Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 1

Ps

yc

ho

log

y 4

15

; S

oc

ial

Ba

sis

of

He

alt

h B

eh

av

ior

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 1

NYT. Cancer Society, in Shift, Has Concerns on Screenings , 10/21/09

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 2

Ps

yc

ho

log

y 4

15

; S

oc

ial

Ba

sis

of

He

alt

h B

eh

av

ior

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 2

Impulsivity v. Self-control

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 3

Ps

yc

ho

log

y 4

15

; S

oc

ial

Ba

sis

of

He

alt

h B

eh

av

ior

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 3

Impulse v. self-control: some core constructs

Self-control capacity “Trait” self-control

Mischel data on kids’ restraint adult functioning Self-control individual differences interpersonal functioning. Gailliot; Dispositional Self-Regulatory Ability.

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 4

Ps

yc

ho

log

y 4

15

; S

oc

ial

Ba

sis

of

He

alt

h B

eh

av

ior

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 4

Impulse v. self-control: core constructs, 2

Self-control capacity “Trait” self-control

Mischel data on kids’ restraint adult functioning

Self-control individual differences interpersonal functioning.

Gailliot; Dispositional Self-Regulatory Ability.

“Dyscontrol” models of pathology: substance abuse, OCD

Stable individual differences in “need for control”

“State” self-control

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 5

Ps

yc

ho

log

y 4

15

; S

oc

ial

Ba

sis

of

He

alt

h B

eh

av

ior

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 5

Impulse v. self-control processes

Impulse Specific > generalized: global motivation + concrete

stimulus

Strong, primitive incentive value

Sugar glop on food

Sexy girls on Buicks

Health Behavior web site

Automatic response (see: automaticity characteristics)

Not dependent upon limited capacity control mechanism

Short-term incentive with rapidly decaying incentive value

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 6

Ps

yc

ho

log

y 4

15

; S

oc

ial

Ba

sis

of

He

alt

h B

eh

av

ior

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 6

Single goal with both approach & avoidance gradients.

Approach motives (positive conceptualizations) more salient to distant & abstract goals. Avoidance (concern over negative consequences) is more salient to more proximal & concrete goals.

Single goal with both approach & avoidance gradients.

Approach motives (positive conceptualizations) more salient to distant & abstract goals. Avoidance (concern over negative consequences) is more salient to more proximal & concrete goals.

Approach – Avoidance Conflict

Near Far

Distance from goal

Dri

ve

str

eng

th

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 7

Ps

yc

ho

log

y 4

15

; S

oc

ial

Ba

sis

of

He

alt

h B

eh

av

ior

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 7

Single stimulus that elicits both impulsive approach & self-controlled

avoidance gradients.Avoidance motives (self-controlled responses) driven by distant & abstract goals. Approach motives (impulsive Rx) more salient to proximal & concrete goals.

Single stimulus that elicits both impulsive approach & self-controlled

avoidance gradients.Avoidance motives (self-controlled responses) driven by distant & abstract goals. Approach motives (impulsive Rx) more salient to proximal & concrete goals.

“Impulse” v. Self-control

Near Far

Distance from goal

Dri

ve

str

eng

th

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 8

Ps

yc

ho

log

y 4

15

; S

oc

ial

Ba

sis

of

He

alt

h B

eh

av

ior

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 8

Reflective – Impulsive Model (RIM) Strack F, Deutsch R. Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review.

2004;8(3):220-247.

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 9

Ps

yc

ho

log

y 4

15

; S

oc

ial

Ba

sis

of

He

alt

h B

eh

av

ior

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 9

RIS: principles

Thesis I: Basic assumption. Social behavior is the effect of the operation of two distinct systems of information processing: a reflective system and an impulsive system. The systems can be specified by different principles of representation and information processing.

Thesis 2: Parallel operation. Both systems operate in parallel. However, there is an asymmetry such that the impulsive system is always engaged in processing (by itself or parallel to operations of the reflective system) whereas the reflective system may be disengaged.

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 10

Ps

yc

ho

log

y 4

15

; S

oc

ial

Ba

sis

of

He

alt

h B

eh

av

ior

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 10

RIS, 3

Thesis 3: Capacity. The reflective system requires a high amount of cognitive capacity. Therefore, distraction as well as extremely high or low levels of arousal will interfere with its operation. In contrast, the impulsive system requires little cognitive capacity and may control behavior under suboptimal conditions. As a Consequence, processes of the reflective system are disturbed more easily than those of the impulsive system.

Basic “self-control as a muscle” perspective

Hoffman: array of variables that disrupt self-control

Arousal

Prior control activity

Alcohol / drug use

Negative affect

Working memory capacity

Trait self-control

Approach / avoidance orientation

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 11

Ps

yc

ho

log

y 4

15

; S

oc

ial

Ba

sis

of

He

alt

h B

eh

av

ior

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 11

RIS, 4

Thesis 4; Relations between elements. Elements in the two systems are connected by different types of relations. In the reflective system, elements are connected through semantic relations to which a truth value is assigned. In the impulsive system, the relations are associative links between elements and are formed according to the principles of contiguity and similarity.

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 12

Ps

yc

ho

log

y 4

15

; S

oc

ial

Ba

sis

of

He

alt

h B

eh

av

ior

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 12

RIS, 5

Thesis 5; Execution of behavior. There exists a formal common pathway to overt behavior in the impulsive system that may be activated by input from the reflective and the impulsive system. This pathway consists of behavioral schemata of varying abstractness. If the schema is activated above a certain threshold, the behavior will be executed.

Thesis 6: Precursors of behavior. The systems use different operations to elicit behavior. In the reflective system, behavior is the consequence of a decision that is guided by the assessment of a future state in terms of its value and the probability of attaining it through this behavior. In the impulsive system, a behavior is elicited through the spread of activation to behavioral schemata.

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 13

Ps

yc

ho

log

y 4

15

; S

oc

ial

Ba

sis

of

He

alt

h B

eh

av

ior

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 13

RIS, 6

Thesis 7: Intending. In the reflective system, a behavioral decision is linked to behavioral schemata by the process of intending. Intending monitors the impulsive system for information that enables the behavioral implementation of the decision. The mechanism of intending is terminated if the behavior is executed or if the goal of the preceding behavioral decision is already fulfilled.

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 14

Ps

yc

ho

log

y 4

15

; S

oc

ial

Ba

sis

of

He

alt

h B

eh

av

ior

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 14

RIS, 7Thesis 8: Motivational orientation: The impulsive system can be

oriented toward approach and avoidance. This motivational orientation may be elicited by

the processing of positive or negative information,

the perception of approach or avoidance,

the experience of positive or negative affect,

the execution of approach or avoidance behaviors.

Stable individual differences (BIS / BAS) {?}

Thesis 9: Compatibility. The processing of information, the experience of affect, and the execution of behavior are facilitated if they are compatible with the prevailing motivational orientation.

Approach orientation (BAS activated?) facilitates…

Avoidance orientation (BIS?)

• Processing positive information• Positive affect• Approach behavior• Gain orientation

• Processing negative information• Negative affect• Avoidant behavior• Loss orientation

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 15

Ps

yc

ho

log

y 4

15

; S

oc

ial

Ba

sis

of

He

alt

h B

eh

av

ior

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 15

RIM overview

“Automatic” cognitive activation

Cognitive control over

impulses

Approach – avoidance orientation

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 16

Ps

yc

ho

log

y 4

15

; S

oc

ial

Ba

sis

of

He

alt

h B

eh

av

ior

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 16

Hofmann perspective

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 17

Ps

yc

ho

log

y 4

15

; S

oc

ial

Ba

sis

of

He

alt

h B

eh

av

ior

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 17

Trait models

Big 5: (Non)agreeableness & conscientiousness, neuroticism

Same factors as morbidity / mortality predictors generally

Others: Big 3: psychoticism, neuroticism

Sensation seeking, “Type T” personality

BIS / BAS

Reward v. punishment sensitivity

Time scale: immediate v. delayed

Mischel, Miller et al.: “Hot” v. “cold” systems

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 18

Ps

yc

ho

log

y 4

15

; S

oc

ial

Ba

sis

of

He

alt

h B

eh

av

ior

Two factor models: Self-control & impulses 18

Traits, 2

Rothbart et al.: PFC effortful control