Abstract
Self-control exertion on an initial task has been associated with impaired performance on subsequent physical tasks also requiring self-control; an effect suggested to be mediated by changes in perceptions of pain and motivation. However, the effects of spending longer on the initial self-control task are unknown. This study, therefore, explored the potential for the duration of the initial self-control task to influence subsequent physical performance, perceptions of pain, and perceived motivation; particularly during the early stages of the physical task. In a within-subject design, 29 participants (11 male, 18 female) completed a wall-sit task until volitional exhaustion, on four separate occasions. Prior to each wall-sit, participants completed either a non-self-control task (congruent Stroop task) for 4 min, or a self-control task (incongruent Stroop task) for 4 (short duration), 8 (medium duration), or 16 (long duration) min. Participant’s perceptions of pain and motivation were recorded every 30 s during the wall-sit. Wall-sit performance time was analyzed using one-way ANOVA and perceptions of pain and motivation analyzed using multi-level modeling. Wall-sit performance time was significantly longer on the non-self-control exertion trial compared to all other trials (all p < 0.01), as well as longer on both the short duration and medium duration self-control exertion trials compared to the long duration self-control exertion trial (both p < 0.001). Perceptions of initial (at 30 s) pain and motivation were different between the trials (main effect of trial: pain, p = 0.001; motivation, p < 0.001); whereby longer durations of self-control exertion increased perceptions of pain and decreased motivation. The decrease in motivation during the wall-sit task was greater on the long duration self-control exertion trial compared to all other trials (trial∗time interactions, all p < 0.05). The present study provides novel evidence that spending longer on the initial self-control task led to greater detrimental effects on subsequent wall-sit performance time. Furthermore, longer duration self-control exertion tasks led to increased perceptions of pain and decreased motivation within the first 30 s of the wall-sit task, as well as a greater decrease in motivation across the wall-sit task. These attentional and motivational shifts may explain performance decrements following the exertion of self-control.
Highlights
Self-control is defined as the ability to volitionally regulate dominant impulses or urges to bring them in line with more desirable, long-term goals (Baumeister et al, 1998)
Wall-sit performance time was significantly longer on the non-self-control exertion trial (166 ± 9 s, range 98–305 s), compared to all other trials [short duration self-control exertion: 148 ± 9 s, range 74–263 s, t(28) = 2.8, p = 0.008, d = 0.38; medium duration self-control exertion: 140 ± 9 s, range 71–295 s, t(28) = 3.9, p = 0.001, d = 0.53; long duration self-control exertion: 116 ± 8 s, range 70–234 s, t(28) = 9.4, p < 0.001, d = 1.13]
There was no difference in wall-sit performance time between the short duration and medium duration self-control exertion trials (p = 0.270, d = 0.16)
Summary
Self-control is defined as the ability to volitionally regulate dominant impulses or urges to bring them in line with more desirable, long-term goals (Baumeister et al, 1998). Self-control helps individuals to exhibit appropriate behavior by helping to regulate urges, juggle competing goals, and to maintain focus on the desired goal (Baumeister et al, 2007). The capacity to exert self-control can differ both between individuals (i.e., trait self-control), as well as across situations within the same individual (i.e., state self-control; Tangney et al, 2004). Concerning state self-control, recent meta-analytic evidence has emphasized that the initial exertion of self-control on one task, impairs performance on a subsequent, ostensibly unrelated task requiring self-control (Hagger et al, 2010; Dang, 2017; Giboin and Wolff, 2019; Brown et al, 2020). Many recent commentaries, analyses, and debates have implied that the size of the depletion effect is likely smaller than previously suggested, it is too early to reject the effect altogether (e.g., Baumeister and Vohs, 2016; Sripada et al, 2016; Blázquez et al, 2017)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
