MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7001267407

Investigating Individual Differences in the Aftereffects of Self-Control Exertion

2024· other· en· W7001267407 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueBrock University Digital Repository (Brock University) · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLimitingTask (project management)PopulationContext (archaeology)Quality (philosophy)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aftereffects of self-control exertion have been debated by psychologists over the last two decades. Among those who claim there are aftereffects of self-control exertion, some contend that self-control acts as a limited resource that depletes as you use it (Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994), while others suggest that exerting self-control provokes a change in attention and motivation from ‘have-to’ goals to ‘want-to’ goals (Inzlicht & Schmeichel, 2012). Main effects of self-control exertion have been found that support both of these theories, but so have many null results. Individual difference models have rarely been applied to these theories despite the fact that they could potentially account for the mixed pattern of results. Indeed, individual differences in trait approach motivation have been found to moderate the aftereffects of self-control on emotionally neutral cognition tasks but have yet to be investigated in tasks with motivationally salient, approach-related goals or stimuli. The current study looked to investigate how self-control exertion will affect subsequent behaviour in approach-based tasks and whether or not this behaviour is moderated by individual differences in trait approach motivation and/or value driven attention. Across two studies, participants reported trait levels of approach motivation and value-driven attention, were assigned to exert high or low levels of self-control, and were then presented with a gambling task (Study 1) or an RSVP image detection task with low and high approach-motivated images (Study 2). The results did not show evidence of a main effect of self-control exertion in either study, but Study 2 showed some evidence of individual differences in trait approach motivation and self-control exertion interacting to modulate attention to approach-motivated stimuli. Specifically, participants who had just exerted high levels of self-control and were low in trait reward responsiveness showed a greater effect of approach motivated stimuli than those low in reward responsiveness and/or those who did not just exert self-control. The present results fail to provide support for either competing self-control theory but suggest that individual differences can play a significant role in the aftereffects of self-control exertion.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.172 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrock University Digital Repository (Brock University)→French-language works237,207→