Did you have a New Year's resolution? What was it - loosing weight? Being more friendly to a colleague? Quitting to smoke? Maybe stopping to procrastinate the tasks at hand? And if that was the case: How successful have you been in prevailing your resolutions? Whatever it was, chances are good that by now you have had a relapse. But why is that so - that we are apparently not able to stick to (at least some of) our good intentions1? Obviously, this thesis will not be able to answer this question thoroughly. However, it does intend to provide a basis for a better understanding of this question. In folk psychology, the challenge of resisting a certain class of desires and the corresponding behaviors (like smoking) is often referred to with expressions like resisting temptations, exercising willpower, or self-discipline. And as it is often the case with terms or phrases that are widely used in everyday life, there is a variety of dierent concepts that underlie the same term, thus making it hard to eciently communicate about it. In example, while Peter might loud himself of his extraordinary self-control, for he considers it a heroic act of willpower to stay up an entire weekend to nish an essay that is due the next week, his friend might reproach him and argue that it has been his very lack of self-control that has brought him in the situation of having to pull "an all-nighter". Who is right then and why?
"Nicht erst seit Walter Mischels bekannten Experimenten zum Belohnungsaufschub
stehen die Konzepte Selbstbeherrschung, Selbstkontrolle und Willensstärke im
Fokus sowohl der psychologischen als auch der philosophischen Forschung. Doch
handelt es sich hier bei genauerem Hinsehen um ein ganzes Konvolut von Begriffen und familienähnlichen Konzepten, die bei verschiedenen Autoren in verschiedenen Forschungskulturen je unterschiedlich ausgelegt und verwendet werden. In dieser Situation ist es daher mehr als nützdienlich, ein wenig „begriffliche Aufräumarbeit“ zu leisten – und genau diesem Ziel widmet sich die vorliegende Bachelorarbeit von Jan Dirk Capelle in vorbildlicher Weise." (Kommentar Erstbetreuer)
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
1.1 Preliminary Definitions and Assumptions
1.1.1 A More General Limitation: Self-Control vs. Self-Regulation
1.1.2 Narrowing down the Definition of Self-Control
1.1.3 Further Definitions and Assumptions
1.2 What this Thesis is not about
1.3 Aims and Course of Action
1.3.1 Aims
1.3.2 Course of Action
1.3.3 Challenges
1.4 Methodology: It’s all about Distinctions
1.5 Relevance of Self-Control
2 Self-Control as Delay of Gratification
2.1 Setting the Stage - Initial Conditions
2.2 Short-Term Value Attribution as a Normative Problem
2.3 The Relation of Intentions and Behavioral Decisions
2.4 “Genuine” Delay of Gratification and the “Surrender Scenario”
2.5 Potential Moderating Variables
2.6 Provisional Summary
3 Putting it all together: An Analytical Framework
4 Summary and Future Perspectives
4.1 Summary: What Has Been Reached
4.2 Perspectives: What May Follow Next
Research Objectives and Thematic Focus
This thesis aims to contribute to a unified conceptualization of self-control by explicating the conditions necessary to identify self-control failure. It specifically targets the "delay of gratification" paradigm to propose an analytical framework that allows for the comparison of diverse self-control scenarios, experiments, and everyday situations based on defined logical conditions.
- Conceptual clarification of self-control vs. self-regulation
- Logical modeling of "two-goal conflict" scenarios
- Distinction between "genuine" self-control failure and surrender
- Development of a formal, condition-based analytical framework
- Integration of philosophical and empirical psychological perspectives
Excerpt from the Thesis
2.2 Short-Term Value Attribution as a Normative Problem
But what happens if the subject does in fact decide to rather pursue the short-term goal at the expense of giving up the long-term goal? Let us assume that we have chosen our long-term goal wisely insofar as it is in fact, as stated above, “of a value that is higher than the short-term goal to a degree that not only justifies pursue but makes it preferable in a cost-benefit ratio assessable to the subject” and our experimental design is therefore not flawed. This implies that most humans would agree that the long-term goal is of a higher value. Consider cigarette smoking as an example: Like any use of recreational drugs, cigarette smoking has been shown to have a variety of negative long-term consequences on the health of the abuser, including a higher risk of cancer. Now, it is widely agreed upon that any action that clearly puts us in risk of suffering serious illness and a premature death in return for a very short satisfaction (or simply the relief from a withdrawal symptom like the urge to smoke) is something of a “bad deal” and can be considered a “problematic behavior” insofar as it is at least irrational or akraic, if not even pathological. However, a thing being widely agreed upon is not necessarily a good measure for “problematic behavior”, as this is per definition some sort of convention, and conventions can obviously change, especially if they are applied in domains that are not quite as life threatening as the abuse of narcotic substances.
The upshot of this argument is this: When we are to investigate short-term oriented and potentially problematic value attribution, we should acknowledge that we are dealing with an inherently normative issue, and thus allow for an individually justified behavior before attesting a failure in judgment. Therefore, it seems worthwhile to consider the circumstances that might lead to such an attribution of value and how to control for it.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: This chapter defines the scope of the thesis, establishes core concepts like self-control and self-regulation, and outlines the methodological approach of using analytical distinctions to categorize self-control scenarios.
2 Self-Control as Delay of Gratification: This section investigates the conditions of self-control failure within the context of delay of gratification, modeling the "two-goal conflict" and distinguishing between informed choices, myopia, and surrender.
3 Putting it all together: An Analytical Framework: This chapter formalizes the previously established conditions into a logical framework that allows for the systematic classification and comparison of self-control failure scenarios.
4 Summary and Future Perspectives: This chapter reviews the reached goals, emphasizes the utility of the proposed nomenclature for future research, and discusses potential extensions of the framework.
Keywords
Self-Control, Self-Regulation, Delay of Gratification, Two-Goal Conflict, Volition, Intention, Behavioral Decision, Analytical Framework, First-Person Authority, Cognitive Control, Temporal Myopia, Normative, Akrasia, Incentive, Decision Fatigue
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this thesis?
The thesis focuses on the conceptual foundations of self-control, particularly in the context of "delay of gratification," and aims to provide a unified nomenclature to categorize different types of self-control failure.
What are the central themes addressed in the work?
Key themes include the distinction between self-control and self-regulation, the normative nature of value attribution, the relationship between intentions and behavioral actions, and the construction of logical frameworks for experimental scenarios.
What is the primary objective or research question?
The primary objective is to explicate the underlying conditions needed to attest to a "failure of self-control" and to propose an analytical framework that makes different self-control scenarios comparable.
Which scientific methodology does the author use?
The author employs an analytical, logical-deductive methodology, utilizing binary distinctions to create a formal "code" or framework that translates complex psychological scenarios into structured conditions.
What is covered in the main body of the thesis?
The main body examines initial conditions of self-control, the normative problems of short-term value attribution, the gap between intentions and behavioral decisions, and the modeling of specific failure scenarios like the "surrender scenario."
Which keywords best characterize the research?
The research is best characterized by terms such as Self-Control, Delay of Gratification, Two-Goal Conflict, Volition, and Analytical Framework.
How does the author distinguish between "genuine" self-control and "surrender"?
The author distinguishes them by the presence or absence of an active attempt to resist a temptation. Surrender occurs when an individual gives up the struggle and no longer perceives a conflict, potentially masking it as "learned helplessness."
What role does the "two-goal conflict" play in the analytical framework?
The "two-goal conflict" acts as a foundational condition in the framework, establishing that a subject must be faced with at least two mutually exclusive goals to be in a situation where self-control is relevant.
Why is "first-person authority" important in this research?
First-person authority is crucial because the author emphasizes that we must acknowledge an individual's own normative reasoning, allowing for the possibility that what appears to be a failure might actually be an informed choice based on the subject's shifting priorities.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Jan Dirk Capelle (Autor:in), 2013, Conceptual Foundations of Self-Control as Delay of Gratification, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/265778
