CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 792Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesBehavioral Health and Interventions

Research on self-control: An integrating framework

Logue, A. W.·1988·Behavioral and Brain Sciences
DOI 10.1017/s0140525x00053978
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The tendency to choose a larger, more delayed reinforcer over a smaller, less delayed one has frequently been termed “selfcontrol.” Three very different research traditions – two models emphasizing the control of local contingencies of reinforcement (Mischel's social learning theory and Herrnstein's matching law) and molar maximization models (specifically optimal foraging theory) – have all investigated behavior within the self-control paradigm. A framework is proposed to integrate research from all three research areas. This framework consists of three parts: a procedural analysis, a causal analysis, and a theoretical analysis. The procedural analysis provides a common procedural terminology for all three areas. The causal analysis establishes that, in all three research traditions, self-control varies directly with the current physical values of the reinforcers; that is, choices increase with reinforcer amount and decrease with reinforcer delay. But self-control also varies according to past events to which a subject has been exposed, and according to current factors other than the reinforcers. Each of the three models has therefore incorporated these indirect effects on self-control by postulating unobservable mechanisms. In all three cases, these mechanisms represent a subject's behavior as a function of a perceived environment. The theoretical analysis demonstrates that evolutionary theory can encompass the research from all three areas by considering differences in the adaptiveness of self-control in different situations. This integration provides a better and more predictive description of self-control.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0140525x00053978

Cites

298 of 298 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Logue, A. W.
Affiliations
Stony Brook University (US)
Corresponding author
Logue, A. W.
ORCID
Logue, A. W.
Venue
Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
1988-12
Volume
11
Issue
4
Pages
665-679
ISSN
  • 0140-525X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-1825
DOI
10.1017/s0140525x00053978
OpenAlex
W2088276883
Cited by
792
References
298
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 20
FWCI
18.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 7735 d)
Locations
Behavioral and Brain Sciences (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
self-control, matching law, optimal foraging theory, delayed reinforcement, environmental perception

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review