Abstract
Inspired by some of current Western societies' most pressing problems, much research attention has been devoted to understanding self-regulation failure. While this has yielded some very valuable insights, the current paper underlines that understanding self-regulation failure does not mean that we also understand self-regulation success. Whereas failure and success are semantic antonyms, in terms of self-regulation research, they should not be regarded as mere opposites. First, on the process level, self-regulation success versus failure is not simply a matter of inverse explanatory factors (e.g., the capacity to inhibit impulses vs. a lack thereof). Second, on the outcome level, self-regulation success versus failure is not strictly a matter of inverse behavioral action (e.g., abstaining from versus indulging in immediate gratification). This has significant implications, the most important one being that to understand self-regulation success, researchers need to take a more holistic perspective rather than mainly considering single instances when studying self-regulation.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | e12446 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| Journal | Social and Personality Psychology Compass |
| Volume | 13 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Apr 2019 |
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Why self-regulation success is not the opposite of failure'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver