

know how to deal with the situation. If people had similar emotional experience in

dealing with the situation, they might become more equipped in the future. Then the

program instructor can ask each student to list individual goals. Unless these goals were

achieved, they could not do something that they like. This strategy is taken from

Bernheim and Yeltekin (2013). For example, unless students go to a certain number of

classes, they cannot watch Netflix.

Conclusion

The study of self-control has been one with a long history. Economists,

psychologists, sociologists, physiologists, and neuroscientists all expressed interest. The

current study only focused on a small portion of the theories: the hyperbolic discounting

model, the cue-triggered theory of consumption, dual-self model of intertemporal

choices, strength model, the cultural belief hypothesis, etc. There are other models we

have not included here, such as decision-theoretic models of temptation, etc. The

magnitude of researches and the number of theories and models from different domains

call for more interdisciplinary researches in the future.

SELF-CONTROL, ECONOMICS, PSYCHOLOGY 16
SELF-CONTROL, ECONOMICS, PSYCHOLOGY 17

References

Baumeister, R., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the

active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 74(5), 1252–1265. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.74.5.1252

Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing control: How and why

people fail at self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Baumeister, R., Heatherton, T., & Tice, D. (1994). Self-regulation failure: why, when,

and how self-control breaks down. San Diego: Elsevier Science.

Beedie, C. J., & Lane, A. M. (2011). The role of glucose in self-control: Another look at

the evidence and an alternative conceptualization.Personality and Social

Psychology Review, 16(2).

Bénabou, R., & Pycia, M. (2002). Dynamic inconsistency and self-control: a planner–

doer interpretation. Economics Letters, 77(3).

Bernheim, D., & Rangel, A. (2004). Addiction and Cue-Triggered Decision

Processes. American Economic Review, 94(5), 1558–1590.

doi:10.1257/0002828043052222

Bernheim, D., Ray, D., & Yeltekin, S. (2013). Poverty and Self-Control.

doi:10.3386/w18742

Blackorby, C., Nissen, D., Primont, D., & Russell, R. (1973). Consistent Intertemporal

Decision Making. The Review of Economic Studies,40(2). doi:10.2307/2296650

Biography. (n.d.). Retrieved 15 December 2014, from

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000095/bio
SELF-CONTROL, ECONOMICS, PSYCHOLOGY 18

Brocas, I., & Carrillo, J. (2008). The Brain as a Hierarchical Organization. American

Economic Review, 98(4), 1312–1346. doi:10.1257/aer.98.4.1312

Brocas, I., & Carrillo, J. D. (2014). Value computation and value modulation: a dual-

process theory of self-control.

Carrillo, J., & Mariotti, T. (2000). Strategic Ignorance as a Self-Disciplining

Device. Review of Economic Studies, 67(3), 529–544. doi:10.1111/1467-

937x.00142

DeWall, N., Deckman, T., Gailliot, M., & Bushman, B. (2010). Sweetened blood cools

hot tempers: physiological self-control and aggression.Aggressive

Behavior, 37(1), 73–80. doi:10.1002/ab.20366

Dweck, C., & Leggett, E. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and

personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273. doi:10.1037/0033-

295x.95.2.256

Freud, S. (1958). Beyond the Pleasure Principle. In J. Strachey & A. Freud (Eds.), S.

Freud, The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund

Freud. London: Hogarth.

Gailliot, M., & Baumeister, R. (2007). The Physiology of Willpower: Linking Blood

Glucose to Self-Control. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(4).

Gailliot, M., Baumeister, R., DeWall, N., Maner, J., Plant, A., Tice, D., … Schmeichel,

B. (2007). Self-control relies on glucose as a limited energy source: Willpower is

more than a metaphor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2).

SELF-CONTROL, ECONOMICS, PSYCHOLOGY 19

Google Trends. (n.d.). Retrieved 5 December 2014, from

http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=self-regulation%2C%20self-

control%2C%20self-discipline%2C%20self-motivated&cmpt=q

Google Trend Support. (n.d.). Retrieved 15 December 2014, from

https://support.google.com/trends/answer/4355164?hl=en

Gul, F., & Pesendorfer, W. (2001). Temptation and Self-Control.Econometrica, 69(6).

Hagger, M., Wood, C., Stiff, C., & Chatzisarantis, N. (2010). Ego depletion and the

strength model of self-control: A meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 136(4).

Hammond, P. (1976). Changing Tastes and Coherent Dynamic Choice.The Review of

Economic Studies, 43(1). doi:10.2307/2296609

Hare, T., Camerer, C., & Rangel, A. (2009). Self-Control in Decision-Making Involves

Modulation of the vmPFC Valuation System. Science,es Modulation of the

vmPFC Valuation System’(5927).

Heatherton, T., & Wagner, D. (2011). Cognitive neuroscience of self-regulation

failure. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(3).

Job, V., Walton, G., Bernecker, K., & Dweck, C. (2013). Beliefs about willpower

determine the impact of glucose on self-control.Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences, 110(37).

McClure, S., Ericson, K., Laibson, D., Loewenstein, & Cohen, J. (2007). Time

Discounting for Primary Rewards. Journal of Neuroscience,27(21), 5796–5804.

doi:10.1523/jneurosci.4246-06.2007
SELF-CONTROL, ECONOMICS, PSYCHOLOGY 20

McClure, S., Laibson, D., Loewenstein, G., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). Separate Neural

Systems Value Immediate and Delayed Monetary Rewards. Science, 306(5695),

503–507. doi:10.1126/science.1100907

Mukhopadhyay, A., & Johar, G. V. (2005). Where There Is a Will, Is There a Way?

Effects of Lay Theories of Self‐Control on Setting and Keeping

Resolutions. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4).

Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2013). Scarcity: why having too little means so much.

Holt & Company, Henry.

Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited

resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle?Psychological Bulletin, 126(2).

Muraven, M., Tice, D., & Baumeister, R. (1998). Self-control as a limited resource:

Regulatory depletion patterns. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 74(3), 774–789. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.74.3.774

Peleg, B., & Yaari, M. (1973). On the Existence of a Consistent Course of Action when

Tastes are Changing. The Review of Economic Studies, 40(3).

doi:10.2307/2296458

Pollak, R. (1968). Consistent Planning. The Review of Economic Studies, 35(2).

doi:10.2307/2296548

Sanders, M., Shirk, S., Burgin, C., & Martin, L. (2012). The Gargle Effect: Rinsing the

Mouth With Glucose Enhances Self-Control. Psychological Science, 23(12).

Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Peake, P. (1990). Predicting adolescent cognitive and self-

regulatory competencies from preschool delay of gratification: Identifying

SELF-CONTROL, ECONOMICS, PSYCHOLOGY 21

diagnostic conditions. Developmental Psychology, 26(6), 978–986.

doi:10.1037//0012-1649.26.6.978

Smith, A. (1969). The theory of moral sentiments. New Rochelle, N.Y: Arlington House.

Strotz, R. (1955). Myopia and Inconsistency in Dynamic Utility Maximization. The

Review of Economic Studies, 23(3).

Thaler, R., & Shefrin, H. (1981). An Economic Theory of Self-Control.Journal of

Political Economy, 89(2).

Yaari, M. E. (1977). How to Eat an Appetite-arousing Cake. Research Memorandum,

(26).
SELF-CONTROL, ECONOMICS, PSYCHOLOGY 22

Figures

Figure 1.

60
The Number of Article Published

50

40

30

20

10

0
1959 1966 1973 1980 1987 1994 2001 2008

Figure 1. The Number of Articles Published Each Year Since 1925.

Figure 2.

700

600 Citation Counts /

Number of Published
Works
500

400
Number of Published
Works
300

200

100

0
1959 1966 1973 1980 1987 1994 2001 2008

Figure 2. Average Citation and the Number of Published Works per Year since 1959.
SELF-CONTROL, ECONOMICS, PSYCHOLOGY 23

Figure 3.

(Willpower: purple, self-motivation: green, self-control: red, self-regulation: blue, self-

discipline: yellow)

Figure 3. Public’s Interest in Self-Control, as Measured by Google Trends.