Meta-analytic evidence for ambivalence resolution as a key process in effortless self-control

Abstract

Self-control is a central construct in understanding human behavior and wellbeing, and has a significant impact on outcomes in several areas such as health, wellbeing, academic performance, and interpersonal relationships. However, underlying mechanisms of self-control, and particularly effortless self-control, remain underexposed. Recent work using mouse tracking techniques has shed new light on these issues and found that self-control is related to ambivalence associated with self-control dilemmas, both in magnitude and resolution. Using a meta-analytical approach, the current research examines whether these initial findings, suggesting that the resolution of ambivalent conflicts is a key ingredient of effortless self-control, are robust. Combining two studies from Gillebaart, Schneider, & De Ridder (2016), and five novel studies, we examined whether self-control influenced the magnitude of ambivalence conflicts (magnitude hypothesis) and the process of its resolution (process hypothesis). Self-reports of objective and subjective ambivalence conflicts were combined with a mouse tracking paradigm to tap into these different aspects. Our analyses replicate previous findings and showed a robust small to medium large effect: Higher self-control was associated with less self-reported conflict, faster conflict resolution, and earlier moment of maximum conflict. Notably, on an implicit level, conflicts emerged in equal magnitude regardless of self-control level. Extending previous work, self-control did not only play a role in food-related dilemmas but also in resolving conflict with regards to different societal topics. These results support the notion of ambivalent conflict resolution as an underlying mechanism of effortless self-control and contribute to a new perspective of self-control going beyond effort and inhibition.