Engaging in Self-Regulation Results in Low-Level Construals. Sabrina D. Bruyneel a and Siegfried Dewitte b

Transcription

1 Paper published in European Journal of Social Psychology Bruyneel, S.D., & Dewitte, S. (2012). Engaging in self-regulation results in low-level construals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, DOI: /ejsp.1896 Engaging in Self-Regulation Results in Low-Level Construals Sabrina D. Bruyneel a and Siegfried Dewitte b a Corresponding author. Sabrina D. Bruyneel, Research Center for Marketing and Consumer Science, KU Leuven, Naamsestraat 69, 3000 Leuven, Belgium, address: sabrina.bruyneel@kuleuven.be, Tel.: , Fax: b Siegfried Dewitte, Research Center for Marketing and Consumer Science, KU Leuven

2 SELF-REGULATION AND CONSTRUAL-LEVEL 2 Acknowledgements This article is based on the first author s dissertation under the guidance of the second. Financial support by a KU Leuven university grant (OT/03/07 and OT/07/13), the National Science Foundation (G and G ), and Censydiam-Synovate are gratefully acknowledged. We gratefully acknowledge the detailed feedback from all members of the dissertation committee: Marnik Dekimpe, Kathleen Vohs, Luk Warlop (co-chair of the committee), and Klaus Wertenbroch. We also thank Uzma Khan and all members of the consumer behavior group at the KU Leuven for helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

3 SELF-REGULATION AND CONSTRUAL-LEVEL 3 Abstract Previous research has suggested that self-regulation results in low-level construals, but has inferred construal levels after self-regulation only indirectly, through construal-dependent judgments and choices. In the present paper we demonstrate a direct link between engaging in self-regulation and low-level construals, by manipulating self-regulation and subsequently assessing construal levels using wellestablished and straightforward measures of construal level in three studies. Participants who engaged in self-regulation subsequently provided lower egocentric spatial distance estimates (Studies 1A and 1B), formed more groups when categorizing objects (Study 2), and used more concrete language when describing cartoon main characters behavior (Study 3) than participants who did not engage in self-regulation. These findings provide direct evidence that low-level construals result from engaging in self-regulation. Keywords: self-regulation, self-control, depletion, construal-level

4 SELF-REGULATION AND CONSTRUAL-LEVEL 4 Engaging in Self-Regulation Results in Low-Level Construals The capacity to self-regulate is an important feature of human nature. We define self-regulation as the self s capacity to alter its own habitual or unwanted responses with the goal of implementing more desirable responses. Through selfregulation, people are able to regulate their thoughts, control their emotions, alter their performance, and/or inhibit their impulses (cf. Vohs & Baumeister, 2004). Consider for instance Sue, who is attending mass and tries very hard not to laugh out loud while thinking about a funny experience she had earlier that morning. It can be said that Sue is engaging in self-regulation at that moment. The focus of the present paper will be on these types of self-regulatory issues. Although self-regulation has been shown to be of significant importance for achieving success in life (e.g., Mischel, Shoda, & Peake, 1988), self-regulatory breakdowns are observed quite frequently (e.g., Carver & Scheier, 1996). Hence, it should come as no surprise that self-regulation has received a lot of theoretical and empirical attention in social psychology and related fields over the last couple of decades (see e.g., de Ridder, Lensvelt-Mulders, Finkenauer, Stok, & Baumeister, 2012, for a recent review concerning the link between trait self-regulation and behavior). According to the self-regulatory strength model, which is a prominent model in psychology (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000), self-regulation taxes a limited self-regulatory resource that is akin to energy or strength and thus brings people into a state of resource depletion. This state reduces people s capacity to self-regulate in the period following their previous self-regulatory effort. The aim of the present paper is to contribute to the literature on self-regulation and self-regulatory resource depletion by providing more insight into the

5 SELF-REGULATION AND CONSTRUAL-LEVEL 5 psychological processes underlying self-regulation. Specifically, we intend to demonstrate in a series of studies that engaging in self-regulation results in the adoption of low-level construals. First, we review the relevant literature to deduct the hypothesis that engaging in self-regulation induces low-level construals. We move on to demonstrating this causal link between engaging in self-regulation and low-level construals in three studies. In the final section, we offer a summary of our findings and we end with some concluding remarks. Self-Regulation and Self-Regulatory Resource Depletion All acts of self-regulation have been argued to draw on a common limited resource that is akin to energy or strength, leading to the straightforward prediction that self-regulation will be followed by a period of diminished capacity to engage in subsequent self-regulation before the resource builds up again (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998; Muraven, Tice, & Baumeister, 1998). In the past decade, dozens of studies have documented this so-called ego depletion effect. These studies typically use a two-task paradigm requiring participants to engage in selfregulation first and then perform a subsequent, seemingly unrelated task that also requires self-regulation. The recurring observation is that self-regulation in the first phase reduces self-regulatory performance in the second phase of the study (see Hagger, Wood, Stiff, & Chatzisarantis, 2010, for a recent meta-analysis). Researchers have demonstrated self-regulatory resource depletion in diverse circumstances. For instance, regulating one's emotions or suppressing forbidden thoughts induced people soon afterwards to show impaired physical stamina or to give up quickly at unsolvable anagrams (Muraven et al., 1998). Related, inhibiting dominant responses in a taxing Stroop task weakened performance at a puzzle tracing

6 SELF-REGULATION AND CONSTRUAL-LEVEL 6 task later on (Wallace & Baumeister, 2002). Amongst other findings, researchers also showed that coping with experimentally activated stigma impaired stigmatized participants subsequent attentional and physical self-regulation (Inzlicht, McKay, & Aronson, 2006). Also perspective taking was shown to involve active self-regulation as the effects of perspective taking on prosocial behavior (i.e., complying with requests for help) were more pronounced when self-regulatory resources were high (Fennis, 2011). Several attempts have been made to gain insight in psychological processes underlying these depletion effects. For instance, the depletion effect was found to be statistically mediated by elongated time perception after initial self-regulation (Vohs & Schmeichel, 2003). Also neural processes underlying self-regulatory failure have been studied, and it was found that depletion was mediated by reduced activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, suggesting that initial self-regulatory exertion constrains the conflict-monitoring system in the brain (Inzlicht & Gutsell, 2007). Self-regulation has also been argued to rely on an actual energy resource, that is, blood glucose (Gailliot et al., 2007). Specifically, self-regulation was found to require significant amounts of glucose and to be impaired when the supply of glucose is limited. Other moderators found to neutralize or even reverse depletion effects in some cases include naive theories or expectancies about the consequences of self-regulation (Martijn, Tenbult, Merckelbach, Dreezens, & de Vries, 2002; Job, Dweck, & Walton, 2010), perceived rather than actual depletion (Clarkson, Hirt, Jia, & Alexander, 2010), motivation to perform (Muraven & Slessareva, 2003), implementation intentions (Webb & Sheeran, 2003), persistence primes (Alberts, Martijn, Greb, Merckelbach, & de Vries, 2007; Martijn, Alberts, Merckelbach, Havermans, Huijts, & de Vries, 2007), positive affect (Tice, Baumeister, Shmueli, & Muraven, 2007), self-awareness (Alberts, Martijn, &

7 SELF-REGULATION AND CONSTRUAL-LEVEL 7 de Vries, 2011), self-monitoring (Wan & Sternthal, 2008), engaging in multiple (compared to one) initial self-regulatory tasks (Converse & DeShon, 2009), selfaffirmation (Schmeichel & Vohs, 2009), similarity of sequential self-regulatory response conflicts (Dewitte, Bruyneel, & Geyskens, 2009), and mental construal levels (Agrawal & Wan, 2009). In the present paper, we want to add to the literature providing insights into the psychological processes that result from engaging in self-regulation. Specifically, we will build upon previous findings suggesting that engaging in self-regulation elicits relatively low levels of mental construal (Wan & Agrawal, 2011). Contrary to these previous findings demonstrating a link between engaging in self-regulation and construal levels in an indirect way however, we intend to show in a direct manner that there exists an after-effect of self-regulation on levels of mental construal, using wellestablished and straightforward construal level measures assessed immediately after acts of self-regulation. Potential implications for depletion will be discussed. Self-Regulation and Low Levels of Mental Construal Recently, it has been suggested that engaging in self-regulation induces lowlevel construals (Wan & Agrawal, 2011). High-level construals capture global, superordinate, primary features of a situation or action (e.g., thinking about why an action should be done), whereas low-level construals capture local, subordinate, secondary features of a situation or action (e.g., thinking about how an action should be done; cf. Trope & Liberman, 2003; 2010). In several experiments, Wan and Agrawal (2011) asked participants to either or not engage in self-regulation, and subsequently provided them with a judgment or choice task involving decision options that varied in features associated with higher

8 SELF-REGULATION AND CONSTRUAL-LEVEL 8 versus lower construal levels. They consistently observed an increased preference for decision options with attractive lower level features after a self-regulatory task compared to a neutral task. In one study for instance, self-regulation was manipulated by asking participants to make various active product choices, which has been shown to consume self-regulatory resources (i.e., self-regulation condition; Bruyneel, Dewitte, Vohs, & Warlop, 2006; Vohs, Baumeister, Schmeichel, Twenge, Nelson, & Tice, 2008) or to rate the same products on past usage without making active choices (i.e., no self-regulation condition). Subsequently, participants rated their likelihood of eating at a restaurant that offered either great food but not much of a view or a great view but mediocre food. Food quality was taken to be a primary feature for restaurant choice (i.e., food is a defining element for restaurants), whereas having a view was taken to be a secondary feature (i.e., having a view is optional for restaurants). Secondary features have been argued to be more consistent with lower-level construals relative to primary features (cf. Trope & Liberman, 2003). Participants who had engaged in self-regulation in the first phase of the study indicated a greater likelihood to visit the restaurant when it offered an attractive secondary feature (i.e., a great view) than participants who had not engaged in self-regulation in the first phase of the study. In addition, participants who had engaged in self-regulation reported that the primary feature (i.e., food) was less important, while they indicated that the secondary feature (i.e., the view) was more important than participants who had not engaged in self-regulation did. These importance ratings mediated the effects of prior self-regulation on dining intentions. Hence, these findings are in line with the notion that engaging in self-regulation induces low-level construals. Wan and Agrawal (2011) showed that engaging in self-regulation influences subsequent decisions and judgments, and provided evidence suggesting that this

9 SELF-REGULATION AND CONSTRUAL-LEVEL 9 occurs because engaging in self-regulation heightens a focus on self-regulatory resources and feelings of fatigue. Because resource concerns are related to lower-level construals, this resource focus leads people to adopt lower-level construals. As a consequence, a preference for attractive lower-level construal features will be prompted in subsequent decisions. However intriguing these findings may be, Wan and Agrawal (2011) did not provide direct evidence for the hypothesized link between engaging in self-regulation and construal levels. Instead, they assessed changes in construal level as a function of engaging in self-regulation through indirect measures such as construal-dependent judgments. To our knowledge, nowhere in the literature on self-regulation or construal levels has such a link been demonstrated directly. We intend to make this the contribution of the present paper. Specifically, in three studies we manipulate self-regulation and assess construal levels directly, using wellestablished and straightforward measures of construal level. In all studies we show that engaging in self-regulation results in low-level construals. The Present Studies Building on the above-reviewed literature, in three studies we demonstrate that engaging in acts of self-regulation results in the adoption of low-level construals. Construal level theory has two particularly appealing features. First, it has been shown that construal levels can be procedurally primed or activated by the usage of highlevel or low-level construals in unrelated prior contexts (Smith & Branscombe, 1987) or can be induced directly through the activation of cognitive procedures associated with high-level or low-level construals (Freitas, Gollwitzer, & Trope, 2004). This characteristic allows us to manipulate self-regulation in the first phase of our studies, and measure construal level subsequently, as we can assume that the level of construal

10 SELF-REGULATION AND CONSTRUAL-LEVEL 10 adopted in the first phase will transfer to the second phase of the study (Studies 1-3). Second, construal level theory is known to apply to any instrumental action, object, event, or situation (Trope & Liberman, 2000; 2003). This feature enables us to use a broad range of dependent measures to tap construal level, ranging from descriptions of situations (Study 1) over descriptions of objects (Study 2) to descriptions of behaviors (Study 3). In all studies, consistent with previous findings on procedural priming of construal levels, we demonstrate that engaging in self-regulation results in low-level construals using empirical measures of construal level assessed after the selfregulatory task (e.g., Freitas, Gollwitzer, & Trope, 2004; Smith & Branscombe, 1987). We use various self-regulatory tasks and various measures of construal level as a first step towards generalization. Both the self-regulatory tasks (Muraven & Slessareva, 2003; Wallace & Baumeister, 2002) and the measures of construal level (e.g., Liberman & Förster, 2009; Liberman, Sagristano, & Trope, 2002; Stephan, Liberman, & Trope, 2010) have been well-established in previous literature. Study 1 In Study 1, we tested the hypothesis that engaging in self-regulation results in low-level construals using an empirical measure of construal level after an initial selfregulatory task (cf., Freitas, Gollwitzer, & Trope, 2004; Smith & Branscombe, 1987). Participants engaged in a task that either required self-regulation or not. Subsequently, participants estimated the spatial distance between where they were and a well-known geographical point in the city in which they were located. Giving lower egocentric distance estimates (i.e., distance estimates between oneself and other stimuli) as compared to giving higher egocentric distance estimates indicates the adoption of

11 SELF-REGULATION AND CONSTRUAL-LEVEL 11 lower-level construals (cf. Fujita, Trope, Liberman, & Levin-Sagi, 2006; Liberman & Förster, 2009). This is because low-level construals, compared to high-level construals, do not afford distancing that much, which results into bringing to mind more proximal instantiations of objects as well (Liberman & Förster, 2009; Trope & Liberman, 2010). If engaging in self-regulation results in low-level construals, participants who have engaged in self-regulation should give lower egocentric distance estimates than participants who have not engaged in self-regulation. Method Participants were 111 undergraduate students (70 women). They received a participation fee. Of these participants, 43 (28 women) participated in Study 1A, whereas 68 (42 women) participated in Study 1B. Participants were asked to engage in a thought-listing task for five minutes. They were instructed to write down their thoughts and to either avoid thinking about a white bear (self-regulatory condition) or to think about anything they wanted, including a white bear (no self-regulatory condition). When thinking of a white bear in the self-regulatory condition, participants had to immediately change their thoughts and try very hard not to think of a white bear again (cf. Wegner, Schneider, Carter, & White, 1987). A similar task proved to be a successful self-regulatory manipulation in earlier research (e.g., Muraven & Slessareva, 2003). Indeed, in such a task participants have to regulate their thoughts by not thinking of a white bear although this thought is made very salient by the experimental instructions. Subsequently, participants estimated how far away they were from a wellknown store located in their university s city (Study 1A) or how far away they were from their university city s town hall (Study 1B). Recently, it has been shown that

12 SELF-REGULATION AND CONSTRUAL-LEVEL 12 lower levels of construal reduce estimated egocentric psychological distance, including spatial distance (Liberman & Förster, 2009). Finally, we also assessed participants mood by means of the Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) to validate that mood states were not different depending on self-regulatory condition. Results and Discussion Our dependent variable was the estimated egocentric spatial distance. Three Study 1A and five Study 1B outliers obtaining a score on the dependent variable that deviated at least three standard deviations from the mean score in their experimental condition were removed. As predicted, Study 1A participants who had engaged in self-regulation provided lower distance estimates (M = m, SD = m) than Study 1A participants who had not engaged in self-regulation (M = m, SD = m), F(1, 38) = 6.86, p <.02, d = Likewise, Study 1B participants who had engaged in self-regulation provided lower distance estimates (M = m, SD = m) than Study 1B participants who had not engaged in self-regulation (M = m, SD = m), F(1, 61) = 7.39, p <.01, d = The effect of engaging in self-regulation on egocentric distance estimates cannot be explained by mood differences. Levels of positive affect (self-regulation Study 1A: M = 26.71, SD = 4.57; no self-regulation Study 1A: M = 29.05, SD = 5.91; F(1, 38) = 1.98, p =.17, d = 0.45; self-regulation Study 1B: M = 27.19, SD = 5.74; no self-regulation Study 1B: M = 26.31, SD = 8.03; F(1, 61) = 0.25, p =.62, d = 0.13) and negative affect (self-regulation Study 1A: M = 13.24, SD = 3.52; no selfregulation Study 1A: M = 14.11, SD = 3.67; F(1, 38) = 0.58, p =.45, d = 0.24; selfregulation Study 1B: M = 14.45, SD = 4.00; no self-regulation Study 1B: M = 16.09,

13 SELF-REGULATION AND CONSTRUAL-LEVEL 13 SD = 6.12; F(1, 61) = 1.58, p =.21, d = 0.32) did not differ between self-regulatory conditions. Moreover, adjusting for positive and negative affect as covariates did not change the pattern of results reported above, suggesting that mood does not mediate the effect of engaging in self-regulation on egocentric distance estimates. These findings provide evidence in a direct way that engaging in self-regulation results in low-level construals, and are thus consistent with our hypothesis. Study 2 The aim of Study 2 was to replicate the findings of Study 1 using a different measure of construal level. Participants initially engaged in the same task that either required self-regulation or not as in Study 1. Subsequently, they imagined themselves in one of three situations (e.g., having a yard sale) and classified objects related to each situation (e.g., books, cutlery) in as many categories as they deemed suitable. Forming fewer object groups indicates relatively more high-level, abstract ways of categorizing, whereas forming more object groups indicates relatively more low-level, concrete ways of categorizing (Liberman, Sagristano, & Trope, 2002). If engaging in self-regulation results in low-level construals, participants who have engaged in selfregulation should form more object groups than participants who have not engaged in self-regulation. Method Participants were 63 undergraduate students (47 women). They received a participation fee. Participants were asked to engage in the same thought-listing task as in Study 1. Subsequently, they imagined that they were going on a camping trip, that they were

14 SELF-REGULATION AND CONSTRUAL-LEVEL 14 going to be moving into a new apartment, or that they were going to have a yard sale. Each scenario came with 38 objects that participants had to place into as many groups as they deemed appropriate (e.g., tent and matches in the camping scenario, VCR and computer in the moving out scenario, and roller blades and board games in the yard sale scenario). This task provides a well-established measure of construal level (e.g., Liberman, Sagristano, & Trope, 2002). Participants mood was again assessed by means of the PANAS (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) to validate that mood states were not different depending on self-regulatory condition. Results and Discussion We counted the number of object groups into which participants classified the objects of each scenario. We collapsed over scenarios. As predicted, participants who had engaged in self-regulation formed more object groups (M = 6.82, SD = 1.70) than participants who had not engaged in self-regulation (M = 6.00, SD = 1.41), F(1, 61) = 4.24, p =.04, d = Thus, Study 2 demonstrated that engaging in self-regulation leads people to categorize objects in more different groups afterwards. The effect of engaging in self-regulation on categorization cannot be explained by mood differences. Levels of positive (self-regulation: M = 24.29, SD = 5.46; no selfregulation: M = 26.40, SD = 6.78; F(1, 61) = 1.80, p =.19, d = 0.35) and negative affect (self-regulation: M = 14.61, SD = 6.24; no self-regulation: M = 13.90, SD = 5.03; F(1, 61) = 0.24, p = 0.63, d = 0.13) did not differ between self-regulatory conditions. Moreover, adjusting for positive and negative affect as covariates did not change the pattern of results reported above, suggesting that mood does not mediate the effect of engaging in self-regulation on categorization. Thus, the results of Study 2

15 SELF-REGULATION AND CONSTRUAL-LEVEL 15 again provide evidence in a direct way that engaging in self-regulation results in lowlevel construals. Study 3 The aim of Study 3 was to replicate the findings of the previous studies again using a different measure of construal level. For reasons of generalization, we also used a different self-regulatory task. After participants engaged in the initial task that either required self-regulation or not, they watched a series of five cartoons and described what they saw in writing, using one single word for each cartoon. Words were analyzed for abstractness of language, using coding schemes from the Linguistic Categorization Model (Semin & Fiedler, 1998). Using more abstract language indicates the adoption of higher-level construals, whereas using more concrete language indicates the adoption of lower-level construals (Trope & Liberman, 2010). If engaging in self-regulation results in low-level construals, participants who have engaged in self-regulation should use more concrete language than participants who have not engaged in self-regulation. Method Participants were 106 undergraduate students (86 women). They received a participation fee. Participants were asked to engage in a variation of the Stroop task and to indicate the ink color of 50 color names. Words and ink colors were either matched (e.g., RED in red ink; no self-regulation condition) or mismatched (e.g., RED in yellow ink; self-regulation condition). In addition, in the self-regulation condition, in case a word in blue ink appeared (i.e., in 25% of the trials), participants were

16 SELF-REGULATION AND CONSTRUAL-LEVEL 16 instructed to indicate the word rather than the ink color. A similar task proved to be a successful self-regulatory manipulation in earlier research (e.g., Wallace & Baumeister, 2002). Indeed, in such a task participants have to inhibit the dominant response of reading the word, and focus on its color instead. Subsequently, participants watched a series of five cartoons and described the behavior of each cartoon s main character using one single word. Two judges blind to condition coded participants written descriptions according to the Linguistic Categorization Model (Semin & Fiedler, 1998). According to this model, four linguistic categories (i.e., descriptive action verbs, interpretative action verbs, state verbs, and adjectives) can be organized along a dimension varying from concrete to abstract, with descriptive action verbs being the least, and adjectives being the most abstract. Typically, a weighting schema is applied to weigh descriptive action verbs, (1) interpretative action verbs, (2) state verbs, (3) and adjectives (4) (Semin & Smith, 1999). Words describing the cartoon rather than its main character s actions (i.e., 4 % of the words) were omitted from the analysis. To control for these missing values, we standardized the scores within cartoons before averaging them across cartoons, yielding a standardized abstractness index. The inter-rater reliability was high, r =.94, p < Discrepancies in codes were resolved through discussion to form a single index. Abstractness of language use has been reliably linked to construal level in previous research (e.g., Semin & Smith, 1999; Stephan, Liberman, & Trope, 2010). Again, participants mood was assessed by means of the PANAS (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) to validate that mood states were not different depending on selfregulatory condition.

17 SELF-REGULATION AND CONSTRUAL-LEVEL 17 Results and Discussion As predicted, participants who had engaged in self-regulation used more concrete language (M = -0.08, SD = 0.60) than participants who had not engaged in self-regulation (M = 0.20, SD = 0.78), F(1, 104) = 4.25, p =.04, d = This provides again direct evidence that engaging in self-regulation results in low-level construals. As before, the effect of engaging in self-regulation on construal level cannot be explained by mood differences. Levels of positive (self-regulation: M = 29.30, SD = 6.15; no self-regulation: M = 28.46, SD = 4.31; F(1, 104) = 0.66, p =.42, d = 0.16) and negative affect (self-regulation: M = 13.02, SD = 3.73; no selfregulation: M = 12.96, SD = 3.45; F(1, 104) = 0.01, p = 0.94, d = 0.02) did not differ between self-regulatory conditions. Moreover, adjusting for positive and negative affect as covariates did not change the pattern of results reported above, suggesting that mood does not mediate the effect of engaging in self-regulation on construal level. Hence, the present results once again replicate the results of the previous studies, using a different self-regulatory manipulation and a different measure of construal level. General Discussion In three experiments, we tested and found consistent support for the hypothesis that engaging in self-regulation results in low-level construals, using various empirical measures of construal level assessed after initial self-regulation. Specifically, participants who engaged in self-regulation by suppressing unwanted thoughts subsequently provided lower egocentric spatial distance estimates (Studies 1A and 1B) and formed more object groups when asked to categorize a set of objects

18 SELF-REGULATION AND CONSTRUAL-LEVEL 18 in as many groups as they deemed appropriate (Study 2) than participants who did not suppress unwanted thoughts and hence did not engage in self-regulation. In Study 3, participants who engaged in self-regulation by inhibiting their dominant responses during a taxing Stroop task subsequently used more concrete language when asked to describe the behavior of a series of five cartoon s main characters than participants who did not inhibit their dominant responses during a Stroop task and hence did not engage in self-regulation. To our knowledge, we are the first to assess changes in construal levels as a function of engagement in self-regulation directly. Indeed, in previous research such changes were inferred by studying construal-dependent judgments or choices after engaging in self-regulation (Wan & Agrawal, 2011). Theoretical Implications The finding that engaging in self-regulation induces relatively low levels of construal (whether measured directly or indirectly) leads to the intriguing prediction that engaging in self-regulation might facilitate performance at subsequent tasks that require relatively low-level construals, such as self-regulatory tasks for which success depends on a focus on details (Wan & Agrawal, 2011), even though engaging in selfregulation leads to depletion of limited self-regulatory resources. Indeed, it was recently demonstrated that low-level construals can improve self-regulation when one must attend closely to the physical environment to succeed at self-regulation, such as when engaging in a standard Stop Signal Task (Schmeichel, Vohs, & Duke, 2011). On the other hand, low-level construals that result from engaging in self-regulation might very well be detrimental to subsequent acts of self-regulation, which is the typical behavioural pattern observed in depletion studies. In fact, it has been shown empirically that activation of high-level construals led to more success at regulating

19 SELF-REGULATION AND CONSTRUAL-LEVEL 19 the self than activation of low-level construals. In a series of studies, Fujita and colleagues (2006) induced high-level or low-level construals by having participants engage in tasks that required using either of these construals (e.g., asking them why or how to engage in certain actions, respectively), and subsequently observed carry-over effects of these construals on unrelated self-regulatory tasks (e.g., persistence at squeezing the handles of a handgrip together). Participants who had adopted a highlevel construal during the initial experimental task were better at self-regulation (i.e., were able to keep the handles together for a significantly longer period of time) than participants who had adopted a low-level construal during the initial experimental task. Recently, Fujita and Han (2009) showed that the beneficial effect of high-level construals on self-regulation seems to occur without deliberation, as high-level construals evoke negative evaluations of temptations rather automatically (as measured by the Implicit Association Test). Agrawal and Wan (2009) replicated the finding that high-level construals are beneficial to self-regulation in a depletion context. Specifically, after an initial act of self-regulation (i.e., processing a threatening health message), participants showed subsequent decreased self-regulation (i.e., less persistence at flossing teeth) compared to those who had not engaged in self-regulation initially (i.e., those who had been processing a less threatening health message), unless high-level construals were experimentally induced in between both self-regulatory tasks (i.e., by asking participants to focus on the distant rather than the near future). In these cases, persistence did not differ between depleted and non-depleted participants. In addition, depleted participants in the high-level construal condition persisted longer than depleted participants in the low-level construal condition. In a similar vein, Schmeichel and Vohs (2009) demonstrated that depletion effects were moderated by a

20 SELF-REGULATION AND CONSTRUAL-LEVEL 20 self-affirmation manipulation. Specifically, in one study participants either or not engaged in an initial act of self-regulation (e.g., they wrote a story while being required to avoid using two common letters versus writing a story without restrictions). Subsequently, they ranked a list of values and wrote about the importance of their top-ranked value (i.e. self-affirmation condition) or wrote about the importance of their middle-ranked value (i.e., no-affirmation condition). Afterwards, persistence at immersing their non-dominant hand in cold water was assessed as a measure of self-regulation (i.e., cold pressor task). In the no-affirmation conditions, participants who had engaged in the self-regulated writing task initially quit sooner at the cold pressor task compared to participants who had engaged in the free-writing task initially. In the self-affirmation conditions however, persistence did not differ between depleted and non-depleted participants. In the same paper, it was demonstrated that self-affirmation improves self-regulation by promoting higher (versus lower) levels of mental construal (Schmeichel & Vohs, 2009). Taking these findings together, one could argue that self-regulatory difficulties after initial acts of self-regulation (i.e., ego depletion effects) can be interpreted as indirect evidence of self-regulatory-induced changes in construal levels. In light of the finding that self-regulation generally benefits from the adoption of high-level construals (Agrawal & Wan, 2009; Fujita et al., 2006; Schmeichel & Vohs, 2009), one might wonder why people seem inclined to adopt low-level construals while engaging in (initial) acts of self-regulation. There seem to be at least two possible processes from engaging in self-regulation to low construal level. Previous research has argued that engaging in self-regulation leads people to focus on the limited resources they are using and resulting feelings of fatigue, which stimulates them to adopt relatively low-level construals (Agrawal & Wan, 2009; Wan &

21 SELF-REGULATION AND CONSTRUAL-LEVEL 21 Agrawal, 2011). This would suggest that the effect of engaging in self-regulation on construal levels is mediated by the depletion that accrues from engaging in selfregulation. Other researchers however have argued that people engaging in selfregulation might shift to low-level features of the self-regulatory activity at hand to prevent higher-level cognitions about the meaning of an action from interfering with the ability to regulate effectively (cf. Leary, Adams, & Tate, 2006). This would suggest that the effect of engaging in self-regulation on construal levels results from the process of self-regulation directly. Specifically, hypo-egoic self-regulation has been defined as a state of self-regulation in which people give up deliberate action control and respond more automatically instead. This is possible by increasing the concreteness of one s thoughts and adopting a concrete action mindset while engaging in a given behavior (Leary, Adams, & Tate, 2006). Also in Carver and Scheier s control theory of self-regulation (Carver & Scheier, 1982) it is assumed that attainment of ultimate goals requires the specification of concrete behaviors one needs to perform to reach those ultimate goals. Thus, a hierarchy of levels of control is posited. More specifically, the theory suggests that although people have a tendency to attend to and self-regulate at the highest level of control accessible, higher-level self-regulation will often be suspended. Whenever problems occur, attention will be fixed at lower levels as effective handling of problems requires them to be broken down into smaller components, each of which by itself is manageable. We call upon future research shedding more light on these potential processes underlying aftereffects of self-regulation on construal-levels. Whereas it seems like a focus on fatigue and resources should facilitate a generalized (i.e., task-independent) lowering of mental construal levels, concrete action mindsets should facilitate task-specific lowering of mental construal levels. An interesting avenue for future research might

22 SELF-REGULATION AND CONSTRUAL-LEVEL 22 therefore be to investigate the extent to which the low-level construals that result from engaging in self-regulation are task-specific. Conclusion The study of self-regulation has received a lot of theoretical and empirical attention in social psychology and related domains over the last couple of decades. This seems warranted given the importance of successful self-regulation in people s lives yet rather frequently observed breakdowns of it. In the present paper, we attempted to contribute to the literature on self-regulation by demonstrating that engaging in self-regulation induces low-level construals. We measured construal levels directly, assessing well-established construal-level measures immediately after initial self-regulation. We leave it up to future research to investigate whether lowlevel construals that result from engaging in self-regulation are task-specific or generalized (i.e., task-independent) in nature (i.e., whether they result from the very act of self-regulation directly or are mediated by depletion, specifically).

23 SELF-REGULATION AND CONSTRUAL-LEVEL 23 References Agrawal, N., & Wan, E. W. (2009). Regulating risk or risking regulation? Construal levels and depletion effects in the processing of health messages. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, Alberts, H. J. E. M., Martijn, C., & de Vries, N. K. (2011). Fighting self-control failure: Overcoming ego depletion by increasing self-awareness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, Alberts, H. J. E. M., Martijn, C., Greb, J., Merckelbach, H., & de Vries, N. K. (2007). Carrying on or giving in: The role of automatic processes in overcoming ego depletion. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, Bruyneel, S. D., Dewitte, S., Vohs, K. D., & Warlop, L. (2006). Repeated choosing increases susceptibility to affective product features. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23, Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for personality-social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92, Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1996). Self-regulation and its failures. Psychological Inquiry, 7, Clarkson, J. J., Hirt, E. R., Jia, L., &Alexander, M. B. (2010). When perception is more than reality. The effects of perceived versus actual resource depletion on self-regulatory behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98,

24 SELF-REGULATION AND CONSTRUAL-LEVEL 24 Converse, P. D., & DeShon, R. P. (2009). A tale of two tasks: Reversing the selfregulatory resource depletion effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, de Ridder, 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, Dewitte, S., Bruyneel, S. D., & Geyskens, K. (2009). Self-regulating enhances selfregulation in subsequent consumer decisions involving similar response conflicts. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, Fennis, B. (2011). Can t get over me: Ego depletion attenuates prosocial effects of perspective taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 11, Freitas, A. L., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Trope, Y. (2004). The influence of abstract and concrete mindsets on anticipating and guiding others self-regulatory efforts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, Fujita, K., & Han, H. A. (2010). Moving beyond deliberative control of impulses. The effect of construal levels on evaluative associations in self-control conflicts. Psychological Science, 20, Fujita, K., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Levin-Sagi, M. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, Gailliot, M. T., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Maner, J. K., Plant, E. A., Tice, D. M., Brewer, L. E., & Schmeichel, B. J. (2007). Self-control relies on glucose as a limited energy source: Willpower is more than a metaphor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92,

25 SELF-REGULATION AND CONSTRUAL-LEVEL 25 Hagger, M. S., Wood, C., Stiff, C., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2010). Ego depletion and the strength model of self-control: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, Inzlicht, M., & Gutsell, J. N. (2007). Running on empty Neural signals of selfcontrol failure. Psychological Science, 18, Inzlicht, M., McKay, L., & Aronson, J. (2006). Stigma as ego depletion How being the target of prejudice affects self-control. Psychological Science, 17, Job, V., Dweck, C. S., & Walton, G. M. (2010). Ego depletion Is it all in your head? Implicit theories about willpower affect self-regulation. Psychological Science, 21, Leary, M. R., Adams, C. E., & Tate, E. B. (2006). Hypo-egoic self-regulation: Exercising self-control by diminishing the influence of the self. Journal of Personality, 74, Liberman, N., & Förster, J. (2009). Distancing from experienced self: How globalversus-local perception affects estimation of psychological distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, Liberman, N., Sagristano, M. D., & Trope, Y. (2002). The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, Martijn, C., Alberts, H. J. E. M., Merckelbach, H., Havermans, R., Huijts, A., & de Vries, N. K. (2007). Overcoming ego depletion: The influence of exemplar priming on self-control performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, Martijn, C., Tenbult, P., Merckelbach, H., Dreezens, E., & de Vries, N. K. (2002).

26 SELF-REGULATION AND CONSTRUAL-LEVEL 26 Getting a grip on ourselves: Challenging expectancies about loss of energy after self-control. Social Cognition, 20, Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Peake, P. K. (1988). The nature of adolescent competencies predicted by preschool delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126, Muraven, M., & Slessareva, E. (2003). Mechanisms of self-control failure: Motivation and limited resources. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, Muraven, M., Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Self-control as a limited resource: Regulatory depletion patterns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, Schmeichel, B. J., & Vohs, K. D. (2009). Self-affirmation and self-control: Affirming core values counteracts ego depletion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, Schmeichel, B. J., Vohs, K. D., & Duke, S. C. (2011). Self-control at high and low levels of mental construal. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1998). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, Semin, G. R., & Smith, E. R. (1999). Revisiting the past and back to the future:

27 SELF-REGULATION AND CONSTRUAL-LEVEL 27 Memory systems and the linguistic representation of social events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, Smith, E. R., & Branscombe, N. R. (1987). Procedurally mediated social inferences: The case of category accessibility effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23, Stephan, E., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2010). Politeness and social distance: A construal level perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, Tice, D. M., Baumeister, R. F., Shmueli, D., & Muraven, M. (2007). Restoring the self. Positive affect helps improve self-regulation following ego depletion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2000). Temporal construal and time-dependent changes in preference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110, Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2004). Ego-depletion, self-control, and choice. In J. Greenberg, S. L. Koole, & T. Pyszczynski (Eds.), Handbook of experimental existential psychology (pp ). New York: Guilford Press. Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., Schmeichel, B. J., Twenge, J. M., Nelson, N. M., & Tice, D. M. (2008). Making choices impairs subsequent self-control: A limited-resource account of decision making, self-regulation, and active initiative. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, Vohs, K. D., & Schmeichel, B. J. (2003). Self-regulation and the extended now:

28 SELF-REGULATION AND CONSTRUAL-LEVEL 28 Controlling the self alters the subjective experience of time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, Wallace, H. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2002). The effects of success versus failure feedback on further self-control. Self and Identity, 1, Wan, E. W., & Agrawal, N. (2011). Carryover effects of self-control on decision making: A construal level perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, Wan, E. W., & Sternthal, B. (2008). Regulating the effects of depletion through monitoring. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2003). Can implementation intentions help to overcome ego-depletion? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, Wegner, D. M., Schneider, D. J., Carter, S. R., & White, T. L. (1987). Paradoxical effects of thought suppression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 5-13.