Self-Control vs. Self-Regulation: Differences and Connections

Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 10, 2026 · Editorial Policy

Self-control and self-regulation are closely related psychological concepts describing how people guide their attention, emotions, choices, and behavior. Self-control is particularly relevant when an immediate impulse conflicts with a more enduring or broadly valued aim: wanting to scroll while intending to sleep, wanting to retaliate during an argument while valuing a relationship, or wanting an impulse purchase while working toward financial stability. Self-regulation refers to a wider set of processes involved in adopting goals or standards, comparing current circumstances with those standards, monitoring outcomes, and adjusting actions, thoughts, feelings, and environments accordingly.

The central difference is therefore one of emphasis and scope. Self-control examines how competing motivations are managed. Self-regulation describes the wider organization of goal-directed behavior, including decisions made before a conflict arises and adjustments made after feedback. Self-control frequently operates within the broader process of self-regulation. Definitions vary across psychology, however, and the terms are sometimes used interchangeably. An influential integrative scientific review by Inzlicht and colleagues (2021) examines the convergence and differences among models rather than treating either term as settled across every research tradition.

What Is the Difference Between Self-Control and Self-Regulation?

Self-control is often defined through conflict: a person experiences a strong immediately attractive response and another course of action that better serves a valued objective. Favoring the more broadly valued course can involve inhibiting an impulse, initiating an avoided task, shifting attention, changing the environment, or committing in advance. Modern research recognizes proactive strategies alongside effortful resistance. In their process-model review, Duckworth, Gendler, and Gross (2016) specifically show why arranging circumstances to prevent temptation can be an expression of self-control.

Self-regulation covers the continuing process of orienting behavior toward reference standards. Someone decides what they want to achieve, monitors what is happening, detects a discrepancy, responds to that discrepancy, and updates the plan when necessary. The reference standard may concern a study target, a budget, an emotional response, physical activity, or a social commitment. The classic control theory of Carver and Scheier (1982) describes the regulation of behavior in terms of feedback and discrepancy reduction.

A person preparing for an examination may regulate studying by identifying important topics, scheduling sessions, testing comprehension, and revising techniques. Self-control becomes particularly visible when an immediately appealing activity competes with the study plan. Both processes contribute to reaching the goal. They differ in the questions researchers are asking: how is a goal monitored and pursued, and how are competing impulses managed?

A directly relevant operational account by Gillebaart (2018) uses the Test–Operate–Test–Exit (TOTE) feedback model to distinguish the constructs. In that proposal, self-regulation supplies the wider structure of setting standards, identifying discrepancies, and monitoring progress; self-control comprises the actions taken during the operating phase to move behavior toward a desired state. The formulation includes initiating a difficult task, inhibiting an unwanted response, and low-effort situational strategies. It is a conceptual proposal rather than a definition uniformly adopted across psychology, and its breadth illustrates why the same action may be classified differently across research traditions.

Scope: a specific conflict or a broader regulatory system

Self-regulation can operate even when no strong temptation is present. Reviewing progress, selecting a new strategy, adjusting an unrealistic deadline, seeking support, and changing goals in response to new evidence are all possible regulatory acts. Self-control becomes especially relevant where competing motivations threaten a valued course of action. The competition need not be a simple clash between pleasure and duty; two worthwhile goals can conflict, and the same activity can be appropriate in one context but costly in another.

Monitoring: comparing actual and desired states

Progress monitoring is central in feedback models of self-regulation. It allows a person to observe a gap between actual and desired conditions and choose an adjustment. For self-control, a particular form of monitoring is recognizing that the current impulse conflicts with another aim. Myrseth and Fishbach (2009) distinguish detecting a self-control conflict from resolving it. Someone may possess effective resistance strategies but fail to deploy them when they do not recognize the conflict.

Effort: sometimes present, not a universal requirement

The familiar picture of self-control is strenuous resistance. This picture captures one kind of self-control but excludes useful strategies that prevent strong temptation from developing. A person can choose a quiet workplace, remove a distracting application, or establish a routine before conflict becomes intense. Fujita (2011) argues for understanding self-control through competing proximal and distal motivations rather than effortful inhibition alone. Self-regulation likewise includes procedures that become relatively easy or automatic with practice.

Everyday Examples: How the Two Processes Interact

Consider maintaining a consistent bedtime. Setting a schedule, observing actual sleep timing, evaluating whether the schedule is realistic, and modifying evening routines represent self-regulation. Stopping an absorbing video despite wanting another episode, moving a device away from the bed, and declining a late invitation that conflicts with sleep goals can express self-control. Turning off notifications is simultaneously a proactive self-control strategy and part of a wider regulatory plan.

In financial planning, self-regulation includes setting spending standards, checking transactions against a budget, and adjusting the budget when circumstances change. Self-control appears when a tempting deal conflicts with the spending plan or when a person avoids a shopping environment that repeatedly produces unwanted purchases. Monitoring may reveal where the conflict arises; the later self-control strategy can then be selected accordingly.

In relationships, regulating an interaction may involve noticing rising tension, interpreting another person's perspective, choosing the purpose of a conversation, and adjusting tone. Self-control becomes salient when an impulse to interrupt or retaliate conflicts with a commitment to communicate constructively. Emotions can be regulated without a temptation conflict, so emotion regulation and self-control should be connected precisely rather than used as interchangeable labels.

In education, selecting weekly objectives and changing a study method after low comprehension are regulatory processes. Ignoring an enticing notification or starting a challenging assignment despite a desire to avoid it can involve self-control. A difficult start can also reflect unclear instructions, fatigue, unrealistic demands, anxiety, or insufficient resources. Understanding the particular mechanism matters more than calling every delay weak discipline.

Scientific Models Explaining Self-Regulation

Feedback loops and goal standards

Carver and Scheier's control-theory model conceptualizes self-regulation as ongoing comparison of current conditions with an internal goal or reference value. When a discrepancy is detected, behavior or another part of the system can change. Subsequent feedback informs whether the discrepancy has narrowed. The approach applies across behavioral, social, and clinical psychology.

Suppose a student intends to read three chapters but understands only one. The discrepancy can prompt more practice, a different strategy, a revised timetable, or help from an instructor. The appropriate response depends on why the initial plan failed. Adaptive self-regulation includes revising expectations when a standard no longer fits available resources or priorities. Persistent goal pursuit is only one possible regulatory outcome.

This framework explains why monitoring and feedback matter even when temptations play little role. It also explains why self-regulation extends beyond a single moment: a goal may require repeated comparisons and adjustments over days, months, or years.

Integrated models of goals, emotion, and cognition

The field contains multiple models of self-regulation, including personality-based accounts, cognitive-control theories, social-psychological perspectives, and approaches emphasizing affect and motivation. Inzlicht, Werner, Briskin, and Roberts (2021) integrate several traditions using level of analysis, conflict, emotion, and cognitive functioning as organizing themes.

A person's regulation may involve maintaining goals in working memory, interpreting feedback emotionally, prioritizing competing values, and choosing a feasible action. Some studies examine individual differences across years, others examine fluctuations within a single day, and others test performance on brief laboratory tasks. All can address aspects of regulation while measuring different phenomena.

Scientific Models Explaining Self-Control

Competing motivations and the dual-motive perspective

A common conceptual approach understands self-control as favoring more enduringly valued or distal motivations when they compete with nearer, immediately compelling motives. Fujita (2011) argues that conscious inhibition is only one route for resolving this competition. A person can reduce exposure to temptation, reinterpret a choice, build a beneficial habit, or arrange advance commitments.

The idea that immediate rewards must always be rejected is a misunderstanding. A break, a treat, or a spontaneous activity may serve a larger plan for health, pleasure, relationships, or recovery. The meaningful question is whether a response fits the person's goals and the context in which the decision is made.

Regulatory scope and longer-term meaning

Fujita, Trope, and Liberman (2025) develop an account of self-control involving regulatory scope: the range of relevant times, places, possibilities, and interests considered in a choice. An action represented as a momentary opportunity may be evaluated differently when placed within a semester, relationship, or enduring personal commitment. This perspective expands the theoretical conversation about self-control and shows why there remains disagreement over strict definitions.

It is a theoretical account supported by an evolving research literature, not a claim that merely imagining a long time horizon guarantees better decisions. Psychological interventions and outcomes still require direct empirical evaluation.

Timing and the process model of self-control

Duckworth, Gendler, and Gross (2016) organize self-control strategies according to when they intervene in the development of an impulse. Situation selection can avoid a cue; situation modification changes an encounter; attention deployment changes what is noticed; cognitive change alters an interpretation; response modulation changes behavior after an impulse emerges.

A student can leave a phone at home, place it beyond reach, focus attention on a demanding problem, remember the purpose of studying, or resist checking a notification after the urge appears. These strategies intervene at different stages. Earlier actions may be especially useful when they prevent repeated conflicts, but no single technique is universally superior in every setting.

The process model shares important ideas with Gross's (1998) review of emotion regulation, which describes opportunities to influence emotional responses through situations, attention, cognition, and response. The models overlap in the structure of intervention, while their explanatory targets differ. A person can regulate sadness or anxiety for many reasons without a classic self-control conflict.

The Role of Executive Functions

Executive functions involve processes used to retain task-relevant information, inhibit some responses, shift between tasks or perspectives, and coordinate cognitive activity. Diamond (2013) identifies inhibition, working memory, and cognitive flexibility as major components. These capacities can support self-regulation and self-control, especially when attention, rules, or competing responses must be managed.

Inhibitory control has a close relationship to self-control but covers only part of its scope. A computerized task requiring a participant to stop a motor response measures performance under specific controlled conditions. Everyday self-control also depends on incentives, emotional meaning, routines, environmental opportunity, social pressures, and longer-term commitments. Executive functions and self-regulation therefore contribute to each other without being identical.

The distinction affects interpretation of research. Improvements in a trained cognitive task do not automatically establish better regulation of finances, studying, social conflict, or health behavior. Researchers must demonstrate transfer to the outcome they claim.

Motivation, Emotion, and Habits

Motivation shapes which goals matter and how attractive competing options appear. A person can be strongly motivated to achieve an objective and still experience an appealing alternative. The presence of conflict therefore does not prove that motivation is absent. Conversely, someone can monitor a task competently while questioning whether the goal remains meaningful or achievable.

Emotions influence what is noticed, the perceived cost of effort, and the interpretation of progress. Anxiety may make uncertainty more difficult, frustration may encourage abandoning an activity, and enthusiasm may support initiation. Emotion regulation can stabilize broader goal pursuit; self-control enters when an emotional impulse competes with a valued response. Persistent emotional distress deserves a context-sensitive assessment rather than a simple label of inadequate discipline.

Habits provide another connection. Repeated behavior in relatively stable contexts may become easier to initiate automatically. Beneficial habits can reduce the frequency of temptation conflicts, allowing a person to pursue an objective with less momentary resistance. In six studies involving 2,274 participants, Galla and Duckworth (2015) found evidence that beneficial routines help explain associations between trait self-control and positive outcomes in domains including studying and sleep.

Habit formation, self-control, and self-regulation still refer to distinct processes. A repeated cue-driven action may be automatic even when it undermines a current goal. Regulation may involve noticing this pattern and changing circumstances; self-control may help manage conflicts while a new routine develops. Research into habits cannot be replaced by a vague instruction to be disciplined.

What Research Actually Finds

Everyday temptations are common, but conflict varies

Hofmann, Baumeister, Förster, and Vohs (2012) used experience sampling with 205 adults who provided 7,827 reports of desire episodes over a week. Their work distinguished the occurrence of desire, conflict with other goals, resistance, and actual behavior. Desires were frequent and varied in strength, but many did not create serious conflict. Resistance was more relevant when a desire collided with other priorities.

This matters because an urge is not itself proof of failed self-control. The significance depends on the relationship between the urge, a valued aim, the choices available, and the eventual action. The experience-sampling design also has limits: it relies on reported experiences in a particular sample and time period, and it cannot explain every causal mechanism.

People with stronger self-control may experience fewer conflicts

A series of studies by Galla and Duckworth (2015) found that participants reporting greater trait self-control often had more stable beneficial habits and less need for effortful inhibition in routine goal-directed behavior. The program included cross-sectional and prospective work, including links between habits and educational outcomes. These results suggest that self-control can operate through structuring daily life.

A study combining everyday assessments and prospective goal outcomes reported that experiences of temptation were more strongly related to goal attainment than reported effortful resistance Milyavskaya and Inzlicht (2017). These findings challenge a simplistic image of successful people as constantly struggling harder. Observational associations, however, cannot establish that routines or low conflict are the only causes of better outcomes.

Trait measures predict outcomes, with important qualifications

A meta-analysis by de Ridder and colleagues (2012) synthesized 102 studies involving 32,648 participants on the relationship between dispositional self-control and behavior. The body of evidence supports associations with outcomes across several domains. The meaning and strength of particular associations depend on measurement, population, behavioral domain, and potential confounding.

A trait questionnaire measures a general pattern as reported by a person or informant. It does not diagnose a disorder or explain exactly why an individual behaves differently on a particular day. Stable circumstances, goals, and opportunities can influence observed behavior alongside dispositional tendencies.

Monitoring progress can support self-regulation

A meta-analysis of experimental studies by Harkin and colleagues (2016) evaluated whether interventions increasing goal-progress monitoring improve subsequent behavior and goal attainment. It found evidence that monitoring can help, with variation across interventions and settings. Tracking provides information that can guide adjustment even when the person faces no acute impulse conflict.

Monitoring can be useful while still becoming counterproductive if it is excessive, disconnected from a meaningful goal, or poorly suited to the situation. The evidence concerns particular monitoring interventions and outcomes; it is not a guarantee that continually measuring every aspect of life improves well-being.

The simple willpower-as-fuel model remains disputed

Popular accounts sometimes describe self-control as a reservoir automatically depleted whenever a person exerts effort. A large preregistered replication by Hagger and colleagues (2016) included 23 laboratories and 2,141 participants. The estimated ego-depletion effect was small, with a confidence interval including zero. These results challenge strong universal versions of the resource model and the assumption that every act of inhibition uses a fixed common supply.

Fatigue, stress, sleep, incentives, and demanding circumstances can still affect behavior through multiple processes. The absence of robust support for one resource model should not be misread as evidence that circumstances never alter self-control. The distinction between self-control and self-regulation can be understood without relying on a finite-energy metaphor.

How Self-Control and Self-Regulation Are Measured

Self-control research uses personality scales, delay-of-gratification tasks, inhibition tasks, other cognitive measures, and naturalistic observations. Self-regulation research also examines goal setting, progress monitoring, behavioral adjustment, emotion regulation, task adherence, and changes in performance. A shared label does not make all instruments equivalent.

In a meta-analysis of 282 samples with 33,564 participants, Duckworth and Kern (2011) found moderate overall convergence among self-control measures, with considerable heterogeneity. Their results also indicated comparatively weak convergence for executive-function tasks. A single task score therefore provides incomplete information about everyday goal pursuit.

Time scale matters. A laboratory test may last minutes; a diary captures daily fluctuations; a school outcome develops across a semester; a habit may emerge through repeated contextual learning. Studies must be interpreted within their measures and designs. Self-report is additionally shaped by insight, recall, social expectations, and differing interpretations of words such as discipline or control.

Longitudinal observations can improve understanding of sequences and predictors, although they do not eliminate confounding. Randomized interventions can strengthen causal conclusions about particular strategies when well designed. Neither design automatically licenses broad claims about a stable psychological capacity in every setting.

Individual Differences and Environmental Context

People differ in how they approach goals, experience rewards, manage attention, cope with emotion, and respond to demands. Their behavior also changes with task characteristics and environment. A quiet space, predictable schedule, supportive colleague, accessible tools, and enough time can lower the number of conflicts that require intense resistance. Resource constraints can make otherwise sensible plans hard to execute.

Development matters as well. Executive and regulatory processes change through childhood and adolescence and continue to function differently across adulthood depending on context and health. Stress and insufficient sleep can impair aspects of executive performance, as discussed in Diamond's (2013) review. Caregiving demands, shift work, economic pressure, and disability-related barriers affect what strategies can realistically be used.

It is scientifically misleading to treat every observable difference in follow-through as a direct measurement of virtue, character, or effort. A careful explanation considers motivation, opportunity, learning history, fatigue, competing responsibilities, and the particular regulation mechanism involved.

Clinical and Psychological Boundaries

Neither self-control nor self-regulation is itself a clinical diagnosis. Occasional distraction, emotional reactivity, difficulty starting tasks, or an impulsive purchase can be ordinary experiences. A psychiatric diagnosis requires consideration of a recognized symptom pattern, history, duration, severity, functional impairment, context, and relevant clinical criteria.

ADHD can involve difficulties with attention, inhibition, task organization, or other aspects of executive functioning. Depression can affect energy, reward experience, interest, and task initiation. Anxiety, obsessive-compulsive conditions, and other disorders may involve avoidance, distress, repetitive patterns, or executive demands. These experiences must be evaluated in their own clinical contexts. Low motivation alone does not establish depression, procrastination alone does not establish ADHD, and a self-control questionnaire cannot diagnose either disorder.

Clinical treatments and structured interventions sometimes target specific regulatory processes such as planning, behavioral activation, or emotion management. Evidence for one population, mechanism, or intervention should not be generalized to all problems called poor self-control. If difficulties are persistent, distressing, or impair major areas of functioning, an appropriate professional assessment can clarify causes and supports.

Practical Implications of the Comparison

A useful first question is what kind of difficulty is occurring. If a goal is poorly defined, the issue may concern goal selection. If progress is uncertain, monitoring and feedback may be central. If an immediately attractive alternative repeatedly interferes with a valued aim, situational self-control strategies deserve consideration. If behavior unfolds automatically in response to recurring cues, habit processes may be particularly relevant.

Take someone who misses several study sessions. A problem could arise from inadequate planning, confusing materials, insufficient sleep, emotional avoidance, a compelling social invitation, or an established scrolling routine. These mechanisms suggest different interventions. Treating every failure as too little willpower can lead to repeating an ineffective strategy instead of changing the conditions that generate the problem.

The evidence supports examining timing, context, and the demands of the task, while avoiding guarantees of transformation. Detailed intervention techniques are addressed in the separate published article How to Improve Self-Control: Evidence-Based Strategies, which owns the practical how-to search intent within EN-27.

Common Misconceptions

"Self-regulation is just another word for willpower"

Self-regulation includes defining standards, tracking progress, interpreting feedback, adapting strategies, and regulating emotion or attention. Some of these activities involve effort, but they are not adequately explained by a willpower metaphor. Scientific models identify several mechanisms, and the limited-resource account of ego depletion remains contested.

"Real self-control means resisting temptation constantly"

Successful self-control may involve avoiding a cue, modifying a situation, building a habit, or selecting a different context before temptation develops. Research on situational strategies and helpful routines shows why the intensity of subjective struggle is a poor universal measure of self-control Duckworth, Gendler, and Gross (2016); Galla and Duckworth (2015).

"More self-control is always the right solution"

Some difficulties are better understood as unclear goals, unrealistic schedules, conflicting responsibilities, emotional distress, poor opportunity, or unsuitable environments. Effective self-regulation can include modifying or disengaging from a goal that no longer fits. More resistance in the moment is not necessarily the most adaptive response.

"Self-control difficulties prove a mental disorder"

Neither a single lapse nor a low questionnaire score can establish a psychiatric diagnosis. Clinical evaluation is based on a pattern of symptoms and impairment considered in context. Psychological constructs are tools for understanding behavior, not shortcuts to diagnosing individuals.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is self-control a type of self-regulation?

In many influential models, yes: self-control is treated as a specialized aspect of goal-directed regulation that concerns competing impulses or motives. Other researchers use the terms more broadly. The correct reading of a scientific claim depends on its stated definition and measurement.

Can a person have good self-regulation but weak self-control?

Someone may monitor goals and adjust plans competently yet struggle with a particular temptation. Another person may resist momentary impulses while failing to plan or evaluate progress. The difference depends on what capacities the study or example actually measures, because these constructs are multidimensional.

Is emotional regulation the same as self-regulation?

Emotion regulation concerns influencing emotional experience and expression. It can be considered a domain within broader self-regulation, which also includes behavior, attention, and goal management. Emotion regulation overlaps with self-control when a strong emotional impulse conflicts with another valued course of action.

How does impulse control relate to self-control?

Impulse inhibition is a mechanism often involved in self-control. Contemporary self-control models also include early situational decisions, attention, appraisals, and advance planning. The scope of impulse control may therefore be narrower, depending on the theoretical and clinical context.

Is self-discipline different from self-regulation?

Self-discipline commonly describes sustained adherence to an intended course, emphasizing consistency or persistence. Self-regulation is a broader scientific framework addressing how standards are selected, monitored, and revised. Specific questionnaires may operationalize the terms differently.

Which matters more for achieving goals?

Goal attainment depends on the relevant obstacle. A poorly specified goal may need planning and feedback; a persistent temptation conflict may need situational self-control; an automatic response may require changes in cues and routines. No universal ranking can be inferred from the current research.

Can self-regulation happen without self-control?

Yes, in frameworks defining self-control through motivational conflict. Reviewing progress, shifting a plan, or choosing a new goal can occur without a compelling competing impulse. In broader definitions of self-control, some of these activities may be classified under both terms.

Can self-control improve without more effort?

It may improve in a specific domain when conditions reduce unnecessary conflicts or beneficial habits make an action easier. This does not promise improvement across every context. Generalization and long-term durability must be established for the particular intervention and outcome.

Is willpower scientifically proven to run out?

The simple fixed-resource interpretation remains disputed, particularly after large preregistered replication work. Difficulty after effort is a real possible experience, but it can reflect several mechanisms rather than an objectively measured reservoir of willpower.

Does having ADHD mean poor self-control?

ADHD is a defined neurodevelopmental diagnosis requiring appropriate assessment. Some associated difficulties may involve inhibition, attention, planning, or emotion regulation. Neither ADHD nor ordinary self-control can be inferred from a single behavior or score, and the terms are not synonymous.

Conclusion

Self-control and self-regulation are connected but conceptually distinguishable. Self-regulation concerns the larger process of maintaining goals and standards through monitoring, feedback, adjustment, and coordination of behavior and emotion. Self-control becomes especially relevant when immediately attractive motives conflict with another valued aim; it may rely on advance planning, situation selection, habits, attentional change, or direct resistance. Research continues to refine these definitions, and differences in measures and context remain central to interpreting findings. A precise explanation begins by identifying the particular process being investigated rather than assuming that all forms of goal-directed action measure the same psychological capacity.

Related Articles

Motivation, Habits, and Self-Control: Psychology of Behavior Change — the central EN-27 guide to motivation, habits, and behavior change.

What Is Self-Control? Psychology, Mechanisms, and Examples — foundational definitions and mechanisms in greater detail.

How to Improve Self-Control: Evidence-Based Strategies — evidence-based methods for changing everyday behavior.

High vs Low Conscientiousness: Organization, Self-Control, and Flexibility — how these patterns relate to personality.

Motivation in the Age of AI: Effort, Goals, Self-Efficacy, and Human Agency — a distinct discussion of goals in AI-mediated environments.

For the environmental and timing mechanisms behind proactive control, see Situational Self-Control: How Environment and Timing Shape Choices.

References

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for personality–social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92(1), 111–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.92.1.111

de Ridder, D. T. D., Lensvelt-Mulders, G., Finkenauer, C., Stok, F. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2012). Taking stock of self-control: A meta-analysis of how trait self-control relates to a wide range of behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(1), 76–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311418749

Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750

Duckworth, A. L., Gendler, T. S., & Gross, J. J. (2016). Situational strategies for self-control. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(1), 35–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615623247

Duckworth, A. L., & Kern, M. L. (2011). A meta-analysis of the convergent validity of self-control measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(3), 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.02.004

Fujita, K. (2011). On conceptualizing self-control as more than the effortful inhibition of impulses. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(4), 352–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311411165

Fujita, K., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2025). Understanding self-control as a problem of regulatory scope. Psychological Review, 132(1), 50–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000501

Galla, B. M., & Duckworth, A. L. (2015). More than resisting temptation: Beneficial habits mediate the relationship between self-control and positive life outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(3), 508–525. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000026

Gillebaart, M. (2018). The ‘operational’ definition of self-control. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1231. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01231

Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271

Hagger, M. S., et al. (2016). A multilab preregistered replication of the ego-depletion effect. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(4), 546–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616652873

Harkin, B., et al. (2016). Does monitoring goal progress promote goal attainment? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 142(2), 198–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000025

Hofmann, W., Baumeister, R. F., Förster, G., & Vohs, K. D. (2012). Everyday temptations: An experience sampling study of desire, conflict, and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1318–1335. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026545

Inzlicht, M., Werner, K. M., Briskin, J. L., & Roberts, B. W. (2021). Integrating models of self-regulation. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 319–345. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-061020-105721

Milyavskaya, M., & Inzlicht, M. (2017). What's so great about self-control? Examining the importance of effortful self-control and temptation in predicting real-life depletion and goal attainment. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(6). https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616679237

Myrseth, K. O. R., & Fishbach, A. (2009). Self-control: A function of knowing when and how to exercise restraint. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(4), 247–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01645.x

Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x