How reliable are the effects of self-control training?: A re-examination using self-report and physical measures
Abstract
In light of recent challenges to the strength model of self-control, our study re-examines the effects of self-control training on established physical and self-report measures of self-control. We also examined whether beliefs about the malleability of self-control qualify any training effects. Participants in the training condition were assigned to increase use of their non-dominant hand for two weeks, and did comply mainly if they held high-malleability beliefs; yet, compared to a control condition, the physical measure of self-control did not improve. This was also evident in a secondary objective measure of self-control, a Stroop task, as well as in self-reported self-control. The discussion focuses on the lack of replication of training effects on self-control.
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.
Read the paper
Related studies
- The neurocircuitry of addiction: an overview
- Gender Differences in Human Brain: A Review
- Stratified medicine for mental disorders
- The neurobiology of drug addiction: cross-species insights into the dysfunction and recovery of the prefrontal cortex
- Annual Research Review: DNA methylation as a mediator in the association between risk exposure and child and adolescent psychopathology
- Schizophrenia: The new etiological synthesis
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.