Situational Self-Control: How Environment and Timing Shape Choices
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 10, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Situational self-control is the deliberate selection or modification of circumstances so that valued actions become easier and competing impulses become less likely, less intense, or less consequential. A person who studies in a quiet room, puts a phone out of reach, schedules a difficult conversation for a calmer moment, or prepares materials before a demanding task is exercising self-control through the situation itself. The central scientific insight is that regulation can begin before an urge becomes a contest between immediate attraction and a longer-term goal.
The concept belongs to psychological research on self-control and self-regulation. In their influential process-model analysis, Duckworth, Gendler, and Gross describe situational strategies as ways of anticipating and reorganizing the physical and social conditions in which behavior unfolds. The framework helps explain why the timing of an intervention matters. It also makes room for an important qualification: effective self-control depends on the individual, the goal, the environment, and available alternatives. A 2024 review concludes that no single strategy works best across all circumstances.
For a broader perspective on the psychology of this topic, see What Is Self-Control? Psychology, Mechanisms, and Examples.
What Is Situational Self-Control?
Situational self-control refers to attempts to manage conflicts between competing goals and impulses by choosing or changing the immediate circumstances of action. The target may be an unwanted temptation, such as repeatedly checking messages while writing, or an action that requires support, such as beginning exercise, preparing medication according to a clinician's instructions, or completing a planned assignment. The person organizes opportunities, barriers, reminders, timing, or social exposure in advance.
In this literature, self-control concerns behavior guided by relatively valued goals when another response is attractive in the moment. Situational strategies operate on the opportunities and cues that help produce those responses. Choosing a library rather than a noisy café is situation selection. Silencing notifications in a chosen workspace is situation modification. Both are distinguishable from trying to suppress the urge to check a notification after it has appeared.
The term is a psychological research construct, not a clinical diagnosis or a personality category. Individuals can use situational self-control skillfully in some domains and struggle in others. Access to suitable settings, predictable schedules, transportation, privacy, money, and social support changes which strategies are possible. The multilevel account developed by Hofmann emphasizes that individual choices take place inside social and institutional environments that also shape behavior.
Why Environment and Timing Affect Choices
A choice does not begin at the instant someone presses a button, eats a snack, or starts a task. The preceding environment determines what is visible, convenient, expected, emotionally salient, and socially acceptable. An app icon on the home screen invites a different pattern of attention from the same app buried behind a deliberate sign-in process. A prepared desk supports work differently from a desk covered with unrelated objects. Neither arrangement mechanically determines behavior, but each changes the conditions under which competing actions are evaluated.
Timing matters because motivational conflict develops. A cue may draw attention; attention can increase the appeal of an immediate reward; the person may elaborate a desire; and resisting it can become increasingly demanding. The 2016 process-model paper proposes that interventions early in this sequence often prevent stronger conflicts later. This is a theoretically grounded prediction supported by some experiments, rather than a law that early strategies always outperform later ones.
The situation also affects which goal feels actionable. A nutritious meal assembled in advance reduces preparation demands when hunger is strong. A study session arranged with a peer supplies a time and social expectation. An automatic savings transfer changes the moment when spending money is available. These examples involve different mechanisms, including friction, attention, commitment, routine, and immediate reward. Treating them all as proof of one universal mechanism would oversimplify the evidence.
The Process Model: Five Families of Self-Control Strategies
Duckworth, Gendler, and Gross adapted a process perspective used in emotion regulation to classify self-control interventions according to when and where they operate. Their 2016 review describes five families. The first two directly alter situations; the remaining three influence how people attend to, interpret, and respond to a situation already encountered.
Situation Selection
Situation selection means choosing to enter or avoid an environment on the basis of its likely influence on behavior. Someone who wants to work deeply may reserve a quiet room, choose a commuting route that avoids a distracting stop, or meet a friend in a setting consistent with a shared goal. A person preparing for an examination may leave entertainment devices at home while visiting the library.
Selection requires anticipation. The person must recognize which settings repeatedly create conflict and have enough freedom to choose another. That freedom varies. A student sharing a bedroom, an employee whose phone must remain available, or a caregiver with an unpredictable schedule may be unable to avoid relevant cues. Effective advice therefore begins with the environments a person can realistically choose.
Situation Modification
Situation modification means changing features of the environment one is already in. Examples include moving the phone to another room, asking a colleague to hold nonurgent questions until a scheduled break, placing needed equipment where it can be reached, turning off nonessential alerts, or rearranging where snacks are stored.
Modification can reduce the prominence of competing actions or increase the accessibility of desired actions. It can also introduce a useful obstacle: signing out of an entertainment platform raises the number of steps needed to use it. This obstacle is an arrangement of choice conditions, not evidence of a changed personality trait.
In a series of studies involving high school and college students, Duckworth and colleagues found that students assigned to situation-modification strategies made more progress on academic goals than comparison groups assigned to response modulation or no strategy. The results support the value of modifying study conditions in the tested settings. They do not imply a guaranteed effect for every individual or task.
Attentional Deployment
Attentional deployment shifts what receives cognitive attention. Looking away from an attractive distraction, redirecting attention to an ongoing task, and focusing on a relevant cue can all change a developing impulse. Unlike situation modification, the object may remain present; the person changes the focus of attention rather than the environment itself.
Attentional tactics become relevant when avoidance is impractical. A person who cannot move away from a distracting conversation may focus on a written agenda. Such strategies can interact with situation modification: reducing notifications can make sustained attention easier, while a work plan can help attention return after interruption.
Cognitive Change
Cognitive change alters the interpretation of a tempting option or a valued task. A person may reframe an effortful activity as a step toward a meaningful goal or consider the likely consequences of an impulsive choice. The process model includes reappraisal as a later intervention than choosing or changing the situation, because the conflict is already represented in the mind.
Reappraisal is not equivalent to positive thinking. Its usefulness depends on a plausible interpretation, the person's aims, and the circumstances. A reminder that a task matters can help, but a reminder that increases shame or anxiety may interfere with action.
Response Modulation
Response modulation directly changes the expression of an impulse after it has become active. Resisting the impulse to check a phone, stopping an unplanned purchase at checkout, or interrupting an automatic reply are examples. Effortful inhibitory control is important, particularly in situations that could not be anticipated or modified.
Situational approaches expand the repertoire of self-control. Response modulation remains useful when conditions change unexpectedly, when an impulse appears despite preparation, or when a person must make a choice under pressure. The five strategies can operate together, and their ordering describes a process rather than a fixed prescription.
What Does the Evidence Actually Show?
The evidence includes theory, controlled experiments, field studies, experience sampling, correlational and longitudinal work, and broader syntheses. These methods answer somewhat different questions. Controlled studies can compare strategies in particular settings; experience sampling captures desire episodes as they occur; longitudinal studies track associations across time; reviews examine patterns and disagreements.
Experimental Evidence for Changing the Situation
In A Stitch in Time, students reported that earlier strategies seemed especially effective. More importantly, two additional studies randomly assigned students to use situation modification and found better subsequent academic goal attainment than the relevant comparison conditions. Reduced experiences of temptation partly explained the college-student finding. This provides a causal test in a concrete domain, with limits on generalization beyond the studied populations, tasks, and intervention period.
Laboratory studies also suggest that people who score higher on trait self-control are more likely to avoid distracting circumstances. Ent, Baumeister, and Tice reported both self-reported avoidance and choices favoring a less distracting work environment. These studies illuminate how stable individual differences may relate to environment selection; they do not prove that all high-scoring people use the same tactics.
Everyday Desires and the Value of Context
In an experience-sampling study, Hofmann and colleagues collected 7,827 reports of desire episodes from 205 adults over a week. Desires were common and often unproblematic. Some conflicted with other goals and elicited resistance, with varied success. The distinction matters: everyday desire is normal, and the presence of a temptation is neither a failure of character nor a clinical symptom.
A later study by Milyavskaya, Saunders, and Inzlicht recorded 4,462 desire episodes from 197 participants. Participants used a range of strategies, and using multiple strategies was associated with particularly successful resistance. Contrary to a simple hierarchy in which the earliest tactic always wins, several strategies, including inhibition, appeared similarly effective in that study. The authors also observed that strategy selection depended on the kind of desire. Such findings qualify strong claims that a single early-stage approach is universally superior.
The 2024 synthesis by Milyavskaya, Thorne, and Sullivan makes person–situation fit central: effectiveness changes with the type of temptation, the individual, and the surrounding conditions. Experience-sampling designs also face self-report limitations, differences in perceived difficulty, and uncertainty about whether strategy use causes success or accompanies it.
Habits and the Experience of Effort
Situational preparation can promote repeated behaviors in stable contexts. In six studies involving 2,274 participants, Galla and Duckworth found that stronger beneficial habits helped statistically explain associations between higher trait self-control and valued outcomes, including studying, school performance, exercise, and sleep routines. Some measures were prospective or objective, but most of the analysis was observational. Mediation in such designs should not be read as definitive causal proof.
A consistent environment can allow a behavior to become more automatic with repetition. Once starting a task is reliably linked to a particular setting or cue, less decision-making may be required on that occasion. This connection provides a bridge to habit formation, whose learning mechanisms and timescales deserve a separate treatment. Situational self-control is the choice or modification of circumstances; habit automaticity is a learned tendency to act in response to cues. They can reinforce each other without being interchangeable.
Choice Architecture and Institutional Environments
Environmental effects extend beyond self-designed workspaces. Choice architecture concerns how available options are arranged: their prominence, default status, proximity, wording, or ordering. A meta-analysis by Mertens and colleagues examined more than 200 studies of choice architecture interventions and found average behavioral effects, with substantial variation by intervention and domain. Its results also raised publication-bias concerns. Average effects across varied interventions cannot be transferred to an individual decision or used to promise a particular result.
Hofmann's multilevel analysis extends the discussion to schools, workplaces, markets, housing, technology design, and social norms. An individual may change a desk arrangement but have little influence over insecure employment, long working hours, or an attention-capturing digital platform. Understanding situational self-control therefore requires studying both personal agency and environmental constraints.
Mechanisms: How Changing a Situation Changes Behavior
Cues, Visibility, and Attention
Environmental cues make certain actions available in awareness. A visible phone, a food display, or a prepared notebook may all prompt an action. Moving an object or changing its visibility changes the probability of noticing it and can alter how often a decision is faced. These influences are probabilistic. Removing a cue is unlikely to erase desire altogether, and a person may seek the same activity through another route.
Friction, Convenience, and Response Costs
A small additional step can change whether an action occurs. Placing an item out of reach, requiring a password before opening a platform, or preparing exercise clothing the night before modifies the effort required for competing activities. The same mechanism can hinder desired behavior if barriers are placed carelessly. The goal is to align convenience with the person's considered preferences.
Reward, Commitment, and Timing
Many dilemmas contrast an immediate benefit with a delayed outcome. Someone may value finishing a report but experience the immediate appeal of leisure. Advance arrangements can protect a future decision from the strongest moment of temptation. A commitment device may restrict a later option or attach consequences to a choice; Bryan, Karlan, and Nelson review evidence on both hard and soft commitment mechanisms.
In a field experiment, Milkman, Minson, and Volpp tested pairing enjoyable audiobooks with gym attendance. Some intervention conditions initially increased visits, while effects declined over time. This illustrates how a situation can be designed to make a beneficial activity more immediately attractive, with sustainability remaining a distinct question.
Social Expectations and Accountability
The presence of another person changes the expected consequences of action. A planned study session, agreed check-in, or shared workspace may support goal pursuit by making the next action easier to initiate and more socially salient. Social support works best when expectations are voluntary, clear, and compatible with the relationship. Public accountability, financial penalties, or surveillance can also create pressure and have unwanted consequences.
If–Then Planning and Implementation Intentions
An implementation intention links a recognizable condition to an intended response: “If my study session begins, I will place my phone in my bag and open my reading notes.” A meta-analysis by Gollwitzer and Sheeran38002-1) found positive effects on goal attainment across a large set of studies. The mechanism includes making the anticipated cue easier to notice and the planned response more accessible.
Such planning complements situational selection or modification. An if–then plan specifies when to perform the environmental adjustment; the adjustment itself changes the later decision setting. An implementation intention may also target behavior directly, without changing the environment, so the two constructs remain distinct.
Situational Self-Control Versus Willpower, Self-Regulation, and Habits
Willpower is a popular label for deliberate resistance or persistence. In research, it often refers to effortful control, whereas situational self-control can occur before strong effort is needed. A person who makes a distraction inaccessible may exert forethought without experiencing prolonged internal struggle. The Beyond Willpower review explicitly discusses strategies that operate through circumstances and cognition.
Self-regulation is broader: it encompasses setting goals, monitoring progress, responding to feedback, coordinating emotions and behavior, and adjusting plans over time. Situational self-control is a set of strategies used within that larger process, especially when a valued course of action conflicts with a more immediately attractive one. Inhibitory control refers more specifically to suppressing or stopping a response. These concepts overlap in practice but answer different scientific questions.
A habit is a learned tendency to repeat behavior in response to a familiar context. A routine is an organized pattern that may or may not be automatic. Placing a phone outside the room tonight is situation modification; doing so before every study session may become part of a routine; and eventually beginning work in a particular room may acquire some automaticity. Calling every environmental intervention a habit would lose the distinction between an intentional setup and learned repetition.
Trait self-control describes relatively consistent individual differences across contexts, commonly measured through questionnaires. The presence of a helpful strategy on one day does not establish someone's trait level. Conversely, people with stronger trait self-control may partly achieve their outcomes by arranging contexts that generate fewer conflicts. The research does not reduce either construct to a single score or behavior.
Applying Situational Self-Control to Everyday Activities
Focused Work and Studying
For sustained work, first identify predictable interruptions. A practical experiment might involve choosing a time and location with fewer interruptions, moving notifications off the work device, preparing the first task before the session, and telling collaborators when messages will be reviewed. Each adjustment addresses a separate source of conflict. The objective is an environment that supports a clear next action rather than a demand for uninterrupted concentration for an arbitrary number of hours.
Measure a relevant outcome, such as time spent on the target task or completion of planned work. A meta-analysis on progress monitoring supports monitoring as a goal-pursuit technique, but the form of measurement should remain proportionate and useful. If an intervention makes work more stressful without improving progress, revise it.
Digital Distractions
Smartphones, notifications, social feeds, and recommendation systems are designed to be available repeatedly. Users can alter some conditions through notification schedules, home-screen placement, app limits, device location, or distinct work and leisure profiles. A change that removes a trigger may reduce how often a deliberate resistance decision becomes necessary.
Digital self-control requires attention to legitimate needs. A caregiver, emergency responder, or employee may need incoming contact. Instead of assuming that total disconnection is feasible, preserve essential channels and restrict only optional interruptions. The psychology of compulsive scrolling, platform design, and human–AI interaction also has domain-specific mechanisms beyond this general account of situational strategies.
Eating and Food Choices
Environment management can include planning meals, arranging appealing accessible options, and reducing repeated exposure to cues that conflict with a personal eating goal. Research on choice architecture shows that arrangement can influence behavior, but effects vary and food choices also depend on economics, culture, health, access, and social context. A person's ability to shop, store, or prepare food should be considered before suggesting a plan.
Food-related recommendations must remain supportive and flexible. Strict avoidance rules, punitive restrictions, or obsessive environmental monitoring can be inappropriate, particularly for someone with an eating disorder or a history of disordered eating. Clinical nutrition and eating-disorder care belong to specialized healthcare guidance, not a generic self-control template.
Physical Activity and Daily Routines
A planned route, prepared shoes, an agreed meeting time, and convenient access to facilities can make activity initiation easier. Matching exercise to an enjoyable experience may also change its immediate appeal. The temptation-bundling experiment supports this approach in the setting studied, while showing that initial improvements can fade.
Sustainable routines depend on the health, schedule, mobility, preferences, and practical resources of the individual. If the environment is consistently incompatible with the plan, redesigning the activity may be more useful than repeatedly setting the same unrealistic goal.
Spending and Online Purchasing
Situational strategies include removing saved payment information, placing purchases on a planned review schedule, using voluntary budget boundaries, and changing how shopping promotions are encountered. These arrangements introduce time for reflection before a purchase and can reduce exposure to immediate appeals.
More restrictive financial commitment devices carry real risks, including penalties, loss of flexibility, and reduced access to necessary funds. The level of constraint should fit a person's circumstances and remain reversible when essential needs arise. The empirical literature supports investigating commitment mechanisms, not treating costly restrictions as an automatic solution.
Social Behavior, Conflict, and Emotion
A person may decide to discuss a sensitive issue when both participants are rested, choose a private setting, or postpone a reply until a calmer time. These choices can influence emotional activation and the likelihood of unhelpful responses. Situation selection and modification originated partly in frameworks that also study emotion regulation.
In relationships, appropriate self-control must coexist with consent, safety, and mutual respect. Managing one's own exposure to conflict is different from controlling another person's movements, communication, or access to support. Strategies that strengthen personal choice should not become tools of coercion.
A Practical Method for Designing Your Environment
Begin with a specific recurring conflict. “I keep opening entertainment sites during a planned writing session” is more actionable than “I lack discipline.” Identify the relevant cue, the moment it appears, the immediately attractive response, and the longer-term action you would prefer. Observe a few occasions before changing anything when this can be done without delaying an urgent need.
Next, decide which stage of the process you can influence. Can you choose a different setting before the cue appears? Can you modify the current setting by moving an object or changing an alert? Would an if–then plan help make the adjustment at a dependable time? If the environment cannot be altered, an attentional or response-level strategy may be more realistic.
Choose one or two reversible changes with low cost. For example, place your phone outside the workspace for a prearranged 30-minute period while allowing important calls through another channel. Write down the task that will begin at the start of that period. Specify how you will know whether the experiment helped: completed pages, minutes of meaningful work, or fewer unplanned interruptions.
Review the outcome over several repetitions. Did the change reduce temptation, improve task initiation, or merely shift the distraction elsewhere? Did it create social, emotional, financial, or practical costs? Modify the strategy to fit the actual environment. A plan that requires constant monitoring and produces persistent stress may be poorly designed even when it occasionally works.
Finally, distinguish environmental support from changes in underlying skill or health. Making a setting easier is useful in its own right. It need not prove that a person has become more disciplined, acquired a stable habit, or resolved a clinical difficulty.
When Situational Strategies Are Less Effective
The most obvious limit is lack of control over circumstances. Noise, caregiving demands, housing instability, work obligations, disabilities, financial insecurity, safety constraints, and digital systems designed by other parties can make recommended changes difficult. Advice that ignores these conditions overstates individual agency and can unfairly attribute structural obstacles to personal choices.
Another limit is displacement. Removing one source of entertainment may lead a person to seek another. Avoiding all uncomfortable situations can also interfere with learning, relationships, or valued participation. For people dealing with clinical anxiety or obsessive-compulsive symptoms, rigid avoidance or ritualized environmental control may maintain difficulties; specialized assessment and treatment planning are important when impairment is substantial.
Situational strategies may also lose effectiveness as routines change. A setting that supports attention today might be exhausting tomorrow. People differ in sensory preferences, task demands, access needs, and the emotional meaning of cues. Recent strategic self-control scholarship stresses that effectiveness depends on matching techniques to person and situation, rather than enforcing one preferred tactic.
Ethics matter at the institutional level. Defaults and environmental arrangements can help people achieve their own goals, but the same techniques can shape decisions toward the interests of a platform, employer, or marketer. Transparent choice architecture should preserve informed agency, reasonable alternatives, and awareness of whose objectives are being served.
What Situational Self-Control Can and Cannot Explain Clinically
Difficulty organizing an environment or resisting a distraction is common and does not establish ADHD, depression, an anxiety disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, or another diagnosis. Executive-function difficulties, impaired concentration, loss of interest, severe avoidance, or compulsive patterns require consideration of severity, duration, context, developmental history, functional impairment, and other clinical information.
People with ADHD may experience persistent challenges involving attention regulation, impulsivity, and task initiation, for which environmental accommodations may be one useful part of a wider individualized approach. In depression, low energy, anhedonia, and impaired functioning can alter what is feasible; ordinary motivational advice may be insufficient. In anxiety-related difficulties, avoiding situations may feel helpful immediately while interfering with longer-term recovery. These areas have their own evidence bases and clinical guidance.
Situational strategies are practical tools for navigating ordinary behavioral conflicts, and they can also be components of professional support. They do not replace assessment or treatment when significant impairment is present. A useful response to repeated difficulties is to examine both external conditions and possible health-related explanations without inferring diagnosis from a single pattern.
What Researchers Still Need to Establish
The process model offers a coherent way to study when interventions are deployed, but empirical comparisons of all five strategy families remain relatively limited. It is difficult to compare them fairly because people use strategies in different situations and may choose a tactic precisely when temptation is unusually strong. Self-reports of strategy use and success can be influenced by memory, interpretation, and social desirability.
Researchers also need more diverse populations and settings, better objective behavioral outcomes, longer follow-up periods, and studies of strategy combinations. An intervention that works for a semester may not endure across a major life transition. Results for students studying or adults navigating food choices cannot automatically be generalized to complex relationship conflicts or chronic clinical conditions.
Another unresolved issue concerns who can change a setting. Opportunities depend on institutional design and material resources. The 2024 multilevel perspective helps frame questions about inequality, social norms, and environmental constraints. Future work can test the relative contribution of individual strategy skills and changes made by organizations or policymakers.
The strongest conclusion is practical and bounded: self-control frequently involves selecting and shaping conditions of action, and experiments support situational approaches in several meaningful contexts. The evidence also shows variation, competing strategies, and limitations on generalization. The most useful approach is to select a plausible intervention, observe its effects, and adapt it to the goal and circumstances.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is situational self-control the same as avoiding temptation?
Avoiding temptation through situation selection is one form of situational self-control. Changing the current environment is another. The broader process model also includes attentional deployment, cognitive change, and response modulation. Avoidance can be useful when it protects a chosen goal; its appropriateness depends on what is being avoided and why.
Does environmental design work better than willpower?
Studies such as Duckworth and colleagues' student experiments provide evidence that situation modification can outperform certain comparison strategies in specific academic settings. Other experience-sampling research finds several strategies similarly effective. The claim that environmental design always beats willpower goes beyond available evidence.
Why does changing the timing of a decision help?
A change made before a cue or strong urge appears may reduce the likelihood or intensity of a later conflict. Scheduling an action at a suitable time can also improve preparation and reduce competing demands. Timing changes work by modifying conditions, not through a universally optimal hour of the day.
Can situational self-control become automatic?
Repeated use of a strategy in a stable context may help establish a routine, while a desired behavior may also develop greater habit automaticity. The transition is variable and depends on repetition and cues. Situational planning and automatic habit formation remain different constructs.
Is putting my phone in another room a self-control strategy?
Yes. Deliberately moving the phone changes access to a distraction and is a clear example of situation modification. Its usefulness depends on your task, essential communication needs, and whether other distractions take its place.
Are if–then plans and commitment devices situational self-control?
They can support situational self-control but are broader techniques. An if–then plan may specify a future environmental change or a direct action. A commitment device changes later choice conditions, sometimes by imposing costs or limiting access. Its suitability depends on voluntariness, reversibility, and practical consequences.
Does poor situational self-control mean I have ADHD or depression?
No. An isolated difficulty managing distractions or preparing an environment is not a diagnosis. Persistent impairment across situations may justify assessment, especially when accompanied by other symptoms. Clinical evaluation considers the full pattern rather than a single everyday behavior.
Can an environment make self-control effortless?
Well-designed conditions may reduce how much moment-to-moment resistance is needed. “Effortless” in this research is relative and context-dependent. Anticipating a problem, arranging a setting, and maintaining routines may still require time and effort, and desired behavior can remain difficult for legitimate reasons.
Related Articles
For the broader conceptual foundation, read Motivation, Habits, and Self-Control: Psychology of Behavior Change and What Is Self-Control? Psychology, Mechanisms, and Examples. For methods and nearby constructs, see How to Improve Self-Control: Evidence-Based Strategies, Self-Control vs. Self-Regulation: Differences and Connections, Delay of Gratification: Psychology, Context, and Future Outcomes, and Ego Depletion: What Replication Studies Reveal About Willpower.
References
Adriaanse, M. A., Kroese, F. M., Gillebaart, M., & de Ridder, D. T. D. (2014). Effortless inhibition: Habit mediates the relation between self-control and unhealthy snack consumption. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 444. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00444
Bryan, G., Karlan, D., & Nelson, S. (2010). Commitment devices. Annual Review of Economics, 2, 671–698. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.economics.102308.124324
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., Milkman, K. L., & Laibson, D. (2018). Beyond willpower: Strategies for reducing failures of self-control. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(3), 102–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618821893
Duckworth, A. L., White, R. E., Matteucci, A. J., Shearer, A., & Gross, J. J. (2016). A stitch in time: Strategic self-control in high school and college students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000062
Ent, M. R., Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (2015). Trait self-control and the avoidance of temptation. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 12–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.031
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
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-138002-1)
Harkin, B., Webb, T. L., Chang, B. P. I., Prestwich, A., Conner, M., Kellar, I., Benn, Y., & Sheeran, P. (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. (2024). Going beyond the individual level in self-control research. Nature Reviews Psychology, 3, 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-023-00256-y
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
Mertens, S., Herberz, M., Hahnel, U. J. J., & Brosch, T. (2022). The effectiveness of nudging: A meta-analysis of choice architecture interventions across behavioral domains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(1), e2107346118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2107346118
Milkman, K. L., Minson, J. A., & Volpp, K. G. M. (2014). Holding the Hunger Games hostage at the gym: An evaluation of temptation bundling. Management Science, 60(2), 283–299. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2013.1784
Milyavskaya, M., Saunders, B., & Inzlicht, M. (2021). Self-control in daily life: Prevalence and effectiveness of diverse self-control strategies. Journal of Personality, 89(4), 634–651. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12604
Milyavskaya, M., Thorne, T., & Sullivan, M. (2024). From willpower to strategies: Existing insights and outstanding issues in self-control strategy use in daily life. Current Opinion in Psychology, 59, 101876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101876