Elsevier

Personality and Individual Differences

Volume 105, 15 January 2017, Pages 326-329
Personality and Individual Differences

Short Communication
The dark side of self-control: High self-control leads to better outcomes when engaging in bad behaviors

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.005Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Self-control correlated negatively with antisocial behaviors.

  • Self-control correlated negatively with being punished for academic cheating and irresponsible driving.

  • Self-control correlated negatively with evaluations of success of verbal abuse and mate guarding.

Introduction

Self-control is the ability to change behavior in order to satisfy important values or meet long-term goals (Baumeister, Vohs, & Tice, 2007), and it is usually thought of as highly desirable. Baumeister (2012), for example, referred to it as the “moral muscle” and argues that it is “most important for helping people lead happy, successful, and useful lives” (p. 112). But is high self-control an unambiguously beneficial trait, or could there be a negative aspect to it? Perhaps the ability to delay gratification could allow people to engage effectively in selfish behaviors. The purpose of this study was to explore whether high self-control individuals who engage in antisocial behavior are more likely to accomplish their goals or avoid punishment (i.e., achieve better outcomes) than low self-control individuals.

Most researchers who study self-control argue that it is uniformly beneficial. For example, it correlates positively with agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability, and negatively with aggression (Grasmick et al., 1993, Tangney et al., 2004). Low self-control, on the other hand, is associated with antisocial behaviors, with an influential theory of criminal behavior even positing that impulsivity is an important predictor (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Although high self-control often leads to prosocial behavior, it probably does not preclude people from engaging in antisocial activities if they are beneficial to the self.

Uziel and Hefetz (2014) make precisely this argument, suggesting that self-control is morally neutral. People high in self-control are able to examine the short and long-term consequences of their behavior and choose the outcome goals that best serve their interests which allows them to then do what it takes to achieve those goals. Mischel's (1974) classic work illustrates this point. Preschoolers were given the option of eating a treat immediately or waiting in order to receive more treats later. Mischel found that there were individual differences in the ability to exercise self-control, with some better able to achieve the goal of extra treats by waiting. Not only did the high self-control preschoolers earn the desired treat, but as high school students they scored higher on a college aptitude test (the SAT) than the children who were unable to wait (Shoda, Mischel, & Peake, 1990).

Uziel and Hefetz (2014) suggest that the many positive correlations between self-control and prosocial behaviors (e.g., family cohesion and empathic concern; Tangney et al., 2004) are due to the fact that self-interest is usually best served by adhering to societal norms, which results in prosocial behavior. They found that weakening prosocial norms in a laboratory setting led to greater adherence to self-interest among high self-control individuals. Uziel and Hefetz suggest that human beings are basically selfish and that it is the internalization and/or salience of social norms that deter selfish/antisocial behavior. Thus, when social norms are of low importance to the individual, selfish/antisocial behavior is the most rewarding course of action. Because high self-control people can better determine the contingencies and act accordingly, their resulting behavior is selfish/antisocial when norm salience is low.

A logical extension of this reasoning is that high self-control individuals will engage in antisocial behaviors only when the probability of success is high (or the probability of being caught is low). This may be because high self-control people only choose to engage in the selfish/antisocial behavior under “safe” conditions, that is, situations when the agents in charge of enforcing the rules are absent or because they engage in extensive planning so as to insure success. Supporting this rationale, Jia, Khan, and Litt (2015) found that high self-control individuals had more accurate risk perceptions, while those low in self-control underestimated the likelihood of negative consequences. Similarly, participants playing a resource allocation game in which the goal was to maximize profit by either accepting or rejecting monetary offers from a partner were more likely to accept disadvantageous offers when self-control was experimentally diminished (Achtziger, Alós-Ferrer, & Wagner, 2016).

The purpose of the present research was to determine if the theory proposed by Uziel and Hefetz (2014) is supported in real world situations. To test this thinking, we hypothesized that, although high self-control individuals may be less likely to engage in illegal/antisocial activities overall, when they do engage in antisocial activities they will report better outcomes. That is, they will report evaluating their activities as more successful or state that they were less likely to get caught/punished compared to low self-control individuals. Stated differently, we predicted (1) a negative relationship between self-control and engaging in antisocial activities and (2), after controlling for participation in antisocial activities, self-control would be positively correlated with success (evaluated subjectively or by reports of not getting caught/punished).

Section snippets

Participants and procedure

Two hundred female and 91 male undergraduates from a public university in the United States participated in an online survey for course credit. Their average age was 19.3 (range, 17 to 43). White (non-Hispanic) participants comprised 54% of the sample, while African Americans were 26.8%, Hispanic/Latino/Latina were 13.4%, Asian/Pacific Islander were 2.1%, and 3.8% indicated “other” or did not respond. Treatment of participants was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the university.

Self-control

Results

The means, standard deviations, correlations, and internal consistency reliabilities of the various measures are presented in Table 1. All of the scales had internal consistency reliabilities of 0.80 or greater except for the Individual Self-Control Scale which had an adequate, but less than ideal, reliability of 0.62. The size of this reliability was probably due to the heterogeneity of the six facets of self-control measured by the scale. Because past research has shown that self-control

Discussion

The results of this study suggest that when high self-control individuals engage in activities such as reckless driving and cheating they are more successful than low self-control individuals in evading punishment. These behaviors are similar in that both go against formal societal rules and have external enforcement mechanisms (e.g., reckless driving is illegal and cheating is a violation of student conduct codes). This did not extend to successful criminal behavior, which was inconsistently

Conclusion

The current research found some support for the contention of Uziel and Hefetz (2014) that self-control leads to selfish behavior when social norms do not discourage such behavior. The link between high self-control and minor antisocial activities depends, however, on the type of behavior. With socially acceptable behaviors, high self-control is linked to success. Whether individuals who are high in self-control are successful when they engage in bad behaviors appears dependent on how those

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (20)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.
View full text