Restraint

Definition

• 1. a. The action of restraining or checking a thing, operation, etc.; an instance of this, a stoppage. without restraint, freely, copiously.

b. A means of retaining, or controlling. Obs.1

c. Something which restrains or holds in check; esp. head restraint, an attachment to the seat of a motor vehicle to prevent the head from jerking back suddenly.

• 2. a. A means of restraining or checking persons from a course of action, or of keeping them under control; any force or influence which has a restraining effect; an instance of restraining or of being restrained.

b. Without article. Restraining action or influence, as applied to persons. moral restraint: see MORAL a. 10c.

c. The state or condition of being restrained; esp. abridgement of liberty, confinement.

d. spec. (in above senses) with reference to the treatment of refractory prisoners or insane persons.

• 3. a. A prohibition. Obs.

b. An embargo. Usually restraint of princes.

c. restraint of trade.

• 4. Constraint; reserve.

• 5. Restriction or limitation. Obs.

For lessons on the topic of (Self) Restraint, follow this link.

Description

Self control (Self Restraint) is the ability to control one's emotions and desires, is the capacity of efficient management to the future. In psychology it is sometimes called self-regulation, and exerting self-control through the executive functions in decision making is thought to deplete a resource in the ego.[1] Contents [show]

Self-control in Behavior Analysis

Another view is that self-control represents the locus of two conflicting contingencies of reinforcement, which then make a controlling response reinforcing when it causes changes in the controlled response.[2][3] [edit]The importance of using self control for patience

In the 1960s, Walter Mischel tested four year old children for self control in "The Marshmallow Test": the children were each given a marshmallow and told that they can eat it anytime they want, but if they waited 15 minutes, they would receive another marshmallow. Follow up studies showed that the results correlated well with these children's success levels in later life.[4][5]

Human self-control

Human self-control research is typically modeled by using a token economy system in which human participants choose between tokens for one choice and usually more tokens for a delayed choice. Different results were being obtained for humans and non-humans, with the latter appearing to maximize their overall reinforcement despite delays, with the former being sensitive to changes in delay. The difference in research methodologies with humans - using tokens or conditioned reinforcers - and non-humans using sub-primary reinforcers suggested procedural artifacts as a possible suspect. One aspect of these procedural differences was the delay to the exchange period (Hyten et al. 1994).[9] Non-human subjects can, and would, access their reinforcement immediately. The human subjects had to wait for an "exchange period" in which they could exchange their tokens for money, usually at the end of the experiment. When this was done with pigeons they responded much like humans in that males have less control than females (Jackson & Hackenberg 1996).[10] However, Logue, (1995) points out that in her study done on self-control it was male children that responded with less self control than female children. She then states, that in adulthood, for the most part, the sexes equalize on their ability to exhibit self control. This could suggest a human being's ability to exert more self control as they mature and become more aware of the consequences associated with impulsivity. This suggestion is further examined below.

Most of the research in the field of self control assumes that self control is in general better than impulsiveness. Some developmental psychologists argue that this is normal, and people age from infants, who have no ability to think of the future, and hence no self control or delayed gratification, to adults. As a result almost all research done on this topic is from this standpoint and very rarely is impulsiveness the more adaptive response in experimental design.

More recently some in the field of developmental psychology have begun to think of self control in a more complicated way that takes into account that sometimes impulsiveness is the more adaptive response. In their view, a normal individual should have the capacity to be either impulsive or controlled depending on which is the most adaptive. However, this is a recent shift in paradigm and there is little research conducted along these lines. [6]

Functional imaging research identifies self-control with an area in the dorsal fronto-median cortex in the frontal lobe that is distinct from those involved in generating intentional actions, attention to intentions, or select between alternatives.[11] This control occurs through the top-down inhibition of premotor cortex.[12]

The Function of Culture

According to Logue, it is possible to examine the differences between individuals development of self-control by examining it as a function of culture. “By definition, cultures vary in terms of the experiences provided the people who are a part of these cultures. It is possible, therefore, that during development, people in different cultures acquire different degrees or types of self-control” [6].

Western Society

These differing degrees of self-control can be seen when comparing Western and Eastern cultures. In the United States, there appear to be strong tendencies for self-control and impulsivity. Western societies typically describe self control as, “goal-oriented productivity, assertiveness and instrumental doing”. Logue [6] further states that, “self-control and resistance to temptation has long been part of Americans’ Judeo-Christian heritage. However, in recent decades, there has been concern that this early emphasis on self control may be dissipating”. This dissipation has been attributed to the baby boom or, “me” generation of the 70’s & 80’s and the decreasing rate of savings by current members of this age. This decline in self-control has additionally been noted by Kelly Brownells’ research stating that in modern society, “the degree to which someone is judged as possessing self-control is significantly affected by the degree to which the person has a fit, thin body” (Brownell, 1991)[13].

Eastern Society

With regard to Eastern culture, societies have described self-control as “yielding, letting go, acceptance, and nonattachment” [6]. This difference between the descriptions of self-control from those in Western society are not due to differences in definition, but rather the difference in what is considered a large outcome worth exhibiting self-control for. Emphasis must be made on the importance placed on self-control by the two societies. In Japanese culture, “individual gratification is valued much less than is advancement of the fortunes of the group. This requires individuals to set aside their personal interests in order to work for the long-term goals of society” [6]. The samurai code, or ‘The Code of the Warriors’ also known as bushido, is a clear example of this. This can also be seen in the extreme self-control exhibited by high-school students in Japan preparing for college entrance examinations. Logue states that, “many Japanese organizations put more emphasis on the college examination score rather than on performance during college” [6].

Implications

Just as self-control (in terms of money and savings mainly due to easier credit in recent times) in Western society seems to be decreasing[citation needed] (particularly in America[citation needed]), recent findings relating to a decrease in the rate of savings in Japan suggests that a similar trend may be surfacing[citation needed]. Looking at the rate of savings can provide insight into the long-term planning strategies of the cultures. With growing technology and globalization, previous differences between the two cultures may be disappearing[citation needed].

Outcomes as determining whether a self-control choice is made

Alexandra W. Logue is interested in how outcomes change the possibilities of a self-control choice being made. Logue identifies three possible outcome effects: outcome delays, outcome size, and outcome contingencies [6]. The delay of an outcome results in the perception that the outcome is less valuable than an outcome which is more readily achieved. The devaluing of the delayed outcome can cause less self-control. A way to increase self-control in situations of a delayed outcome is to pre-expose an outcome. Pre-exposure reduces the frustrations related to the delay of the outcome. An example of this is signing bonuses.

Outcome size deals with the relative, perceived size of possible outcomes. There tends to be a relationship between the value of the incentive and the desired outcome; the larger the desired outcome, the larger the value. Some factors that decrease value include delay, effort/cost, and uncertainty. The decision tends to be based on the option with the higher value at the time of the decision.

Finally, Logue defines the relationship between responses and outcomes as outcome contingencies [6]. Outcome contingencies also impact the degree of self-control that a person exercises. For instance, if a person is able to change his choice after the initial choice is made, the person is far more likely to take the impulsive, rather than self-controlled, choice. Additionally, it is possible for people to make precommitment action. A precommitment action is an action meant to lead to a self-controlled action at a later period in time. When a person sets an alarm clock, they are making a precommitted response to wake up early in the morning. Hence, that person is more likely to exercise the self-controlled decision to wake up, rather than to fall back in bed for a little more sleep.

References

1. Vohs KD, Baumeister RF, Schmeichel BJ, Twenge JM, Nelson NM, Tice DM (May 2008). "Making choices impairs subsequent self-control: a limited-resource account of decision making, self-regulation, and active initiative" (PDF). J Pers Soc Psychol 94 (5): 883–98. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.883. PMID 18444745.
2. Skinner, B.F. (1953) Science and Human Behavior, p.230.
3. Pierce, W. D., & Cheney, C. D. (2004). Behavior Analysis & Learning. 3rd Ed. Mahway, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p. 258
4. Mischel, W., Shoda, Yth the members of the original study whom he was able to find. His reported results appear to show that the life-expectancy of the group was more strongly correlated with their assessed self-control level than anything else
5. Reported in the book "The Attitude Factor" by Thomas Blakeslee
6. Logue, A.W. (1995). Self-Control: Waiting Until Tomorrow For What You Want Today. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall

^ Rachlin, H., & Green, L. (1972). Commitment, choice and self-control. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 17, 15-22.

1. Ainslie, G. W. (1974). Impulse control in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21, 485-489.
2. Hyten, C., Madden, G. J., & Field, D. P. (1994). Exchange delays and impulsive choice in adult humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 225-233.
3. Jackson, K., & Hackenberg, T. D., (1996). Token reinforcement, choice, and self-control in pigeons.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 66, 29-49.
4. Brass M, Haggard P. (2007).To do or not to do: the neural signature of self-control. J Neurosci. 27(34):9141-5. PMID 17715350 doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0924-07.2007
5. Kühn S, Haggard P, Brass M. (2009). Intentional inhibition: How the "veto-area" exerts control. Hum Brain Mapp. 30(9):2834-2843. PMID 19072994 doi:10.1002/hbm.20711
6. Brownell, K.D. (1991). "Dieting and the Search for the Perfect Body: Where Physiology and Culture Collide." Behavior Therapy, 22 1-12.
7. Many experiments can be found here
8. McCullough, M.E., & Willoughby, B.L.B., (2009). Religioun, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 69-93.
9. Jensen-Campbell, L.A., Rosselli, M., Workman, K.A., Santisi, M., Rios, J.D., & Bojan, D. (2002). Agreeableness, conscientiousness and effortful control processes. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 476-489.
10. Skinner, B.F. (1971) About Behaviorism. p.164
11. Skinner, B.F. Science and Human Behavior, Chapter XV
12. Skinner, B.F. Science and Human Behavior, Chapter XV p. 231
13. Skinner, B.F. Science and Human Behavior, Chapter XV p. 233
14. Skinner, B.F. Science and Human Behavior, Chapter XV p. 235
15. b Skinner, B.F. Science and Human Behavior, Chapter XV p. 236
16. Skinner, B.F. Science and Human Behavior, Chapter XV p. 237
17. Logue, Self Control: Waiting Until Tomorrow For What You Want Today 34-77
18. Skinner, B.F. Walden Two 1948

External links

• Measuring Self Control
• Self Control Quotations
• [https://www.bfskinner.org/SHBtext.pdf# B.F. Skinner (1953) Science and Human Behavior. Ch. XV "Self-Control"