Health Psychology Review

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rhpr20

Lessons learned from trait self-control in well-

being: making the case for routines and initiation
as important components of trait self-control

Denise De Ridder & Marleen Gillebaart

To cite this article: Denise De Ridder & Marleen Gillebaart (2017) Lessons learned
from trait self-control in well-being: making the case for routines and initiation as
important components of trait self-control, Health Psychology Review, 11:1, 89-99, DOI:
10.1080/17437199.2016.1266275

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2016.1266275

© 2016 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 12 Dec 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 11649

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 53 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rhpr20
HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW, 2017
VOL. 11, NO. 1, 89–99
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2016.1266275

Lessons learned from trait self-control in well-being: making the

case for routines and initiation as important components of trait
self-control
Denise De Ridder and Marleen Gillebaart
Department of Social Health and Organizational Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

It seems common knowledge that trait self-control helps people to achieve Received 25 January 2016
the things they find important in their lives by not being distracted by Accepted 18 November 2016
immediate pleasures and temptations. Initial evidence suggests that trait
KEYWORDS
self-control is important in well-being as well, with people high in self- Trait self-control; self-
control experiencing more positive momentary affect, life satisfaction, regulation; effortful
and happiness. Whereas it is not so difficult to imagine why effortful inhibition; happiness; well-
inhibition of impulses would benefit continued striving for long-term being; life satisfaction
personal goals, it is more challenging to understand why self-control
would make people happier and more satisfied with their lives. The
present paper sets out to explain this intriguing phenomenon and aims
to identify mechanisms by why people high in trait self-control
experience better well-being. We examine potential underlying
processes that may explain the role of trait self-control in well-being and
propose initiation of desired behaviour and adaptive routines as key
components of self-control in well-being that challenge the classic
explanation of self-control as effortful inhibition.

Self-control is generally defined as the ability to override predominant response tendencies resulting
in the inhibition of undesirable behaviours to support the pursuit of long-term goals (Carver &
Scheier, 1981; Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). On a dispositional level, trait self-control involves an
‘active self’ that is able to prioritise long-term over short-term goals, even when these short-term
goals are immediately gratifying (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998). Being able to
forego immediate pleasure in service of goals that are more rewarding in the long run is considered
crucial in human evolution and essential for human functioning (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone,
2004). Many studies have shown that low trait self-control is indeed implicated in a large range of
individual and societal problems, including obesity (Tsukayama, Toomey, Faith, & Duckworth,
2010), academic failure and underachievement (Duckworth & Seligman, 2005), procrastination
(Steel, 2007), substance abuse (Baumeister & Heatherton, 1996), impulsive buying (Vohs & Faber,
2007), and delinquent behaviour (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Importantly, high trait self-control
has been shown to be associated with a wide range of positive outcomes. A meta-analysis, surveying
over 100 studies, recently confirmed the benefits of high trait self-control in work, school, interper-
sonal relationships, and health (De Ridder, Lensvelt-Mulders, Finkenauer, Stok, & Baumeister, 2012).
Next to better performance in several life domains that relate to the achievement of personal
goals, people with high trait self-control also report better well-being, including better psychological

CONTACT Denise De Ridder [email protected]

© 2016 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
90 D. DE RIDDER AND M. GILLEBAART

adjustment (Tangney et al., 2004), and higher levels of happiness (Cheung, Gillebaart, Kroese, & De
Ridder, 2014) and life satisfaction (Hofmann, Luhmann, Fischer, Vohs, & Baumeister, 2013).
The association between self-control and well-being is intriguing, and challenges the common
conception of self-control as the ability to inhibit unwanted impulses. Whereas the benefits of refrain-
ing from undesired (but oftentimes pleasurable) behaviour are obvious when long-term goals such as
work achievement and academic performance are at stake, it is more difficult to imagine how inhibit-
ing immediate urges per se would benefit well-being. For instance, most people would agree that it
makes sense that studying for an exam instead of watching one’s favourite television show promotes
the more distant goal of getting good grades. However, it is not so clear how staying away from the
cookie jar would make one more happy in the long run. On the contrary, it seems that many impul-
sive behaviours that would require resistance to stay on track with one’s long-term goals bring
immediate pleasure (such as indulging in cookies), making it difficult to understand how controlling
these impulses would make one feel happy and cheerful. It has even been argued that people may
give up on long-term goals because they have the explicit intention to feel good right away (Tice &
Bratslavsky, 2000; Tice, Bratslavsky, & Baumeister, 2001). Indeed, research on procrastination as the
prototypical case of self-regulation failure has demonstrated that people give in to the temptation
of postponing goal pursuit as a means of regulating their emotions and experience immediate posi-
tive affect (Fee & Tangney, 2000; Sirois & Pychyl, 2013).
We realise that some people may find the association between trait self-control and well-being
fairly obvious and not as counterintuitive as we think it is because self-control promotes goal
success, which in turn may contribute to life satisfaction and well-being. However, as we will
explain in the following, the association between trait self-control and well-being is puzzling when
one considers that mere inhibition of immediate urges and impulses may jeopardise positive
affect – even when there are benefits in the long run in terms of higher chances of goal success –
and that giving in to temptation enhances the experience of immediate positive mood. Importantly,
we do not refute the association between trait self-control and well-being. Rather, we argue that this
association calls for a thorough examination of the processes that underlie successful self-control. In
doing so, we do not contend that ‘behaving bad’ – not acting in line with one’s long-term goals – is the
direct source of well-being. We appreciate that people may derive pleasure from acting in agreement
with their long-term goals. The main aim of our review is to elucidate that goal success – and thus well-
being – does not depend on inhibition only. To better understand in what way high trait self-control
would contribute to well-being, we examine an alternative mechanism for effortful inhibition as the
key characteristic of self-control. We propose that the initiation of desired behaviour (rather than
the inhibition of undesired behaviour) and relying on adaptive routines (rather than effortful resistance
of temptations) provide a compelling explanation of why self-control is important for well-being.
In doing so, we will focus on research that highlights trait self-control rather than state self-control
which comprises the waxing and waning of self-control across situations and over time (Hoyle & Davis-
son, 2016). Studies on state self-control have provided valuable insights into when and why the capacity
for self-control may drop as the result of previous exertion of self-control, a phenomenon that is known
as depletion of resources or ego depletion (Baumeister et al., 1998). Whilst there is debate on the nature
and even the very existence of ego depletion (e.g., Carter & McCullough, 2014; Hagger & Chatzisarantis,
2016; Inzlicht & Schmeichel, 2012), we will not elaborate on this discussion here. We acknowledge that
the resource approach to self-control is a strong theory that has provided self-control research with a
new understanding of the crucial role of self-control in adaptive behaviour. At the same time we realise
that the way ego depletion is typically assessed – by the so-called dual task paradigm, exposing indi-
viduals to an initial task which requires self-control as a manipulation of self-control after which they
have to do a secondary task requiring self-control which serves as the dependent variable – may
have some limitations precluding a deeper understanding under which conditions depletion may or
may not occur (De Ridder, Kroese, Gillebaart, & Adriaanse, 2016). That being said, our line of arguing
does not exclusively apply to trait self-control as also fluctuations in the ability and willingness to
exert self-control (state self-control) are relevant for understanding the role of self-control in well-being.
 HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW 91

By focusing on trait self-control we highlight the dispositional capacity to deal with a dilemma or
conflict that presents individuals with a choice between an option that gives an immediate but often-
times smaller reward versus an option that brings a larger but delayed reward. Whereas the resolution
of this dilemma ultimately contributes to either short-term benefit or long-term reward, the very way in
which the dilemma is handled may involve several options, including the inhibition of an undesired
behaviour (e.g., not eating fatty foods), the initiation of a desired behaviour (e.g., eating sufficient
fruits and vegetables), or a combination of both. In conceptualising self-control this way we align
with important theoretical contributions to the self-control literature, arguing that the very experience
of a dilemma instigates self-control efforts (e.g., Fujita, 2011; Hofmann, Baumeister, Förster, & Vohs,
2012; Myrseth & Fishbach, 2009). Indeed, for the most part the self-control literature explicitly stipulates
that inhibition of unwanted responses always takes places in view of a more rewarding long-term goal
(rather than inhibition per se; cf. Fujita, 2011; Hommel, 2015). Importantly, dispositional self-control is
generally considered as a powerfully adaptive trait contributing to an array of desirable outcomes that
should result in a happier, healthier, and more productive life. While many measures for assessing dis-
positional self-control exist (Duckworth & Kern, 2011), trait self-control is now almost exclusively
assessed by the Brief Self-Control Scale (BSCS) developed by Tangney and colleagues (Tangney
et al., 2004; cf. De Ridder et al., 2012; Hoyle & Davisson, 2017).
Framing self-control as the capacity for dealing with a dilemma provides the opportunity to either
emphasise the classic inhibition component (i.e., the response to the immediate but smaller ‘unde-
sired’ option) or an initiating component (i.e., prioritising the larger but delayed ‘desired’
outcome). In fact, the widely used BSCS (Tangney et al., 2004) already incorporated an initiatory
component, based on the comprehensive review by Baumeister, Heatherton, and Tice (1994) that dis-
tinguishes four inhibitory components (control thoughts, emotions, impulses, and maladaptive
habits) and one initiatory component (regulate performance) of self-control. Recent research on
trait self-control (De Ridder, De Boer, Lugtig, Bakker, & Van Hooft, 2011; Ein-Gar & Sagiv, 2014;
Hoyle & Davisson, 2016) corroborates the notion that self-control encompasses both inhibition
and initiation components with self-control by inhibition involving the conscious overriding of a ten-
dency to engage in goal-inconsistent behaviour while self-control by initiation involves consciously
acting in a goal-consistent manner despite initial reluctance. Previous research on state self-control
has also provided some evidence that the initiation of a desired response is an important aspect of
successful performance, as is for example witnessed by studies using the Stroop task: successful com-
pletion of this task not only requires inhibition of a specific response but also to replace this response
tendency with another response (Richeson & Shelton, 2003; cf. Englert & Bertrams, 2014). One might
argue whether the initiatory part of self-control is a true part of self-control or falls under the broader
umbrella of self-regulation (Schmeichel & Baumeister, 2004). In accordance with the definition of self-
control as dealing with a dilemma, we posit that the initiatory part of self-control is still self-control
because it relates to prioritising a specific option when faced with a self-control dilemma (cf. Fujita,
2011), whereas the concept of self-regulation encompasses more comprehensive strategies related
to goal selection, goal setting, goal striving, and goal maintenance (Mann, De Ridder, & Fujita, 2013).
In support of the conceptual distinction between initiatory and inhibitory trait self-control, meta-
analytic evidence shows effect sizes equal in size around .21 for the effect of self-control on engaging
in desired behaviours and on refraining from undesired ones, suggesting that the initiatory com-
ponent of self-control (engaging in desired behaviours) constitutes an essential part of successful
self-regulation (De Ridder et al., 2012). Indeed, when pursuing a long-term goal such as being slim
and healthy, it is often not sufficient to merely refrain from undesired behaviours (e.g., eating
unhealthy foods), but it is equally important that the desired behaviour (e.g., eating fruits and veg-
etables) is enacted because not doing the bad things does not automatically lead to engaging in
good behaviour. While it may seem trivial to either frame an act as not engaging in option A (the
undesired behaviour) or engaging in option B (the desired behaviour), in many complex (real life)
situations both options are not complementary, because options rarely present individuals with
dichotomous choices. As alluded to in the example given above, not doing a bad thing is not
92 D. DE RIDDER AND M. GILLEBAART

equivalent to doing the right thing because not eating fatty foods does not implicate that one con-
sumes sufficient fruits and vegetables. In a similar vein, not yelling at your kids does not by definition
imply that one is a loving parent and not withholding the urge to buy a nice gadget on sale does not
mean that one’s financial situation is under control. The distinction between initiation and inhibition
thus constitutes an important aspect of self-control. In the case of well-being, the initiatory com-
ponent of self-control may prove even more important because striving for positive outcomes has
been shown to increase well-being (Brunstein, 1993; Emmons, 1986) whereas mere inhibition may
be negatively related to well-being (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998). We thus propound that in order to
understand why self-control would promote well-being, we should consider this initiatory com-
ponent of self-control in detail. We further propose that initiatory trait self-control is supported by
adaptive routines that help to refrain from unwanted impulses without being effortful (or, in terms
of state self-control jargon: without consuming resources), which in turn may increase the chance
that people engage in strategies for initiating goal pursuit. Before considering these alternative path-
ways in more detail, we briefly review the role of trait self-control in well-being.

Trait self-control and well-being

From the definition of trait self-control as being able to forego immediate impulses and focus on
long-term goals, one might speculate that the lives of people with a high level of self-control may
not be much fun: no immediate gratification at all would not make for a happy life. This ‘Puritan
hypothesis’ (Hofmann et al., 2013, p. 266) states that by successfully and frequently exerting self-
control, people are denying themselves many (short-term) joys and pleasures, even when they are
achieving long-term goals that may in the end be equally or more rewarding. Lending support to
this hypothesis, research has shown that individuals with high trait self-control may experience less
momentary affect, inhibited expression of spontaneity and extraversion (Zabelina, Robinson, &
Anicha, 2007), and limited emotional intensity on a day-to-day basis (Layton & Muraven, 2014).
Alternatively, one may argue that instead of making people unhappy, self-control is unrelated
to well-being. It may well be that in the long run goal achievement (by impulse inhibition) and
well-being are two distinct, unrelated trajectories. This would mean that self-control promotes
goal achievement by inhibiting temptations that stand in contrast with long-term goals but not
at the cost of immediate positive affect or one’s overall appreciation of quality of life. While theor-
etically speaking this second option would be likely – after all, why would self-discipline make
people happy? – there is more support for the third somewhat counterintuitive possibility that
self-control and well-being are associated and that people with high self-control experience
better well-being. Despite the intuitive appeal of the Puritan hypothesis – prioritising long-term
goals would lead to a dull, joyless life marked by dutiful self-discipline – there is scarce but con-
sistent empirical evidence for the latter idea that self-control – even at the cost of more pleasur-
able short-term goals – is associated with a healthy, happy, and successful life. Indeed, people high
in self-control lead a more balanced life and have more control over their lives, which is an impor-
tant requirement for the experience of well-being (Baumeister & Alquist, 2009). Self-control also
promotes good functioning in a variety of life domains that are closely related to well-being or
are a prerequisite for well-being, such as good work and school performance (De Ridder et al.,
2012; Tangney et al., 2004), and thus indirectly contributes to well-being.
Importantly, self-control also more directly affects well-being in a positive way. People with high
self-control are healthier (Moffitt et al., 2011) and report healthier lifestyles with less substance abuse,
more exercise, and healthier eating patterns (De Ridder et al., 2012). They also report higher levels of
psychosocial adjustment and less psychopathology (including depression and anxiety) (Bowlin &
Baer, 2012; Tangney et al., 2004) as well as better interpersonal relationships (Finkel & Campbell,
2001; Righetti & Finkenauer, 2011). Besides being disciplined, and thereby better able to achieve
long-term goals, people with high self-control also report higher levels of life satisfaction
(Hofmann et al., 2013) and happiness (Cheung et al., 2014).
 HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW 93

Initiating goal pursuit

A few studies shed more light on the underlying mechanism of why self-control is related to well-
being. A series of studies by Hofmann et al. (2013) demonstrated that the association between
self-control and life satisfaction was partially mediated by momentary positive affect. This finding
seems to stand in contrast with previous research suggesting that self-control may have costs in
terms of less intense emotional intensity and decreased spontaneity (Layton & Muraven, 2014;
Zabelina et al., 2007). However, it may be that, different from what is generally assumed, people
with high self-control do not mind resisting temptations that might challenge their long-term
goals and even find pleasure in being self-disciplined. Alternatively, it may also be that a high
level of self-control is not necessarily associated with resisting short-term temptations (which may
decrease positive affect) but is more indicative of leading a life that is not characterised by the experi-
ence of many conflicting temptations that need to be dealt with.
For instance, in an experience sampling study in a sample of German adults it was demonstrated
that people with high self-control tend to experience fewer and weaker problematic temptations in
their environment because they strategically structure their lives to steer away from these vices, and
thus do not need to exert effortful inhibition to the same extent as people with low self-control
(Hofmann et al., 2012). This suggests that for people with higher self-control life is not just a
matter of ‘all work and no play’ and getting a bigger pay-off in the end, but more positive affect
throughout as they go along.
Life satisfaction can be considered a measure of ‘cognitive well-being’ (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith,
1999) because it comprises an overall appraisal of one’s quality of life. There is also research showing
that self-control is related to affective well-being in terms of happiness (Cheung et al., 2014). Cheung
and colleagues revealed a moderate to strong association between self-control and happiness and
further demonstrated that this relation was partially mediated by the way people pursue their goals,
suggesting that individuals with high trait self-control are more oriented toward finding strategies
to reach their goals rather than being preoccupied with avoiding opportunities that might prevent
goal achievement, which is then related to happiness. These findings lend support to our suggestion
that the role of self-control in well-being relates to initiating desired behaviours rather than withstand-
ing immediate gratification and momentary pleasures. Instead of self-control being ‘an avoidance-
oriented situation’ (Muraven, 2008, p. 769), the negative association of self-control with ‘prevention
focus’ and its positive association with ‘promotion focus’ suggests that self-control is not primarily
characterised by vigilance and avoiding losses (prevention focus) as posited by the traditional concep-
tualisation of self-control but rather involves an eagerness to engage in goal pursuit (promotion focus).
The findings discussed above suggest a pathway of initiatory goal pursuit rather than inhibiting
unwanted responses through which self-control can and does lead to greater well-being in terms of
life satisfaction and happiness. This view is in accordance with theories that emphasise the role of
(intrinsic) motivation to engage in a variety of activities as an important factor in well-being (Ryan &
Deci, 2000). In fact, the initiatory component of self-control may reflect motivation to engage in
desired activities, as is also posited in research that highlights the role of motivation in successful
self-control, including successful state self-control (Inzlicht & Schmeichel, 2012; Muraven & Slessareva,
2003). This view also aligns well with theorising that puts goal pursuit centre stage in well-being (Brun-
stein, 1993; Emmons, 1986; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). Having goals and being able to pursue them in work
and academic achievement (Duckworth & Seligman, 2005; Harris, Daniels, & Briner, 2003) and in social
and intimate relationships (Finkel & Campbell, 2001) contributes to higher well-being and makes
people feel good about their lives (see Klug & Maier, 2015 for a meta-analysis on goal progress and sub-
jective well-being). It thus seems that by being able to work towards the accomplishment of personal
goals, people with high self-control experience more well-being. Moreover, the simple fact that people
with high self-control more often achieve the goals they pursue may also constitute an important part
of experiencing more well-being, since goal achievement has been known to cause positive affect
(Carver & Scheier, 1990). This suggestion corresponds well with research on conscientiousness, a
94 D. DE RIDDER AND M. GILLEBAART

personality factor that bears resemblance with self-control in terms of self-discipline but with less
emphasis on impulse inhibition, showing that conscientiousness is linked to adaptive outcomes by
engaging in goal-directed activity (Bogg & Roberts, 2004; DeNeve & Cooper, 1998; Poropat, 2009). If
indeed, as we suggest, people with high self-control are happier because they engage more in goal-
directed activities rather than trying to restrain their impulses and withstand the urge for immediate
gratification of their needs, the next question is how they manage to do so in a world filled with
temptations that conflict with long-term goals on a day-to-day basis. We propose that people high
in self-control are more efficient in regulating such self-regulatory conflicts because they have adaptive
routines and that they are therefore better able to engage in initiatory goal pursuit.

Self-control routines
Reaching goals contributes to well-being and insofar as self-control facilitates goal achievement, it
should increase well-being. Unfortunately, people seldom experience the luxury of being committed
to one goal at a time and often entertain multiple goals that can come into conflict. Goal conflicts
become even more pronounced when they are not between concurrent goals (two short-term
goals or two long-term goals) but between an immediate goal and a long-term goal (De Ridder &
De Wit, 2006), which represents the classis self-control dilemma. Whereas it may not be so easy to
choose between a chocolate chip cookie and an apple as a morning snack or between pursuing
an academic career or a business career, it is far more difficult to weigh an immediately appealing
piece of chocolate cake against the distant goal of a slim waist or to decide in favour of preparing
a challenging work presentation when there is an opportunity to spend a nice evening with
friends. In the previous section, we argued that self-control promotes well-being because people
initiate goal pursuit rather than inhibit unwanted responses. An important question is how self-
control supports initiating goal pursuit in the face of conflicting (often immediately appealing)
goals. We propose that people with high self-control employ different strategies for dealing with con-
flict than people low in self-control. Specifically, we posit that self-control goes hand in hand with
smart goal-striving strategies that do not involve a lot of effort and thus that people with high
self-control may save their energy for initiatory attempts at self-regulation.
A longstanding tradition in self-control research has emphasised that self-control involves effortful
inhibition of unwanted responses, as can be derived from the definition of self-control in terms of
overriding predominant response tendencies to support the pursuit of long-term goals, cited pre-
viously. As exemplified by classic resource depletion research, inhibiting unwanted responses
requires effort and spending effort on an initial task leads to having less self-control ‘energy’ for a
subsequent task that requires self-control (Baumeister et al., 1998; Hagger, Wood, Stiff, & Chatzisar-
antis, 2010). As alluded to in the introduction, there is debate about the exact underlying mechanisms
that would lead to self-control resources being exhausted (e.g., Inzlicht & Schmeichel, 2012). Notwith-
standing this debate, resource depletion accounts of self-control seem to agree on the notion that
exercising self-control requires effortful inhibition, regardless whether self-control energy or motiv-
ation and attention (Inzlicht & Schmeichel, 2012) or implicit beliefs about the nature of self-control
(Job, Dweck, & Walton, 2010) are involved. However, if effortful inhibition would be the core ingre-
dient of self-control and if effortful inhibition leads to depletion of resources, as is generally
assumed, it is difficult to imagine in what way people would ever be able to engage in goal
pursuit if they have previously tried to deal with self-regulatory conflict (which by definition would
involve suppression of an unwanted response).
Recent research suggests an alternative route for dealing with ubiquitous goal conflicts that does
not rely on the effortful suppression of unwanted impulses in order to achieve long-term goals (Gil-
lebaart & De Ridder, 2015; Gillebaart, Schneider, & De Ridder, 2015). These studies suggests that suc-
cessful self-control may not necessarily require effort but is more automatic and effortless in nature in
such a way that people high in trait self-control employ adaptive routines that do not consume the
scarce self-control resource.
 HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW 95

A large body of literature exists that demonstrates that installing routines may help people to display
desired behaviour without effort. For instance, research on implementation intentions has shown that
automatising behaviour by making if–then plans supports people in enacting their intentions that they
may otherwise forget in the spur of the moment or when they are distracted by competing activities
(Achtziger, Gollwitzer, & Sheeran, 2008; Webb & Sheeran, 2003, 2007). Other research has highlighted
the importance of automatic processes in self-regulation, such as goal shielding by selective attention
(Shah, Friedman, & Kruglanski, 2002) or decreasing the value of temptations that may threaten desired
goals (Fischbach, Zhang, & Trope, 2010). However, this literature on automatic processes in self-regu-
lation has as of yet not explicitly addressed the role of automatising attempts at self-control. In contrast,
the studies by Gillebaart et al. (2015) and Gillebaart and De Ridder (2015) have revealed that people with
high trait self-control have different ways of dealing with self-control dilemmas than people with low
self-control in such a way that they are faster in identifying and resolving these dilemmas, which
does not seem to drain self-control resources to the extent that effortful self-control would.
While this novel view seems to stand in contrast with classic conceptions of self-control, meta-ana-
lytic evidence shows that in fact, trait self-control is more strongly associated to automatic than to
deliberate behaviours (De Ridder et al., 2012). It has also been suggested that dispositional self-
control may be characterised by the increased ability to make behaviour automatic (Baumeister &
Alquist, 2009). People with high trait self-control may thus be able to employ (automatised) strategies
that are less dependent on effort and are less prone to depletion. Studies on effortless self-control
support this line of reasoning, suggesting that people with high self-control have more adaptive
habits (Adriaanse, Kroese, Gillebaart, & De Ridder, 2014; Galla & Duckworth, 2015). Habits are a
classic example of automatic behaviour, relying on automaticity rather than deliberation, and thus
not relying on the employment of the self-control resource. Importantly, a study by Adriaanse
et al. (2014) further showed that these adaptive habits mediated the effect of self-control on
health behaviour, suggesting that automatised routines may indeed be an effortless route to self-
control success. It may thus well be that people with high trait self-control do not simply work
harder than people with low self-control, and that the crucial difference between people with
high and people with low self-control does not lie in an innate capability to inhibit impulses, but
rather in low maladaptive routines and high adaptive routines that would imply that they can
save their scarce self-control energy for attempts at initiating goal pursuit (Mann et al., 2013).
These different strategies of goal pursuit may result from the different ways people with high and low
self-control perceive potential self-control conflicts in their environment. For instance, people with high
trait self-control tend to experience fewer and weaker problematic temptations in their environment
because they strategically structure their lives to steer away from these vices, and thus do not need
to downregulate or inhibit undesired impulses (De Ridder et al., 2012; Hofmann et al., 2012). Recent
research also suggests that trait self-control affects how people handle the conflict that arises when
they are confronted with a self-control dilemma, by demonstrating that higher levels of dispositional
self-control were associated with a faster identification and resolution of the response conflict. More-
over, the experienced intensity of the self-control conflict was rated lower on self-reports as a function
of dispositional self-control (Gillebaart et al., 2015). Taken together, these results suggest that high self-
control is associated with a more efficient regulation of potentially problematic self-control dilemmas
rather than mere inhibition of tempting opportunities. With fewer self-control conflicts that are easier
to handle, success in goal pursuit is more probable which in turn may lead to more goal-related positive
affect (Carver & Scheier, 1990), which has been shown to be an important mediating variable in the
association between self-control and well-being (Hofmann et al., 2013).

Conclusion and implications

Successful self-control allows people to achieve their long-term goals in virtually all important areas
of life such as academic and work performance, healthy lifestyles, and interpersonal relationships. As
such trait self-control is invaluable for human adaptation, as has been amply demonstrated in
96 D. DE RIDDER AND M. GILLEBAART

previous research. Whereas the classic mechanism through which trait self-control exerts its positive
influence on a variety of outcomes has highlighted the role of effortful inhibition, recent studies on
the association between self-control and well-being call into question this central component of sup-
pressing unwanted responses. As alluded to in the introduction, the role of trait self-control in well-
being, including happiness and satisfaction with life, is not so obvious when effortful inhibition would
be the main mechanism involved in self-control success. In an attempt to explain the intriguing
association between self-control and well-being we have proposed that self-control is not only a
matter of inhibiting unwanted impulses but also of initiating attempts at goal pursuit and that this
initiatory component of self-control is responsible for the effect of self-control on well-being. More-
over, we have argued that being able to engage in initiatory goal pursuit is facilitated by effortless
self-control strategies. Rather than being busy with suppressing unwanted impulses, which would
drain self-control resources leading to self-control failure, high self-control is a matter of adaptive rou-
tines and strategically avoiding conflicts, which in turn, leaves more room for initiatory goal pursuit.
This novel view of mechanisms involved in self-control bears important implications for our thinking
about how self-control operates and how it does affect functioning in important life areas.
First, in our exposition we have highlighted the consequences of trait self-control for well-being in
terms of life satisfaction, happiness, and positive affect. However, it could be that the association
between self-control and well-being is not unidirectional and that a state of well-being also contributes
to self-control. Several studies suggest that subjective well-being may serve as a resource that promotes
people’s capacity for self-control (Aspinwall, 1998; Isen & Reeve, 2005; Tice, Baumeister, Shmueli, &
Muraven, 2007). Indeed, it has been noted that positive affect is a sign that one can attend to other
business in need of regulation (Carver, 2003) and thus an important prerequisite for self-control. The
very finding that psychological states associated with well-being and good functioning may promote
self-control, which lends additional support for the idea that successful self-control is not a matter of
inhibition per se but rather taking action to achieve desired goals (initiatory self-control).
Second, we would like to point out that we have used the role of trait self-control in well-being as a
showcase that demonstrates alternative pathways of how self-control operates. We contend that this
new understanding of self-control mechanisms bears implications for the operation of self-control in
other life areas as well. In fact, the two mechanisms that are central to our reasoning – initiatory self-
control and adaptive routines related to effortless self-control – are based on research including out-
comes beyond well-being, such as health behaviour (Adriaanse et al., 2014), academic achievement
(De Ridder et al., 2011), and other positive life outcomes (Galla & Duckworth, 2015). We therefore
suggest that lessons learned from trait self-control in well-being can be used to explore the role of
initiatory self-control and adaptive routines in other behavioural outcomes as well.
As a final note we would like to emphasise that the new understanding of successful self-control in
terms of initiatory self-control and adaptive routines may have implications for the current academic
debate on the mechanisms involved in ego depletion (Inzlicht & Schmeichel, 2012). While it is beyond
doubt that at times exercising self-control may be effortful and thus deplete resources, our view
shows that it does not necessarily has to be that way. Exercising self-control to achieve goals
rather than to avoid or suppress actions that interfere with long-term goal striving may even be ener-
gising (Cheung et al., 2014) while relying on effortless strategies to handle self-control dilemmas by
definition does not draw on resources. That being said, research on successful self-control is mainly
derived from studies examining trait self-control. So far, the association between trait self-control and
ego depletion is not well understood and has not been a prominent topic of research. Theoretically, it
makes sense that people with low trait self-control are more easily depleted because they rely to a
lesser extent on initiatory self-control or adaptive routines than people with high trait self-control.
Whereas people with low self-control may use effort-based strategies that inevitably seem to lead
to self-control failure, people with high self-control may have developed strategies that are less
prone to depletion by relying on adaptive routines rather than active resistance of temptations.
Future research should address the question how trait self-control and depletion are related and
specifically examine to what extent adaptive routines protect from depletion effects.
 HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW 97

Taken together, we can conclude that trait self-control is associated with well-being: people with
higher levels of self-control generally report more happiness, satisfaction with life, and overall well-
being. Recent shifts in focus in the area of trait self-control research have provided interesting
insights into the why of this association. Both initiation of goal-directed behaviour as well as the pres-
ence of adaptive routines may lie at the heart of self-control success and subsequent well-being. Of
course, this raises a number of new, exciting theoretical and empirical issues that need be explored in
more detail. However, the current state of affairs allows for the pleasant take home message that we
do not need to rely on our scarce self-control resources to discipline ourselves to happiness.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Achtziger, A., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2008). Implementation intentions and shielding goal striving from unwanted
thoughts and feelings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 381–393. doi:10.1177/0146167207311201
Adriaanse, M. A., Kroese, F. M., Gillebaart, M., & De Ridder, D. T. D. (2014). Effortless inhibition: Habit mediates the relation
between self-control and unhealthy snack consumption. Frontiers in Psychology: Eating Behavior, 5, 1–6. doi:10.3389/
fpsyg.2014.00444
Aspinwall, L. G. (1998). Rethinking the role of positive affect in self-regulation. Motivation and Emotion, 22, 1–32. doi:10.
1023/A:1023080224401
Baumeister, R. F., & Alquist, J. L. (2009). Is there a downside to good self-control? Self and Identity, 8, 115–130. doi: 0.1080/
15298860802501474
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1252–1265. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252
Baumeister, R. F., & Heatherton, T. F. (1996). Self-regulation failure: An overview. Psychological Inquiry, 7, 1–15. doi:10.
1207/s15327965pli0701_1
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.
Bogg, T., & Roberts, B. W. (2004). Conscientiousness and health behaviors: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130,
887–919. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.6.887
Bowlin, S. L., & Baer, R. A. (2012). Relationships between mindfulness, self-control, and psychological functioning.
Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 411–415. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.050
Brunstein, J. C. (1993). Personal goals and subjective wellbeing. A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 65, 1061–1070. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.1061
Carter, E. C., & McCullough, M. E. (2014). Publication bias and the limited strength model of self-control: Has the evidence
for ego depletion been overestimated? Frontiers in Psychology, 5(823), 1–11. doi:10.1017/S0140525X13000952
Carver, C. S. (2003). Pleasure as a sign that you can attend to something else. Placing positive feelings within a general
model of affect. Cognition and Emotion, 17, 241–261. doi:10.1080/02699930302294
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control theory approach to human behavior. New York,
NY: Springer-Verlag.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A control-process view.
Psychological Review, 97, 19–35. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.19
Cheung, T. T. L., Gillebaart, M., Kroese, F., & De Ridder, D. (2014). Why are people with high self-control happier? The effect
of trait self-control on happiness as mediated by regulatory focus. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(722), 1–6. doi:10.3389/
fpsyg.2014.00722
De Ridder, D. T. D., De Boer, B. J., Lugtig, P., Bakker, A. B., & Van Hooft, E. A. J. (2011). Not doing bad things is not equivalent
to doing the right thing: Distinguishing between inhibitory and initiatory self-control. Personality and Individual
Differences, 50, 1006–1011. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.01.015
De Ridder, D. T. D., & De Wit, J. B. F. (2006). Self-regulation in health behavior. Chichester: Wiley.
De Ridder, D. T. D., Kroese, F. M., Gillebaart, M., & Adriaanse, M. A. (2016). Whatever happened to self-control? A proposal
for integrating notions from trait self-control studies into state self-control research. Manuscript under review.
De Ridder, D. T. D., Lensvelt-Mulders, G., Finkenauer, C., Stok, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2012). Taking stock of self-control: A
meta-analysis of how trait self-control relates to a wide range of behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
16, 76–99. doi:10.1177/1088868311418749
DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-
being. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 197–229. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.197
98 D. DE RIDDER AND M. GILLEBAART

Diener, E., Suh, E., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective wellbeing: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin,
125, 276–302. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276
Duckworth, A. L., & Kern, M. L. (2011). A meta-analysis of the convergent validity of self-control measures. Journal of
Research in Personality, 45, 259–268. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2011.02.004
Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adoles-
cents. Psychological Science, 16, 939–944. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01641.1
Ein-Gar, D., & Sagiv, L. (2014). Overriding ‘doing wrong’ and ‘not doing right’: Validation of the Dispositional Self-Control
Scale (DSC). Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 640–653. doi:10.1080/00223891.2014.889024
Emmons, R. A. (1986). Personal strivings: An approach to personality and subjective wellbeing. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51, 1058–1068. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.5.1058
Englert, C., & Bertrams, A. (2014). The effect of ego depletion on sprint start reaction time. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 36, 506–515. doi:10.1123/jsep.2014-0029
Fee, R. L., & Tangney, J. P. (2000). Procrastination: A means of avoiding shame or guilt? Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 15, 167–184.
Finkel, E. J., & Campbell, W. K. (2001). Self-control and accommodation in close relationships: An interdependence analy-
sis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 263–277. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.263
Fischbach, A., Zhang, Y., & Trope, Y. (2010). Counteractive evaluation: Asymmetric shifts in the implicit value of conflicting
motivations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 29–38. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.09.008
Fujita, K. (2011). On conceptualizing self-control as more than the effortful inhibition of impulses. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 15, 352–366. doi:10.1177/ 1088868311411165
Galla, B. M., & Duckworth, A. L. (2015). More than resisting temptation: Beneficial habits mediate the relationship between
self-control and positive life outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 508–525. doi:10.1037/
pspp0000026
Gillebaart, M., & De Ridder, D. T. D. (2015). Effortless self-control: A novel perspective on response conflict strategies in
trait self-control. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9, 88–99. doi:10.1111/spc3.12160
Gillebaart, M., Schneider, I. K., & De Ridder, D. T. D. (2015). Effects of trait self-control on response conflict about healthy
and unhealthy food. Journal of Personality. doi:10.1111/jopy.12219
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hagger, M. S., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2016). A multi-lab pre-registered replication of the ego-depletion effect.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 546–573. doi:10.1177/1745691616652873
Hagger, M. S., Wood, C., Stiff, C., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. (2010). Ego depletion and the strength model of self-control: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 495–525. doi:10.1037/a0019486
Harris, C., Daniels, K., & Briner, R. B. (2003). A daily diary study of goals and affective wellbeing at work. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 401–410. doi:10.1348/096317903769647256
Hofmann, W., Baumeister, R. F., Förster, G., & Vohs, K. D. (2012). Everyday temptations: An experience sampling study of
desire, conflict, and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 1318–1335. doi:10.1037/a0026545
Hofmann, W., Luhmann, M., Fischer, R. R., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2013). Yes, =but are they happy? Effects of trait
self-control on affective well-being and life satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 82, 265–277. doi:10.1111/jopy12050
Hommel, B. (2015). Between persistence and flexibility: The Yin and Yang of action control. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Advances in
motivation science (Vol. 2, pp. 33–67). New York, NY: Elsevier.
Hoyle, R. H., & Davisson, E. K. (2016). Varieties of self-control and their personality correlates. In K. D. Vohs & R. F.
Baumeister (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (3rd ed., pp. 396–413). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Hoyle, R. H., & Davisson, E. K. (2017). Measurement of self-control: Considerations and recommendations. In D. de Ridder,
M. Adriaanse, & K. Fujita (Eds.), Handbook of self-control in health and wellbeing. New York, NY: Routledge.
Inzlicht, M., & Schmeichel, B. J. (2012). What is ego-depletion? Toward a mechanistic revision of the resource model of
self-control. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 450–463. doi:10.1177/1745691612454134
Isen, A. M., & Reeve, J. (2005). The influence of positive affect on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Facilitating enjoyment
of play, responsible work behavior, and self-control. Motivation and Emotion, 29, 295–323. doi:10.1007/s11031-006-
9019-8
Job, V., Dweck, C. S., & Walton, G. M. (2010). Ego-depletion – is it all in your head? Implicit theories about willpower affect
self-regulation. Psychological Science, 21, 1686–1693. doi:10.1177/0956797610384745
Klug, H. J. P., & Maier, G. W. (2015). Linking goal progress and subjective wellbeing: A meta-analysis. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 16, 37–65. doi:10.1007/s10902-013-9493-0
Layton, R. L., & Muraven, M. (2014). Self-control linked with restricted emotional extremes. Personality and Individual
Differences, 58, 48–53. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.10.004
Mann, T., De Ridder, D. T. D., & Fujita, K. (2013). Self-regulation of health behavior: Social psychological approaches to goal
setting and goal striving. Health Psychology, 32, 487–498. doi:10.1037/a0028533
Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological
Review, 106, 3–19. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.106.1.3
 HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW 99

Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., … Caspi, A. (2011). A gradient of childhood
self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 2693–2698.
doi:10.1073/ pnas.1010076108
Muraven, M. (2008). Autonomous self-control is less depleting. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 763–770. doi:10.
1016/j.jrp.2007.08.002
Muraven, M., & Slessareva, E. (2003). Mechanisms of self-regulation failure: Motivation and limited resources. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 894–906. doi:10.1177/0146167203253209
Myrseth, K. O. R., & Fishbach, A. (2009). Self-control: A function of knowing when and how to exercise restraint. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 247–252. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01645.x
Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological
Bulletin, 135, 322–338. doi:10.1037/a0014996
Richeson, J. A., & Shelton, J. N. (2003). When prejudice does not pay: Effects of interracial contact on executive function.
Psychological Science, 14, 287–290. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.03437
Righetti, F., & Finkenauer, C. (2011). If you are able to control yourself, I will trust you: The role of perceived self-control in
interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 874–886. doi:10.1037/a0021827
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development,
and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. doi:10.1037110003-066X.55.1.68
Schmeichel, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2004). Self-regulatory strength. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of
self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 84–98). New York, NY: Guilford.
Shah, J. A., Friedman, R., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2002). Forgetting all else. On the antecedents and consequences of goal
shielding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1261–1280. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.83.6.1261
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal wellbeing: The self-concordance
model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 482–497. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.3.482
Sirois, F., & Pychyl, T. (2013). Procrastination and the priority of short-term mood regulation: Consequences for future self.
Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 115–127. doi:10.1111/spc3.12011
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory
failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 65–94. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65
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, 271–324. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x
Tice, D. M., Baumeister, R. F., Shmueli, D., & Muraven, M. (2007). Restoring the self: Positive affect helps improve self-regu-
lation following ego-depletion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 379–384. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.007
Tice, D. M., & Bratslavsky, E. (2000). Giving in to feel good. The place of emotion regulation in the context of general self-
control. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 149–159. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1103_03
Tice, D. M., Bratslavsky, E., & Baumeister, R. F. (2001). Emotional distress regulation takes precedence over impulse control:
If you feel bad, do it! Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 53–67. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.80.1.53
Tsukayama, E., Toomey, S. L., Faith, M. S., & Duckworth, A. L. (2010). Self-control as a protective factor against overweight
status in the transition from childhood to adolescence. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 164, 631–635.
doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2010.97
Vohs, K. D., & Faber, R. J. (2007). Spent resources: Self-regulatory resource availability affects impulse buying. Journal of
Consumer Research, 33, 537–547. doi:10.1086/ 510228
Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2003). Can implementation intentions help to overcome ego-depletion? Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 279–286. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00527-9
Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2007). How do implementation intentions promote goal attainment? A test of component pro-
cesses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 295–302. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.02.001
Zabelina, D. L., Robinson, M. D., & Anicha, C. L. (2007). The psychological trade-offs of self-control: A multi-method inves-
tigation. Personality & Individual Differences, 43, 463–473. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.12.015