The DOI matches its Crossref record; 104 of the 104 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: dynamics of willpower
Abstract
A 2-system framework is proposed for understanding the processes that enable--and undermine--self-control or "willpower" as exemplified in the delay of gratification paradigm. A cool, cognitive "know" system and a hot, emotional "go" system are postulated. The cool system is cognitive, emotionally neutral, contemplative, flexible, integrated, coherent, spatiotemporal, slow, episodic, and strategic. It is the seat of self-regulation and self-control. The hot system is the basis of emotionality, fears as well as passions--impulsive and reflexive--initially controlled by innate releasing stimuli (and, thus, literally under "stimulus control"): it is fundamental for emotional (classical) conditioning and undermines efforts at self-control. The balance between the hot and cool systems is determined by stress, developmental level, and the individual's self-regulatory dynamics. The interactions between these systems allow explanation of findings on willpower from 3 decades of research.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Mindful awareness and a better “metacognitive” understanding of our decision-making processes are also likely to result in decreased “mindless” eating13 and increased behavioral adherence.14”
From The mind your health project: a randomized controlled trial of an innovative behavioral treatment for obesity (2013) · cites this paper as [14]
Citations
Cites
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990) · doi:10.1515/9781503621794 · Cited by 10,127
A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.95.2.256 · Cited by 9,745
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PERSONAL CONSTRUCTS
Bannister, D., & Fransella, F. (2010) · Taylor & Francis eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203405321_chapter_1 · Cited by 8,589
Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.35.2.151 · Cited by 8,094
(1978) · UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) · Cited by 8,010
The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit formation
Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908) · Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology · doi:10.1002/cne.920180503 · Cited by 6,911
Higgins, E. T. (1997) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.52.12.1280 · Cited by 6,775
Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional state.
Schachter, S., & Singer, J. (1962) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0046234 · Cited by 6,223
Conflict, arousal, and curiosity.
Berlyne, D. E. (1960) · McGraw-Hill Book Company · doi:10.1037/11164-000 · Cited by 6,018
Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms.
Rutter, M. (1987) · American Journal of Orthopsychiatry · doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.1987.tb03541.x · Cited by 5,831
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment.
Haidt, J. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.4.814 · Cited by 8,048
Construal-level theory of psychological distance.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0018963 · Cited by 6,618
Reflective and Impulsive Determinants of Social Behavior
Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_1 · Cited by 3,984
Steel, P. (2007) · Psychological bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65 · Cited by 3,417
Implementation intentions and goal achievement: a meta-analysis of effects and processes
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(06)38002-1 · Cited by 3,236
“Such dilemmas between the head and the heart are commonplace (e.g., Loewenstein, Weber, Hsee, & Welch, 2001; Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999; Trafimow & Sheeran, 2004).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W.
- Affiliations
- Columbia University (US)
- ORCID
- Metcalfe, Janet
- Venue
- Psychological Review
- Published
- 1999
- Volume
- 106
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-19
- ISSN
- 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1471
- OpenAlex
- W2103902275
- Cited by
- 2,931
- References
- 104
- Citations by year
- 2026: 92 · 2025: 99 · 2024: 136 · 2023: 111 · 2022: 118 · 2021: 150 · 2020: 178 · 2019: 174 · 2018: 154 · 2017: 124 · 2016: 130 · 2015: 170 · 2014: 141 · 2013: 150 · 2012: 160
- FWCI
- 47.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Review (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (MH39349, MH48066)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Grit, Self-Efficacy, and Motivation
- Keywords
- delay of gratification, willpower, self-control, two-system model, self-regulation, emotionality, impulsive behavior, stimulus control, emotional conditioning, stress, developmental level
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Disruptive, Impulse Control, and Conduct Disorders, Models, Psychological, Stress, Psychological, Self Psychology
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
