From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Self control is perceived in a few ways. One of which is philosophical and might be described as the exertion of one's own will on their personal self - their behaviors, actions, thought processes. Much of this comes from the perception of self and the ability to set up boundaries for that self. Self-control can be expanded into several different areas, ranging from respect to willpower. Self-control is therefore centered in the ability of a person to exert their will over the inhibitions of their body or self.

Contents 1 The conventional perspective 2 Self-control in Behavior Analysis 3 The importance of using self control for patience 4 Self-control research 4.1 Rat self-control 4.2 Pigeon self-control 4.2.1 Pigeon research replicates Mischel paradigm 4.3 Human self-control 5 Impulse control 6 The Self in Behavior Analysis 7 Skinner's Exhaustive Survey of Self-Control Techniques 7.1 Physical Restraint and physical aid 7.2 Changing the stimulus 7.3 Depriving and satiating 7.4 Manipulating emotional conditions 7.5 Using aversive stimulation 7.6 Drugs 7.7 Operant conditioning 7.8 Punishment 7.9 "Doing something else" 8 See also 9 References 10 External links

People demonstrate great differences in their level of self-control. It can be affected because of illness and past experiences and it can be improved through the course of life. Many religions have teachings about self control. In the Christian context, Paul describes self control in the epistle to the Galatians (5:22), as one of the fruits of the Spirit. In the epistle addressed to Titus (2:6) he instructs to `Urge the younger men to be self controlled.' The Apostle Peter describes an increase in self control as fundamental to the salvation of a Christian (2 Peter 1:5-8). According to Buddist philosophy, Dhammapada 80 and 145 reads, "Irrigators lead the waters. Fletchers bend the shafts. Carpenters bend wood. The virtuous control themselves."

Another view is that self-control represents the locus of two conflicting contingencies of reinforcement, which then make a controlling response' ' reinforcing when it causes changes in the controlled response^{[1] [2]}

In the 1960s, Walter Mischel tested four year old children for self control in "The Marshmallow Test": the children were each given a marshmallow and told that they can eat it anytime they want, but if they waited 15 minutes, they would receive another marshmallow. Follow up studies showed that the results correlated well with these children's success levels in later life ^[3][4].

In the experimental analysis of behavior, research on self-control exists with rats, humans and pigeons. This work is based on the Assumption of generality. Personality researchers also seek to estimate individual differences in self-control, through self-report inventories, measuring delaying gratification, ego strength, or related constructs.^[5]

An example of the kind of important work done in rat self-control research might be Green & Estle's work ^[6]

Pigeon self-control research is typically done in a delay-reduction paradigm innovated in the early 1970s ^{[7] [8]}. In this model of research two responses are made available simultaneously. Each response leads to a different outcome. One response typically leads to a smaller-reinforcement with a small or no delay from the selection of that response to the onset of the consequence. The other response is typically a larger-reinforcement which has some element of delay. In pigeons a common level of delay is as little as 6 seconds to qualify as "large". A typical small-reinforcer, small delay response might be a red key that produces 2 seconds of food access with no delay. A typical larger-reinforcer response might produce 6 seconds of food access, but only after 6 seconds of delay from that selection. To ensure that the delayed response represents an overall superior choice a delay of several seconds usually follows the smaller-reinforcement choice.

Largely replicating the work of Mischel using pigeons instead of children, Grosch and Neuringer (1981) were able to affirm generality in pigeon and human self-control research ^[9] by showing that the behavior of human children was accurately represented by pigeons presented with the same conditions.

Human self-control research is typically modelled by using a token economy system in which human participants choose between tokens for one choice and usually more tokens for a delayed choice. Different results were being obtained for humans and non-humans, with the latter appearing to maximize their overall reinforcement despite delays, with the former being sensitive to changes in delay. The difference in research methodologies with humans - using tokens or conditioned reinforcers - and non-humans using primary reinforcers suggested procedural artifacts as a possible suspect. One aspect of these procedural differences was the delay to the exchange period (Hyten et al 1994) ^[10]. Non-human subjects can, and would, access their reinforcement immediately. The human subjects had to wait for an "exchange period" in which they could exchange their tokens for money, usually at the end of the experiment. When this was done with pigeons they responded much like humans (Jackson & Hackenberg 1996)^[11]

Self Control as defined here is also known as impulse control or self regulation. Some psychologists prefer the term impulse control because it may be more precise and hopefully the Self is far more than impulses. The term Self regulation is used to refer to the many processes individuals use to manage drives and emotions. Therefore, self regulation also embodies the concept of will power. Self Regulation is an extremely important executive function of the brain. Deficits in self control/regulation are found in a large number of psychological disorders including ADHD, Antisocial Personality Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, addiction, eating disorders and impulse control disorders[3].

A self in behavior analysis refers to a repertoire of behaviors ^[12] typically under the control of a set of contingencies of reinforcement. One self may be of strong biological origin - for example our eating self. Another self may be of social origin, for example one that punishes us for over-eating. These two selves may contend in controlling the same response - eating - that sets the stage for self-control.

In B.F. Skinner's Science and Human Behavior he provides a survey of nine categories of self control methods. ^[13]

The manipulation of the environment to make some response easier to physically execute and others physically more difficult illustrates this principle. Clapping one's hand over your own mouth, placing your hands in your pockets to prevent fidgeting, using a 'bridge' hand position to steady a pool shot all represent physical methods to affect behavior^[14].

Manipulating the occasion for behavior may change behavior as well. Removing distractions that induce undesired actions or adding a prompt to induce it are examples. Hiding temptation and reminders are two more.^[15]

One may manipulate one's own behavior by affecting states of deprivation or satiation. By skipping a meal before a free dinner one may more effectively capitalize on the free meal. By eating a healthy snack beforehand the temptation to eat free "junk food" is reduced.^[16]

Going for a 'change of scene' may remove emotional stimuli, as may rehearsing injustice to motivate a strong response later.^[17]

Setting an alarm clock to awake ourselves later is a form of aversive control. By doing this we arrange something that will only be escapable by awakening ourselves.^[18]

The use of self-administered drugs allows us to simulate changes in our conditioning history. The ingestion of caffeine allows us to simulate a state of wakefulness which may be useful for various reasons. ^[19]

The use of a token economy, or other methods or techniques unique to operant conditioning may be seen as a special form of self-control.

Self-punishment of responses would include the arranging of punishment contingent upon undesired responses. This might be seen in the behavior of whipping oneself which some monks and religious persons do. This is different from aversive stimulation in that, for example, the alarm clock generates escape from the alarm, while self-punishment presents stimulation after the fact to reduce the probability of future behavior.^[20].

Skinner notes that Jesus exemplified this principle in loving his enemies ^[21]. When we are filled with rage or hatred we might control ourselves by 'doing something else' or more specifically something that is incompatible with our response. When we give three miles of service to someone who compels us one, or submit tenderly a cheek after the other is slapped, we may find ourselves less enraged and so able to control our responses.^[22]

Aboulia Akrasia Ego depletion Operant Conditioning

Radical Behaviorism B. F. Skinner Verbal Behavior (book) Walden Two

• Measuring Self Control
• Self Control Quotations
• B.F. Skinner (1953) Science and Human Behavior. Ch. XV "Self-Control"
• The importance of self-control and how to promote self control in children.