No ego-depletion effect without a good control task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ego-depletion effect refers to a temporary failure of self-control exertion after first performing an effortful task. This phenomenon has experienced a replication crisis in the past few years. In the present series of experiments, we tried to replicate the ego-depletion effect using a 30-min modified Stroop task tapping two executive functions (inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility) as the depleting task. In the first study, we compared the performance of a handgrip endurance task after this depleting task or after a classic control task (i.e., reading color words) and failed to replicate the ego-depletion effect. We showed that the control task induced boredom and subjective fatigue. In a second study, we looked for a better control task and compared the color-word reading task to another possible control task used in the literature (i.e., watching a documentary). Controlling for boredom, subjective fatigue, motivation and affective state, we found that the video task was not boring and did not induce fatigue, drop in motivation or negative affective state, whereas the color-word reading task did. In a third study, we used the video task as the control task and the modified effortful Stroop task used in the first study as the depleting task and succeeded in replicating the ego-depletion effect. This series of experiments illustrates that the choice of an appropriate control task is crucial to observe an ego-depletion effect and that boredom is costly. Consequently, it appears necessary to control for boredom in any future replication study aiming to observe an ego-depletion effect.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".