Mind Design

This reminds me of a similar model for directed attention, Attention Restoration Theory. It essentially suggests that higher executive functioning (i.e., the controlled attention used to do things like math problems, etc.) is a limited resource, similar to willpower in this piece. ART researchers have found that things like sleep, meditation and interacting with nature can give executive attention a "break", allowing it to replenish. This could explain why distracter activities such as getting a gift might replenish willpower, since they do not require willpower and therefore might allow it an opportunity to replenish. There is also the interesting possibility that what the willpower researchers were really measuring was the depletion of executive attention rather than some distinct phenomenon that could be labeled "willpower" or "self-control". Research on the ironic effect has found that forced suppression of information hampers performance on a cognitive task, so perhaps suppression of a desire (i.e., self-control) has a similar function. I do agree with the author's premise that the self-control model is looking sketchy, but there is definitely something interesting going on there.

I've found it quite puzzling that Job's and Dweck's paper hasn't been mentioned more by other researchers in recent papers. I really hope the Baumeister team continue their progress in understanding the nature of willpower and take aboard the emerging evidence against their original models. My biggest problem with the popularized resource depletion model is that people treat will power as such - which ironically can become a self fulfilling prophecy due to the proven influence of belief.

I enjoyed your critique. But what if we defined willpower as a limited capacity for "delayed gratification" (also one of the many components of executive function) that could be replenished through actual gratification. This would explain why gifts or funny videos replenish the system (by activating a reward response). In evolutionary terms, the reward system provides feedback about our progress toward essential goals, for which circumstances may require temporary delay (waiting for a predator to pass before reaching for a piece of fruit). However, patience (i.e. willpower/delayed gratification) is destructive if engaged indefinitely, since we can't wait forever without starving. So, tricking our reward system into believing it already has what it wants (via gifts, funny videos, or drugs) can replenish our ability to delay further gratification. This theory would also be consistent with evidence that drug addicts, who exhibit low self-control, have a hyperactivated (uninhibited) reward system that is difficult to satisfy - it's never replenished.

You also mentioned a study about beliefs. I don't think this disconfirms the resource model as much as it suggests that the model is incomplete: there could be other variables that replenish or deplete our capacity for self-control. It might be that telling people that the resource model is false actually reinforces their self-efficacy beliefs (i.e. my ability to resist is unlimited), thereby providing an indirect reward (I'm pretty awesome) or encouraging the allocation of self-control resources from other areas (I'm more confident about my ability to complete this task, so I'll spend more time and attention on it).

Robert, it seems to me that you're committing the classical fallacy of academics: making a simple thing seem much more complex than it is. It always amuses me.

First, you say incentives shouldn;t matetr in the model. Why exactly not? The idea that willpower is a depleteing resource is moore of a metaphor than a scientific description. In reality, the truth is that exercising willpower drains us emotionally. This is why we exercise less willpower on the next task: we're tired of being disciplined, and just want to let loose.

But what if we watch a funny video? Of course, it makes us feel better. We feel less emotionally drained, and ready to do more disciplined activity. Similarly, an incentive that offers a benefit greater than the perceived cost of disciplined effort will ALWAYS motivate us- no matter how emotionally drained we are.

So really, your objections hold no water beyond the usual academic nit-picking. It's really very simple.