CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,693Behavioral Health and InterventionsGrit, Self-Efficacy, and MotivationPersonality Traits and Psychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 170 of the 171 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Taking Stock of Self-Control: A Meta-Analysis of How Trait Self-Control Relates to a Wide Range of Behaviors

Open access
de Ridder, Denise T. D., Lensvelt-Mulders, Gerty, Finkenauer, Catrin, Stok, F. Marijn, Baumeister, Roy F.·2012·Personality and Social Psychology Review
DOI 10.1177/1088868311418749
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Given assertions of the theoretical, empirical, and practical importance of self-control, this meta-analytic study sought to review evidence concerning the relationship between dispositional self-control and behavior. The authors provide a brief overview over prominent theories of self-control, identifying implicit assumptions surrounding the effects of self-control that warrant empirical testing. They report the results of a meta-analysis of 102 studies (total N = 32,648) investigating the behavioral effects of self-control using the Self-Control Scale, the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, and the Low Self-Control Scale. A small to medium positive effect of self-control on behavior was found for the three scales. Only the Self-Control Scale allowed for a fine-grained analysis of conceptual moderators of the self-control behavior relation. Specifically, self-control (measured by the Self-Control Scale) related similarly to the performance of desired behaviors and the inhibition of undesired behaviors, but its effects varied dramatically across life domains (e.g., achievement, adjustment). In addition, the associations between self-control and behavior were significantly stronger for automatic (as compared to controlled) behavior and for imagined (as compared to actual) behavior.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1088868311418749

Cites

170 of 170 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Alberts H., Maroofi S., Martijn C. (2005). De relatie tussen verwachtingen en interpersoonlijke verschillen in zelfcontrole [The relation between expectations and interpersonal differences in self-control]. In Holland R. W., Ouwerkerk J., van Laar C., Ruiter R., Ham J. (Eds.), Jaarboek Sociale Psychologie 2005 (pp. 13-21). Groningen, Netherlands: Aspo Pers.
  2. Bakhuys Roozeboom M. C. (2004). De relatie tussen sekse en State/Action-oriëntatie: Een onderzoek naar de discrepantie tussen de daadwerkelijke en de ideale State/Action-oriëntatie bij mannen en vrouwen [The relation between gender and state/action orientation: A study of the discrepancy between actual and ideal state/action orientation in males and females] (Unpublished master’s thesis). VU University Amsterdam Amsterdam Netherlands.
  3. 10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Brandon J. E., Oescher J., Loftin J. M. (1990). The self-control questionnaire: An assessment. Health Values, 14, 3-9.
  5. 10.1037/0033-2909.92.1.111 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 · DOI · Paper page
  7. De Hoog S. R. (2005). Don’t worry be action!! De invloed van verschillen in de State/Action-oriëntatie op relatietevredenheid [Don’t worry be action!! The influence of differences in the State/Action orientation on relationship satisfaction] (Unpublished master’s thesis). VU University Amsterdam Amsterdam Netherlands.
  8. De Wit J. B. F., Adam P. C. G. (2007). Sexual risk-taking in gay men: A focus on non-intentional processes. Utrecht, Netherlands: Institute for Prevention & Social Research.
  9. Gollwitzer P. M. (1990). Action phases and mindsets. In Higgins E. T., Sorrentino R. M. (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 53-92). New York, NY: Guilford.
  10. Gough H. G. (1987). California Psychological Inventory— Administrator’s guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
  11. Heideheuvel Hospital. (2005, June). Self-control in obese adolescents undergoing treatment. Hilversum, Netherlands: V. T. Colland & D. T. D. De Ridder.
  12. Kendall P. C., Williams C. L. (1982). Assessing the cognitive and behavioral components of children’s self-management. In Karoly P., Kanfer F. H. (Eds.), Self-management and behavior change (pp. 240-284). New York, NY: Pergamon.
  13. Lipsey M. W., Wilson D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis: Vol. 49. Applied social research methods series. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  14. Seligman M. (1994). What you can change and what you can’t. New York, NY: Knopf.
  15. Vohs K. D., Baumeister R. F. (2004). Understanding self-regulation. In Baumeister R. F., Vohs K. D. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 1-9). New York, NY: Guilford.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1,693

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
de Ridder, D. T. D., Lensvelt-Mulders, G., Finkenauer, C., Stok, F. M., & Baumeister, R. F.
Affiliations
  • Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • Florida State University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Personality and Social Psychology Review
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2011-08-30
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
76-99
ISSN
  • 1088-8683 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7957
DOI
10.1177/1088868311418749
OpenAlex
W2077057247
Cited by
1,693
References
171
Citations by year
2026: 113 · 2025: 128 · 2024: 143 · 2023: 132 · 2022: 140 · 2021: 154 · 2020: 185 · 2019: 150 · 2018: 133 · 2017: 100 · 2016: 104 · 2015: 92 · 2014: 58 · 2013: 45 · 2012: 10
FWCI
49.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Personality and Social Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion)
  • KOPS (University of Konstanz) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • European Commission (223488)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (RL1AA017541)
  • National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (UL1DE019586)
  • Common Fund (UL1-DE019586)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Grit, Self-Efficacy, and Motivation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
Keywords
self-control, self-control scale, Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, impulsivity, life domains, achievement, psychological adjustment
MeSH terms
Achievement, Adaptation, Psychological, Humans, Impulsive Behavior, Internal-External Control, Motivation

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