Self-regulation
M. Inzlicht, Integrating Models of Self-Regulation (2021)
INTRODUCTION
Connections between self-regulation and outcomes affect domains as disparate as
health, longevity, criminality, financial savings, job performance and relationship
satisfaction. We attempt to remedy by integrating across different models of self-
regulation coming from disparate research traditions in social psychology, personality
psychology and cognitive neuroscience.
DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN SELF-REGULATION, SELF-CONTROL AND
COGNITIVE CONTROL
We suggest that self-regulation and self-control refer to distinct processes, both of
which resemble but are not isomorphic with cognitive control. Self-regulation is the
process of setting goals, taking action and tracking progress by managing one’s
behaviour, thoughts and emotions. It includes choosing, planning, pursuing and
sometimes abandoning goals. Self-control involves resolving conflicts between
competing goals (such as short- vs. long-term rewards). It can include effortful
inhibition or more effortless, proactive strategies. In contrast, self-regulation is the
broader process of guiding behaviour toward goals, which may occur with or without
conflict.
Cognitive control (or executive function) refers to the mental processes that flexibly
direct attention and behaviour toward current goals rather than habitual actions. It
includes inhibition, attentional shifting and working-memory updating. Cognitive
control involves low-level cognitive functions (attention and memory), whereas self-
regulation concerns real-world goal pursuit.
MODELS OF SELF-REGULATION
CYBERNETIC CONTROL
Cybernetics is the science of control in animals and machines. Cybernetic control
is based on simple feedback loops that contain four key elements:
1. A goal or standard
2. Input about the current state
3. A system that detects
discrepancies between the current and
goal states
4. A system that acts to reduce those
discrepancies
This loop repeats until the gap between current and desired states is minimalized
,GOAL SYSTEMS THEORY
The goal systems theory views goals as mental representations of desired
outcomes and focuses on how goals and their means are structured. Unlike the
cybernetic model, it emphasizes the network of interconnected goals and means that
guide behaviour.
Stronger goal-means links increase the likelihood of a behaviour being chosen. If a
goal has many possible means (being healthy), each connection is weaker. If it has
few options (attending a scheduled exercise class), the connection is stronger. Means
can be unifinal (serving one goal) or multifinal (serving multiple goals at one).
DUAL SYSTEMS THEORY
Dual systems models propose that behaviour is driven by two systems:
1. System I = fast and impulsive. Seeks immediate rewards and relies on
emotional brain regions
2. System II = slow and deliberate. Supports long-term goals and self-control
through the prefrontal cortex
When these systems conflict, self-control is needed. Similarly, cognitive control
models describe a balance between automatic and effortful processes, with conflict or
prediction errors prompting controlled, goal-directed behaviour.
CHOICE MODELS
Choice models view self-control not as a battle between impulses and deliberation,
but as a value-based decision. Each option is assigned a subjective value by weighing
benefits against costs, and the highest-valued option is chosen. Further outcomes
often carry extra weight in successful self-control.
These value calculations are subjective, variable and influenced by context, time and
prior actions, with the ventromedial prefrontal cortex playing a key role. Some models
reduce self-control to value-based choice alone, while others combine dual-process
competition with value-based decisions about whether to exert control. The dorsal
anterior cingulate cortex evaluates the expected payoff of control, guiding effortful
self-regulation when worthwhile.
RESOURCE MODEL OF SELF-CONTROL
The resource model of self-control views self-control as a limited mental resource
that powers efforts to override undesired behaviours. Exerting control depletes this
‘’mental fuel’’, leading to reduced self-control later. A phenomenon called ego
depletion.
,Originally thought to result mainly from inhibiting habits, depletion is now seen as
mental fatigue from any effortful task. However, the model is controversial: replication
studies suggest the ego depletion effect may be small or non-existent, and alternative
explanations point to changes in motivation rather than a literal resource. Overall, the
model highlights that control can wane over time but offers a narrow view of self-
regulation.
PROCESS MODEL OF SELF-CONTROL
Recent self-control models focus on strategies that prevent or manage temptation
rather than relying on effortful willpower. The process model distinguishes:
- Preventive strategies = avoid or modify tempting situations (skipping the
bakery section, hiding cookies)
- Interventive strategies = manage temptations once they arise (looking away,
rethinking the consequences, using willpower)
Early intervention is more effective, as impulses strengthen over time, making
strategic self-control a key tool for goal achievement.
TRAIT MODELS OF IMPUSLIVITY
Trait model focuses on individual differences in self-control. UPPS model identifies
four facets of impulsivity:
1. Premeditation = planfulness
2. Perseverance = diligence
3. Sensation seeking = risk and excitement
4. Urgency = rash action under strong emotions
Carver’s model has three systems:
1. Control mechanism = effortful control/conscientiousness
2. Undercontrol/appetitive system = approach/behavioural activation
3. Overcontrol/braking system = fear-based inhibition
Both models view self-regulation as multidimensional, combining emotion-driven
impulses with reflective control. UPPS sees negative affect as increasing impulsivity,
while Carver emphasizes its inhibitory role.
INTEGRATING DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON SELF-REGULATION
Levels of analysis: trait models capture individual differences, while intrapsychic
models focus on moment-to-moment processes. Cybernetic and goal systems models
emphasize goals; dual process and process models emphasize conflict; choice models
focus on value-based decisions; resource models focus on effort over time. Traits and
states can differ, high trait self-control often reduces the need for in-the-moment
control.
, Conflict: conflict triggers control in dual process, process and cybernetic models.
Choice and goal systems models handle goal conflicts, while trait models assume
conflict structurally but also show that conscientious people can avoid conflict.
Emotion: trait models link negative affect (guilt) and positive affect (pride) to self-
control intrapsychic models often see emotion as disruptive, but cybernetic and goal
systems models tie affect to goal progress.
Cognition: cognitive processes guide in-the-moment control, option selection, and goal
monitoring in dual process, process, choice and cybernetic models. Traits predict long-
term outcomes independently of intelligence, while resource models’ cognitive role is
unclear.
PRESCRIPTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Models of self-regulation differ in level of analysis, conflict, emotion and cognition.
Traits capture broad differences, while state models focus on momentary processes;
skilled self-regulators often avoid rather than constantly overcome conflict. Conflict-
centred models may overemphasize struggle, whereas strategies like goal structuring
and precommitment reduce conflict. Emotion can both hinder (impulses) and support
(guilt, pride) regulation, signalling when control is needed. Cognitive ability and self-
regulation are distinct but related; conflating them risks misinterpretation. Future
research should integrate levels, consider conflict-free strategies, explore emotion’s
role and account for cognitive ability.
M. Inzlicht, Integrating Models of Self-Regulation (2021)
INTRODUCTION
Connections between self-regulation and outcomes affect domains as disparate as
health, longevity, criminality, financial savings, job performance and relationship
satisfaction. We attempt to remedy by integrating across different models of self-
regulation coming from disparate research traditions in social psychology, personality
psychology and cognitive neuroscience.
DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN SELF-REGULATION, SELF-CONTROL AND
COGNITIVE CONTROL
We suggest that self-regulation and self-control refer to distinct processes, both of
which resemble but are not isomorphic with cognitive control. Self-regulation is the
process of setting goals, taking action and tracking progress by managing one’s
behaviour, thoughts and emotions. It includes choosing, planning, pursuing and
sometimes abandoning goals. Self-control involves resolving conflicts between
competing goals (such as short- vs. long-term rewards). It can include effortful
inhibition or more effortless, proactive strategies. In contrast, self-regulation is the
broader process of guiding behaviour toward goals, which may occur with or without
conflict.
Cognitive control (or executive function) refers to the mental processes that flexibly
direct attention and behaviour toward current goals rather than habitual actions. It
includes inhibition, attentional shifting and working-memory updating. Cognitive
control involves low-level cognitive functions (attention and memory), whereas self-
regulation concerns real-world goal pursuit.
MODELS OF SELF-REGULATION
CYBERNETIC CONTROL
Cybernetics is the science of control in animals and machines. Cybernetic control
is based on simple feedback loops that contain four key elements:
1. A goal or standard
2. Input about the current state
3. A system that detects
discrepancies between the current and
goal states
4. A system that acts to reduce those
discrepancies
This loop repeats until the gap between current and desired states is minimalized
,GOAL SYSTEMS THEORY
The goal systems theory views goals as mental representations of desired
outcomes and focuses on how goals and their means are structured. Unlike the
cybernetic model, it emphasizes the network of interconnected goals and means that
guide behaviour.
Stronger goal-means links increase the likelihood of a behaviour being chosen. If a
goal has many possible means (being healthy), each connection is weaker. If it has
few options (attending a scheduled exercise class), the connection is stronger. Means
can be unifinal (serving one goal) or multifinal (serving multiple goals at one).
DUAL SYSTEMS THEORY
Dual systems models propose that behaviour is driven by two systems:
1. System I = fast and impulsive. Seeks immediate rewards and relies on
emotional brain regions
2. System II = slow and deliberate. Supports long-term goals and self-control
through the prefrontal cortex
When these systems conflict, self-control is needed. Similarly, cognitive control
models describe a balance between automatic and effortful processes, with conflict or
prediction errors prompting controlled, goal-directed behaviour.
CHOICE MODELS
Choice models view self-control not as a battle between impulses and deliberation,
but as a value-based decision. Each option is assigned a subjective value by weighing
benefits against costs, and the highest-valued option is chosen. Further outcomes
often carry extra weight in successful self-control.
These value calculations are subjective, variable and influenced by context, time and
prior actions, with the ventromedial prefrontal cortex playing a key role. Some models
reduce self-control to value-based choice alone, while others combine dual-process
competition with value-based decisions about whether to exert control. The dorsal
anterior cingulate cortex evaluates the expected payoff of control, guiding effortful
self-regulation when worthwhile.
RESOURCE MODEL OF SELF-CONTROL
The resource model of self-control views self-control as a limited mental resource
that powers efforts to override undesired behaviours. Exerting control depletes this
‘’mental fuel’’, leading to reduced self-control later. A phenomenon called ego
depletion.
,Originally thought to result mainly from inhibiting habits, depletion is now seen as
mental fatigue from any effortful task. However, the model is controversial: replication
studies suggest the ego depletion effect may be small or non-existent, and alternative
explanations point to changes in motivation rather than a literal resource. Overall, the
model highlights that control can wane over time but offers a narrow view of self-
regulation.
PROCESS MODEL OF SELF-CONTROL
Recent self-control models focus on strategies that prevent or manage temptation
rather than relying on effortful willpower. The process model distinguishes:
- Preventive strategies = avoid or modify tempting situations (skipping the
bakery section, hiding cookies)
- Interventive strategies = manage temptations once they arise (looking away,
rethinking the consequences, using willpower)
Early intervention is more effective, as impulses strengthen over time, making
strategic self-control a key tool for goal achievement.
TRAIT MODELS OF IMPUSLIVITY
Trait model focuses on individual differences in self-control. UPPS model identifies
four facets of impulsivity:
1. Premeditation = planfulness
2. Perseverance = diligence
3. Sensation seeking = risk and excitement
4. Urgency = rash action under strong emotions
Carver’s model has three systems:
1. Control mechanism = effortful control/conscientiousness
2. Undercontrol/appetitive system = approach/behavioural activation
3. Overcontrol/braking system = fear-based inhibition
Both models view self-regulation as multidimensional, combining emotion-driven
impulses with reflective control. UPPS sees negative affect as increasing impulsivity,
while Carver emphasizes its inhibitory role.
INTEGRATING DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON SELF-REGULATION
Levels of analysis: trait models capture individual differences, while intrapsychic
models focus on moment-to-moment processes. Cybernetic and goal systems models
emphasize goals; dual process and process models emphasize conflict; choice models
focus on value-based decisions; resource models focus on effort over time. Traits and
states can differ, high trait self-control often reduces the need for in-the-moment
control.
, Conflict: conflict triggers control in dual process, process and cybernetic models.
Choice and goal systems models handle goal conflicts, while trait models assume
conflict structurally but also show that conscientious people can avoid conflict.
Emotion: trait models link negative affect (guilt) and positive affect (pride) to self-
control intrapsychic models often see emotion as disruptive, but cybernetic and goal
systems models tie affect to goal progress.
Cognition: cognitive processes guide in-the-moment control, option selection, and goal
monitoring in dual process, process, choice and cybernetic models. Traits predict long-
term outcomes independently of intelligence, while resource models’ cognitive role is
unclear.
PRESCRIPTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Models of self-regulation differ in level of analysis, conflict, emotion and cognition.
Traits capture broad differences, while state models focus on momentary processes;
skilled self-regulators often avoid rather than constantly overcome conflict. Conflict-
centred models may overemphasize struggle, whereas strategies like goal structuring
and precommitment reduce conflict. Emotion can both hinder (impulses) and support
(guilt, pride) regulation, signalling when control is needed. Cognitive ability and self-
regulation are distinct but related; conflating them risks misinterpretation. Future
research should integrate levels, consider conflict-free strategies, explore emotion’s
role and account for cognitive ability.
