Metacognition and Self-Control: An Integrative Framework

Self-control describes the processes by which individuals control their habits, desires, and impulses in the service of long-term goals. Research has identified important components of self-control and proposed theoretical frameworks integrating these components (e.g., Inzlicht et al., 2021; Kotabe & Hofmann, 2015). In our perspective, these frameworks, however, do not yet fully incorporate important metacognitive aspects of self-control. We therefore introduce a framework explicating the role of metacognition for self-control. This framework extends existing frameworks, primarily from the domains of self-regulated learning and problem-solving (e.g., Schraw & Moshman, 1995; Zimmermann, 2000), and integrates past and contemporary research and theorizing on self-control that involves aspects of metacognition. It considers two groups of metacognitive components, namely (1) individual metacognitive characteristics, that is a person´s declarative, procedural, and conditional metacognitive knowledge about self-control, as well as their self-awareness (or metacognitive awareness), and (2) metacognitive regulatory processes that unfold before a self-control conflict (forethought, and prevention), when a self-control conflict is identified, during a self-control conflict (regulation and monitoring), and after a self-control conflict (reflection and evaluation). The proposed framework integrates existing research and will be useful for highlighting new directions for research on the role of metacognition for self-control success and failure

The Metacognition in Self-Control Scale (MISCS)

Metacognition is a well-researched construct important to successful learning. Recent studies show that state-level metacognition regarding self-control conflicts is also important for successfully resolving these conflicts. Because there exists no scale to assess trait-level metacognition in self-control and because of limitations of commonly used measures in self-control research, we adapted a scale that is widely used to assess trait-level metacognition in self-regulated learning, the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI). In two studies (N = 315 and N = 503), we constructed the 12-item Metacognition in Self-Control Scale (MISCS), which loaded on the two factors metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation. The MISCS showed a good fit with good internal consistencies. In the 10-day experience sampling part of study 2, which included 9639 reports of self-control conflicts, higher trait-levels of metacognition as measured with the MISCS predicted higher state-levels of success in resolving these conflicts, as well as higher state-levels of the subcomponents of metacognition, namely metacognitive knowledge, planning, monitoring, and evaluation. Most of these associations persisted when controlling for trait self-control, supporting the usefulness of the scale beyond the most commonly used scale in self-control research. The MISCS showed adequate test-retest reliability. Correlations with other scales, limitations, and future directions are discussed

Self-Regulatory Strategy Use, Efficacy, and Strategy-Situation-Fit in Self-Control Conflicts of Initiation, Persistence, and Inhibition

Self-control is the ability to (1) initiate, and (2) persist in boring, difficult or disliked activity, and to (3) inhibit impulses to act. We explored the self-regulatory strategies that people use for these three types of self-control conflicts and their subjective efficacy as a function of conflict type. In addition, we hypothesized that people who more frequently create strategy-situation fit by tying strategies to the conflict types they are effective for, are more successful at self-control. A pilot study identified 22 different self-regulatory strategies that could be used for more than one type of self-control conflict. We then used a large data set from two pooled experience sampling datasets ( n = 14,067 reported self-control conflicts) to quantify these strategies’ popularity and subjective efficacy in daily life. Eight strategies were positively and three negatively associated with subjective self-regulatory success but subjective efficacy often depended on type of conflict: Some strategies were effective and some maladaptive only for some types of self-control conflicts. Individuals who created strategy-situation fit for some strategies also reported greater self-regulatory success, as hypothesized. We discuss regulatory flexibility as a crucial component of good self-control

Many roads lead to Rome: Self‐regulatory strategies and their effects on self‐control

In a self-control conflict, people face a dilemma between a current goal (e.g., to exercise regularly) and competing impulses, habits, or desires (e.g., to stay on the couch and continue watching TV). To resolve such conflicts in favor of their goals, individuals may capitalize on a variety of self-regulatory strategies. In this article, we review recent research on the self-regulatory strategies people use in their daily lives, research on the effectiveness of these strategies, and research on the consequences of self-regulatory strategy use on well-being. We furthermore take both an individual-differences and a situational perspective by linking strategy use to individual differences between people (e.g., in self-control) and by emphasizing that strategy effectiveness likely depends on situational context (e.g., on current demands). Finally, we introduce ideas and potential future research questions revolving around the role of individual differences in regulatory flexibility (including context-sensitivity) for determining a person's self-regulatory succes

Flexibility in using self-regulatory strategies to manage self-control conflicts: The role of metacognitive knowledge, strategy repertoire, and feedback monitoring

For regulating emotion, it has been shown that people benefit from being flexible in their use of emotion regulation strategies. In the current study, we built on research focused on regulatory flexibility with respect to emotions to investigate flexibility in the use of self-regulatory strategies to resolve daily self-control conflicts. We investigated three components of flexibility: (1) metacognitive knowledge, (2) strategy repertoire, and (3) feedback monitoring. In a 10-day experience sampling study, 226 participants reported whether they had, within the past hour, experienced a self-control conflict of initiating an aversive activity, persisting in it, or inhibiting an unwanted impulse in response to a temptation. Results support the hypothesis that higher levels of all three components of flexibility are associated with higher levels of success in managing daily self-control conflicts, except for strategy repertoire and feedback monitoring in conflicts of persistence. Results also support the hypothesis that higher levels of trait self-control are associated with higher levels of metacognitive knowledge and feedback monitoring for conflicts of initiation, but not for conflicts of persistence and inhibition. We found no evidence of an association between trait self-control and strategy repertoire. These findings demonstrate the importance of flexible strategy use during daily self-control conflicts

Self-Control Dynamics in Daily Life: The Importance of Variability Between Self-Regulatory Strategies and Strategy Differentiation

Research on self-control has increasingly acknowledged the importance of self-regulatory strategies, with strategies in earlier stages of the developing tempting impulse thought to be more effective than strategies in later stages. However, recent research on emotion regulation has moved away from assuming that some strategies are per se and across situations more adaptive than others. Instead, strategy use that is variable to fit situational demands is considered more adaptive. In the present research, we transfer this dynamic process perspective to self-regulatory strategies in the context of persistence conflicts. We investigated eight indicators of strategy use (i.e., strategy intensity, instability, inertia, predictability, differentiation, diversity, and within- and between-strategy variability) in an experience sampling study ( N = 264 participants with 1,923 observations). We found that variability between strategies was significantly associated with self-regulatory success above and beyond mean levels of self-regulatory strategy use. Moreover, the association between trait self-control on one hand and everyday self-regulatory success and affective well-being on the other hand was partially mediated by between-strategy variability. Our results do not only show the benefits of variable strategy use for individual’s self-regulatory success but also the benefits of more strongly connecting the fields of emotion regulation and self-control research

Person × domain interactions in resisting desires in daily life

Self-control has predominantly been characterized as a domain-general individual difference, assuming that highly self-controlled individuals are generally, that is, irrespective of domain, better at resisting their desires. However, qualitative differences in the domains in which these desires emerge and how individuals interact with these domains have rarely been examined. We re-analyzed three experience sampling datasets (N participants = 431, N observations = 15,962) and found that person × domain interactions predicted significant additional variance in momentary self-control above and beyond person differences, ranging from additional 6.2% of variance in desire strength to 17.0% of variance in conflict strength. Moreover, person × domain interactions in resistance strength predicted significantly more variance in resistance success than person or domain differences. Nevertheless, the number of individual resistance profiles was too diverse to be meaningfully reduced to a core set of latent resistance profiles. Thus, our results demonstrate the importance of considering person × domain interactions in future investigations of self-control and show that there is great diversity in how and how successfully different people interact with their self-control conflicts in different domains