| Abstract [eng] |
The basic premise of Vosgerau et al.'s (2020; henceforth VSH) article is one that few consumer behavior researchers and psychologists would debate: “self-control conflicts are subjective” and “not all consumers pursue the same superordinate long-term goals” (p. 187). While the dominant paradigm defines self-control as a consumer's choice to desist from hedonic consumption, VSH outline self-control failures as choices violating superordinate long-term goals (whether hedonic or utilitarian) that entail the anticipation of regret. Therefore, the central message of VSH's framework is that self-control does not require abstinence from pleasure (i.e., exerting self-control ≠ sacrificing pleasure). VSH also argue that this conceptualization is vital for the construct validity of self-control studies in consumer research. This commentary agrees with the idea that the choice of hedonic consumption (e.g., chocolate cake) is not always equated with failures in self-control. In this regard, Moayery et al. (2019b) showed that if consumers do not endorse any standards regarding their diet, they might buy more unhealthy snacks even when enough self-regulatory resources are available. Similarly, it has been suggested that the desire for unhealthy food cannot be translated into temptation, unless the person follows a healthy diet (Hofmann and Kotabe, 2012). At the same time, in this paper, I wish to draw attention to three issues that help in making the distinction between the perspective presented by VSH and my perspective on self-control. These issues are self-monitoring failures, ego-depletion effects, and reflective and impulsive determinants of self-control. Therefore, building on VSH's framework, this commentary proposes an expanded, more inclusive perspective on self-control problems. In order to flesh out this idea, I attempt to (1) clarify that people often fail to detect a conflict of self-control because they fail to self-monitor, (2) challenge the idea that ego-depletion is not a real phenomenon, and (3) highlight the role of reflective and impulsive aspects of self-control. This commentary also discusses a direction for future studies with emphasis on non-conscious forms of self-control and some methodological considerations for measuring impulses. |
