One important line of self-control research concerns the phenomenon known as ego-depletion, the negative effect of performing a self-control task (Task 1) on performance on a subsequent self-control task (Task 2). Although a 2010 meta-analysis reported a moderate effect size (d = 0.62) for this phenomenon (Hagger et al., 2010), its replicability has since come under scrutiny with the publication of some replication failures (Xu et al., 2014; Lurquin et al., 2016), including a high-profile study involving 23 laboratories (Hagger et al., 2016). Some researchers even suggest that the ego-depletion effect might not be real and that the reported results primarily reflect publication bias (Carter and McCullough, 2014). This replication crisis has prompted a call for additional replication attempts involving large sample sizes and preregistration (Carter et al., 2015).
Although such replication efforts are undoubtedly important, we submit that, unless some fundamental conceptual (and related methodological) issues are more satisfactorily addressed, attempts to evaluate the ego-depletion effect would unlikely be successful. In this article, we outline what we call the conceptual crisis for the ego-depletion literature, explain how these limitations undermine replication attempts, and suggest possible ways to alleviate these problems. We do so by noting some parallel problems that have faced cognitive psychologists studying attention, working memory (WM), and executive functions (EFs), in the hope that such insights might contribute to theoretical and empirical development in ego-depletion research.
The conceptual crisis surrounding the ego-depletion effect
We propose that compellingly resolving the controversy surrounding the ego-depletion effect requires concerted efforts to address three interrelated conceptual problems, which jointly make it difficult to derive unequivocal and testable predictions for any ego-depletion study. Below, we illustrate these problems by referring to the strength model of self-control (Baumeister et al., 2007) because this influential model has provided the basis for most of the existing ego-depletion research. We emphasize, however, that these problems are general enough to be also applicable to other models (e.g., Inzlicht and Schmeichel, 2012) and, hence, that field-wide efforts are needed to satisfactorily address them.
1. Lack of clear operational definitions of self-control
Problem
The field lacks clearly articulated and generally agreed-upon operational definitions of self-control that can guide ego-depletion research. Although some studies refer to inhibitory control of some sort as their operational definition (e.g., Muraven et al., 2006; Tice et al., 2007), the term “inhibition” is typically used in a rather generic sense, without being specific as to different types of inhibitory processes postulated in the EF literature (Nigg, 2000; Friedman and Miyake, 2004). More problematic, some studies define self-control too broadly as the ability to control thoughts, emotions, and behavior (Segerstrom and Nes, 2007) or any monitoring and modification of behavior (Vohs et al., 2005).
The justifications used for selecting self-control tasks are equally unsatisfactory: Many studies use circular logic to justify task selection by noting that the task was used before and had a depleting effect. Even when some independent justifications are provided, the attributes used to justify a task vary greatly, including being intellectually demanding (Fennis et al., 2009), requiring effort (Boucher and Kofos, 2012), and simply being difficult (Webb and Sheeran, 2003). Consequently, wide-ranging tasks like taking standardized tests (e.g., Converse and Deshon, 2009) or even balancing on one leg (Tyler and Burns, 2008) count as self-control tasks.
Given this confusing state, it is hardly surprising that the same task (e.g., 3-digit by 3-digit multiplication) has been used as both the self-control (depletion) task (Stillman et al., 2009) and the control (nondepletion) task (Burkley, 2008). If one cannot unambiguously determine whether or not a particular task implicates self-control, it is impossible to determine whether one should expect a significant ego-depletion effect.
Ways forward
Each researcher should explicitly articulate an operational definition of self-control used in his/her study and justify task selection with regard to that operational definition. To facilitate the progress, however, more needs to be done by the field as a whole. Parallel conceptual problems that have faced EF research—another elusive and multifaceted concept—may be relevant here. Although it is still far from achieving a field-wide consensus (Baggetta and Alexander, 2016), attempts to systematically classify and operationally define different facets of EFs (e.g., updating, shifting, and inhibition; Miyake et al., 2000) have contributed to developing some initial consensus, which has helped researchers judge whether a task implicates EF processes. Analogous attempts would be helpful for self-control research, especially if such efforts can help systematically examine which facets of self-control are linked to the ego-depletion phenomenon (e.g., Fujita, 2011; Heller et al., 2017).
2. Lack of independent empirical validation for self-control tasks
Problem
Various tasks used in ego-depletion research—such as watching a video while ignoring words appearing onscreen and writing essays without using certain letters—have not been independently validated as effective measures of self-control. Some such tasks have not been used outside ego-depletion research, and some (e.g., the video-viewing task) even lack objective measures of task performance that could be used as indices of self-control.
This lack of independent validation of self-control tasks is problematic, because it makes it difficult to derive an unambiguous prediction for any ego-depletion study. For example, according to the strength model, the ego-depletion effect should be observed only when Tasks 1 and 2 (a) both implicate self-control and (b) draw from the same self-control resources. It is unclear, however, whether various task combinations used in ego-depletion research actually meet these necessary conditions.
Concerning (a), a negative consequence of this problem is illustrated by recent exchanges (Baumeister and Vohs, 2016b; Hagger and Chatzisarantis, 2016) regarding the appropriateness, as a self-control task, of the specific e-crossing task used in Hagger et al. (2016) multilab replication study. A focal issue was the necessity of an initial habit-forming block to make the e-crossing task sufficiently demanding, but, tellingly, this exchange did not reference any independent (non-ego-depletion) research validating different versions of the e-crossing task as effective (or not-so-effective) indices of self-control. Without such independent evidence, any replication failures would be open for alternative explanations based on task-selection problems.
Concerning (b), we do not know of any independent evidence for this crucial domain-generality assumption. Although there has been rigorous theoretical debate about, and empirical investigation into, the domain generality/specificity of attention (e.g., Wickens, 1984) and WM (e.g., Kane et al., 2004), little consideration has been given to this important issue in ego-depletion research, despite some prior evidence for domain/process-specific ego-depletion effects (Persson et al., 2007; Healey et al., 2011). Moreover, this domain-generality assumption is built on circular logic: Domain-general self-control resources must be present because the ego-depletion effect is observed. This criticism is reminiscent of those raised against resource theories in cognitive psychology, most notably Kahneman's (1973) seminal capacity theory of attention, which, like the strength model, postulated a single pool of general-purpose attentional resources fueling various mental activities.1
We find it justifiable to initially develop laboratory self-control tasks on the basis of the experimenter's intuition (Baumeister, 2016). We expect, however, that subsequent research would validate their appropriateness as self-control indicators and offer independent evidence that these tasks indeed draw on the same pool of domain-general self-control resources. Without knowing whether a particular task combination used in a study meets these conditions, it is impossible to predict whether one should expect a significant ego-depletion effect in that study.
Ways forward
One way to alleviate these problems is to conduct carefully designed correlational research (e.g., latent-variable analysis) and/or experimental studies using the simultaneous dual-task interference paradigm to establish that various commonly used tasks in ego-depletion research share some underlying commonality, namely self-control resources. Tests of ego-depletion would be more effective when the specific combination of tasks used has already been shown to demonstrate a clear overlap between them. In this regard, relying more on cognitive (attention, WM, and EF) tasks for which such evidence of overlap already exists might be helpful.
It is also important to provide more objective measures of task performance to quantify the self-control demands associated with Task 1 performance. One such possibility is to use pupillometry (Beatty, 1982) as an index of the degree of effort or attentional demands associated with the task performance2 (e.g., Hopstaken et al., 2015; Rondeel et al., 2015).
3. Lack of well-specified models that make unambiguous, falsifiable predictions
Problem
The existing models purported to explain the ego-depletion effect are currently too underspecified to allow other researchers to unambiguously derive testable (falsifiable) predictions. For example, the strength model does not specify how the self-control resources are consumed by Tasks 1 and 2 and when the available remaining resources are low enough to start impairing subsequent performance on Task 2. Such key resource-consumption parameters must be more formally specified before one can determine whether an experiment should produce the ego-depletion effect.
This theoretical issue has been neglected in ego-depletion research, despite some relevant historical precedent. In an influential critique, Navon (1984) articulated various problems with resource theories (e.g., Kahneman, 1973), including the aforementioned circularity problem and the ambiguity surrounding the hypothesized resource-performance functions. This critique led some theorists to abandon the resource concept altogether (Neuman, 1987) and others to attempt to better specify the nature of resources and their consumption functions in the form of computational models (e.g., Just and Carpenter, 1992; Lovett et al., 1999). Models of ego-depletion phenomena are in need of such formalization.
Such theoretical development is urgently needed following the recent updates made to the strength model (Baumeister and Vohs, 2016a) that, in our view, make the model flexible enough to fit any data and, hence, unfalsifiable. In particular, this revised model incorporates the notion of the “central governor” (adopted from Evans et al., 2016), whose role is to determine whether to expend or conserve the available self-control resources. This addition seems to us a step backwards, considering that WM theories, which have long featured the “central executive” (Baddeley and Hitch, 1974; Baddeley, 1996), have been trying to replace this vague, homunculus-like construct with something more precise3. Without better specifying how this central governor determines whether and when to consume or conserve self-control resources, one cannot unambiguously determine whether one should observe a significant ego-depletion effect (for a more detailed critique of the central governor model, see Inzlicht and Marcora (2016).
Ways forward
We do not know of any formal attempts to mechanically specify how self-control resources are consumed when two tasks are performed consecutively in the sequential-task paradigm. It seems necessary not only to better specify the underlying resource-consumption functions (preferably via mathematical or computational modeling) but also to be more explicit about critical moderating variables (e.g., when to conserve or consume resources). To gain insights into the underlying resource-performance functions, it might also be helpful to systematically (parametrically) manipulate task durations or attentional demands for Task 1 (Lee et al., 2016), which unfortunately has rarely been done in ego-depletion research.
Conclusion
The recent replication efforts have succeeded in promoting preregistration, open data, and large sample sizes, all of which improve the reproducibility of scientific work. To resolve the issue of whether ego-depletion is a real phenomenon, however, it is also crucial to address the severe conceptual problems that impede the derivation and testing of specific, falsifiable predictions. Although tackling these issues is not easy, we believe that effectively addressing them is a necessary step to resolve the current controversy surrounding the ego-depletion effect in a manner that satisfies its proponents and skeptics alike.
Funding
Publication of this article was funded by the University of Colorado Boulder Libraries Open Access Fund.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Statements
Author contributions
All authors listed, have made substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.
Acknowledgments
We thank Michael J. Kane for providing thoughtful feedback on this manuscript.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Footnotes
1.^If the glucose-as-self-control-resources hypothesis (Gailliot et al., 2007) had received strong support, this would have resolved the circular-logic problem, but, given the growing evidence against this hypothesis (Beedie and Lane, 2012; Dang, 2016; Vadillo et al., 2016), the field still lacks independent, noncircular evidence for the domain-generality assumption.
2.^If fatigue is the more critical dimension (Baumeister and Vohs, 2016b; Drummond and Philipp, 2017), independent evidence for linking fatigue levels to self-control resources is needed.
3.^Indeed, Logie (2016), a long-time proponent of the central executive (Baddeley and Logie, 1999), recently declared that the field is now ready to “retire” it.
References
1
BaddeleyA. (1996). Exploring the central executive. Q. J. Exp. Psychol.49A, 5–28. 10.1080/713755608
2
BaddeleyA. D.HitchG. J. (1974). Working memory, in The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, ed BowerG. H. (New York, NY: Academic Press), 47–89.
3
BaddeleyA. D.LogieR. H. (1999). Working memory: the multiple-component model, in Models of Working Memory: Mechanisms of Active Maintenance and Executive Control, eds MiyakeA.ShahP. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 28–61.
4
BaggettaP.AlexanderP. A. (2016). Conceptualization and operationalization of executive function. Mind Brain Educ.10, 10–33. 10.1111/mbe.12100
5
BaumeisterR. F. (2016). Charting the future of social psychology on stormy seas: winners, losers, and recommendations. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.66, 153–158. 10.1016/j.jesp.2016.02.003
6
BaumeisterR. F.VohsK. D. (2016a). Strength model of self-regulation as limited resource: assessment, controversies, update. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol.54, 67–127. 10.1016/bs.aesp.2016.04.001
7
BaumeisterR. F.VohsK. D. (2016b). Misguided effort with elusive implications. Perspect. Psychol. Sci.11, 574–575. 10.1177/1745691616652878
8
BaumeisterR. F.VohsK. D.TiceD. M. (2007). The strength model of self-control. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci.16, 351–355. 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00534.x
9
BeattyJ. (1982). Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources. Psychol. Bull.91, 276–292. 10.1037/0033-2909.91.2.276
10
BeedieC. J.LaneA. M. (2012). The role of glucose in self-control: another look at the evidence and an alternative conceptualization. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev.16, 143–153. 10.1177/1088868311419817
11
BoucherH. C.KofosM. N. (2012). The idea of money counteracts ego depletion effects. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.48, 804–810. 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.003
12
BurkleyE. (2008). The role of self-control in resistance to persuasion. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull.34, 419–431. 10.1177/0146167207310458
13
CarterE. C.KoflerL. M.ForsterD. E.McCulloughM. E. (2015). A series of meta-analytic tests of the depletion effect: self-control does not seem to rely on a limited resource. J. Exp. Psychol.144, 796–815. 10.1037/xge0000083
14
CarterE. C.McCulloughM. E. (2014). Publication bias and the limited strength model of self-control: has the evidence for ego depletion been overestimated?Front. Psychol.5:823. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00823
15
ConverseP. D.DeshonR. P. (2009). A tale of two tasks: reversing the self-regulatory resource depletion effect. J. Appl. Psychol.94, 1318–1324. 10.1037/a0014604
16
DangJ. (2016). Testing the role of glucose in self-control: a meta-analysis. Appetite107, 222–230. 10.1016/j.appet.2016.07.021
17
DrummondA.PhilippM. C. (2017). Commentary: “Misguided effort with elusive implications” and “A multi-lab pre-registered replication of the ego depletion effect.” Front. Psychol.8:273. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00273
18
EvansD. R.BoggeroI. A.SegerstromS. C. (2016). The nature of self-regulatory fatigue and “ego-depletion”: lessons from physical fatigue. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 20, 291–310. 10.1177/1088868315597841
19
FennisB. M.JanssenL.VohsK. D. (2009). Acts of benevolence: a limited resource account of compliance with charitable requests. J. Consum. Res.35, 906–924. 10.1086/593291
20
FriedmanN. P.MiyakeA. (2004). The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: a latent-variable analysis. J. Exp. Psychol.133, 101–135. 10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.101
21
FujitaK. (2011). On conceptualizing self-control as more than the effortful inhibition of impulses. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev.15, 352–366. 10.1177/1088868311411165
22
GailliotM. T.BaumeisterR. F.DeWallC. N.ManerJ. K.PlantE. A.TiceD. M.et al. (2007). Self-control relies on glucose as a limited energy source: willpower is more than a metaphor. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.92, 325–336. 10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.325
23
HaggerM. S.ChatzisarantisN. L. (2016). Commentary: misguided effort with elusive implications, and sifting signal from noise with replication science. Front. Psychol.7:621. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00621
24
HaggerM. S.ChatzisarantisN. L.AlbertsH. A.AnggonoC. O.BataillerC. B.BirtA. R.et al. (2016). A multilab preregistered replication of the ego-depletion effect. Pers. Psychol. Sci.11, 546–573. 10.1177/1745691616652873
25
HaggerM. S.WoodC.StiffC.ChatzisarantisN. L. (2010). Ego depletion and the strength model of self-control: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull.136, 495–525. 10.1037/a0019486
26
HealeyM. K.HasherL.DanilovaE. (2011). The stability of working memory: do previous tasks influence complex span?J. Exp. Psychol.140, 573–585. 10.1037/a0024587
27
HellerS.BorsayF.UllrichJ. (2017). Social power and dimensions of self-control: does power benefit initiatory self-control but impair inhibitory self-control?Cogent Psychol.4:1288351. 10.1080/23311908.2017.1288351
28
HopstakenJ. F.van der LindenD.BakkerA. B.KompierM. A. (2015). The window of my eyes: task disengagement and mental fatigue covary with pupil dynamics. Biol. Psychol.110, 100–106. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2015.06.013
29
InzlichtM.MarcoraS. M. (2016). The central governor model of exercise regulation teaches us precious little about the nature of mental fatigue and self-control failure. Front. Psychol. 7:656. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00656
30
InzlichtM.SchmeichelB. J. (2012). What is ego depletion? Toward a mechanistic revision of the resource model of self-control. Pers. Psychol. Sci.7, 450–463. 10.1177/1745691612454134
31
JustM. A.CarpenterP. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory. Psychol. Rev.99, 122–149. 10.1037/0033-295x.99.1.122
32
KahnemanD. (1973). Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
33
KaneM. J.HambrickD. Z.TuholskiS. W.WilhelmO.PayneT. W.EngleR. W. (2004). The generality of working memory capacity: a latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. J. Exp. Psychol.133, 189–217. 10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.189
34
LeeN.ChatzisarantisN.HaggerM. S. (2016). Adequacy of the sequential-task paradigm in evoking ego-depletion and how to improve detection of ego-depletion phenomena. Front. Psychol.7:136. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00136
35
LogieR. H. (2016). Retiring the central executive. Q. J. Exp. Psychol.69, 2093–2109. 10.1080/17470218.2015.1136657
36
LovettM. C.RederL. M.LebiereC. (1999). Modeling working memory in a unified architecture: an ACT-R perspective, in Models of Working Memory: Mechanisms of Active Maintenance and Executive Control, eds MiyakeA.ShahP. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 135–182.
37
LurquinJ. H.MichaelsonL. E.BarkerJ. E.GustavsonD. E.von BastianC. C.CarruthN. P.et al. (2016). No evidence of the ego-depletion effect across task characteristics and individual differences: a pre-registered study. PLoS ONE11:e0147770. 10.1371/journal.pone.0147770
38
MiyakeA.FriedmanN. P.EmersonM. J.WitzkiA. H.HowerterA.WagerT. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cogn. Psychol.41, 49–100. 10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
39
MuravenM.ShmueliD.BurkleyE. (2006). Conserving self-control strength. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.91, 524–537. 10.1037/0022-3514.91.3.524
40
NavonD. (1984). Resources—a theoretical soup stone?Psychol. Rev.91, 216–234. 10.1037/0033-295X.91.2.216
41
NeumanO. (1987). Beyond capacity: a functional view of attention, in Perspectives on Selection and Action, eds HeuerH.SandersA. F. (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum), 361–394.
42
NiggJ. T. (2000). On inhibition/disinhibition in developmental psychopathology: views from cognitive and personality psychology and a working inhibition taxonomy. Psychol. Bull.126, 220–246. 10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.220
43
PerssonJ.WelshK. M.JonidesJ.Reuter-LorenzeP. A. (2007). Cognitive fatigue of executive processes: interaction between interference resolution tasks. Neuropsychologia45, 1571–1579. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.12.007
44
RondeelE. W.van SteenbergenH.HollandR. W.van KnippenbergA. (2015). A closer look at cognitive control: differences in resource allocation during updating, inhibition and switching as revealed by pupillometry. Front. Hum. Neurosci.9:494. 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00494
45
SegerstromS. C.NesL. S. (2007). Heart rate variability reflects self-regulatory strength, effort, and fatigue. Psychol. Sci.18, 275–282. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01888.x
46
StillmanT. F.TiceD. M.FinchamF. D.LambertN. M. (2009). The psychological presence of family improves self-control. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol.28, 498–529. 10.1521/jscp.2009.28.4.498
47
TiceD. M.BaumeisterR. F.ShmueliD.MuravenM. (2007). Restoring the self: positive affect helps improve self-regulation following ego depletion. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.43, 379–384. 10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.007
48
TylerJ. M.BurnsK. C. (2008). After depletion: the replenishment of the self's regulatory resources. Self Identity7, 305–321. 10.1080/15298860701799997
49
VadilloM. A.GoldN.OsmanM. (2016). The bitter truth about sugar and willpower: the limited evidential value of the glucose model of ego depletion. Psychol. Sci.27, 1207–1214. 10.1177/0956797616654911
50
VohsK. D.BaumeisterR. F.CiaroccoN. J. (2005). Self-regulation and self-presentation: regulatory resource depletion impairs impression management and effortful self-presentation depletes regulatory resources. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.88, 632–657. 10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.632
51
WebbT. L.SheeranP. (2003). Can implementation intentions help to overcome ego-depletion?J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.39, 279–286. 10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00527-9
52
WickensC. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention, in Varieties of Attention, eds ParasuramanR.DaviesD. R. (Orlando, FL: Academic Press), 63–102.
53
XuX.DemosK. E.LeaheyT. M.HartC. N.TrautvetterJ.CowardP.et al. (2014). Failure to replicate depletion of self-control. PLoS ONE9:e109950. 10.1371/journal.pone.0109950
Summary
Keywords
ego-depletion, self-control, the strength model, resource theories, replication crisis
Citation
Lurquin JH and Miyake A (2017) Challenges to Ego-Depletion Research Go beyond the Replication Crisis: A Need for Tackling the Conceptual Crisis. Front. Psychol. 8:568. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00568
Received
10 February 2017
Accepted
28 March 2017
Published
18 April 2017
Volume
8 - 2017
Edited by
Martin S. Hagger, Curtin University, Australia
Reviewed by
Michael Philipp, Massey University, New Zealand; Evan C. Carter, United States Army Research Laboratory, USA; Pierpaolo Primoceri, University of Zurich, Switzerland
Updates
Copyright
© 2017 Lurquin and Miyake.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: John Lurquin john.lurquin@colorado.edu
This article was submitted to Personality and Social Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.