Like most self-control research, the target article by Ainslie conceptualizes self-control (or willpower) as the process of foregoing smaller sooner rewards in favor of larger later rewards. Prioritizing delayed over immediate reward activities can be challenging, and we do not dispute the importance of understanding how people negotiate such choices. Yet, we suggest that a more complete picture of self-control challenges involves a different type of choice people frequently face: choosing among activities that offer both delayed and immediate rewards.
Most goal-directed activities offer not just one but multiple distinct rewards (for a comprehensive account, see Berkman, Hutcherson, Livingston, Kahn, & Inzlicht, Reference Berkman, Hutcherson, Livingston, Kahn and Inzlicht2017). In this commentary, we focus on a specific subset of such multi-attribute activities, namely activities that offer a combination of delayed and immediate rewards. Goal pursuits are often selected for delayed outcomes, that is, for the prospect of reaping rewards that materialize at a later point in time (e.g., Mischel, Shoda, & Rodriguez, Reference Mischel, Shoda and Rodriguez1989). Yet, many goal pursuits also offer immediate rewards that lie in the goal-directed activities themselves or in small interim targets (e.g., Rheinberg, Reference Rheinberg1989; Woolley & Fishbach, Reference Woolley and Fishbach2016). For example, the activities of “community work” and “studying” may be primarily motivated by the prospect of achieving delayed rewards (e.g., for community work: contributing to societal good; for studying: good grades). However, engaging in these activities also offers immediate rewards (e.g., for community work: the enjoyment of engaging with people; for studying: the enjoyment of learning about interesting topics). We refer to activities that offer both types of rewards, immediate and delayed ones, as mixed-reward activities.
Assuming that many goal-directed activities are best described as mixed reward activities, we suggest that people frequently face a distinct type of choice: choosing among multiple mixed-reward options. More specifically, we suggest that mixed-reward choices are ubiquitous in multiple goal pursuit contexts. People usually strive for multiple long-term goals in their everyday lives (e.g., multiple work, leisure, and family goals; Freund, Knecht, & Wiese, Reference Freund, Knecht and Wiese2014). Balancing the demands of these goals can be challenging, as the amount of resources available for any goal pursuit (e.g., time) is finite. Choosing to act on one goal (e.g., studying) thus often comes at the expense of not being able to act on another goal (e.g., community work). Accordingly, whenever two (or more) mixed reward goal pursuits compete for the same finite resource, people are faced with the task of prioritizing among mixed-reward options.
To promote and sustain success in multiple mixed-reward long-term goals, people have to negotiate on a regular basis when to work on which goal, and for how long. Yet, despite their importance, mixed-reward choices are yet to be addressed by self-control research. Navigating mixed-reward choice options can be challenging because the use of suppression and resolve, as conceptualized by Ainslie (this volume), may be particularly effortful.
Suppression: When attempting to prioritize one mixed-reward activity over another mixed-reward activity, the alternative option may act as strong temptation, as it offers both immediate and delayed rewards. This can render suppression (i.e., blocking or interfering with a positive revaluation of alternative options) particularly effortful. For example, choosing to spend the afternoon at the library studying is difficult on a beautiful summer day, when the alternative of doing community garden work would offer not only higher immediate rewards (e.g., engaging with people and enjoying the weather) but would also allow for promoting the associated delayed reward of contributing to societal good. In short, temptation posed by alternative options that are temporarily preferred for their immediate rewards is further bolstered by the prospect of also promoting valued delayed rewards.
Resolve: Navigating mixed-reward decisions by means of resolve (i.e., avoiding perceived risks to larger incentives) can also be challenging, as these choices may be particularly susceptible to perceptions of what Ainslie termed “credible exceptions to one's rule.” Changing one's plans from studying at the library to community garden work can be framed as a credible exception rather than as lapse, because doing community work, albeit not compatible with the academic goal rule, is consistent with the community goal rule. In other words, choices between two mixed reward options can be perceived in terms of two rules, each of which can be used to argue the other, thereby creating “permissible temptations” (i.e., choosing a mixed-reward option based on immediate rather than delayed rewards seems like a justifiable decision).
Finally, we propose that successful (or effortless) resolve of mixed reward choice dilemmas may be promoted by capitalizing on – rather than interfering with – delay discounting. To reduce resource-based conflicts between goals (Riediger & Freund, Reference Riediger and Freund2004), people may decide to temporarily behaviorally disengage from some goal pursuits and shelve them with the intention to reengage in the future (Mayer & Freund, Reference Mayer and Freund2020). In shelving otherwise conflicting goals, people can reduce the availability of and exposure to permissible intergoal temptations. This approach is similar to strategies that support decision-making through the restructuring of one's decision-making environment (e.g., Hoch & Loewenstein, Reference Hoch and Loewenstein1991; Thaler & Shefrin, Reference Thaler and Shefrin1981): By means of postponing goals, people restrict their set of actively pursued goals, effectively reducing the complexity of their inter-goal decision-making environment. Critically, people can also capitalize on delay discounting: As both the (formerly) immediate and (now even further) delayed rewards of shelved goals can be (further) discounted, they should be less likely to interfere with intentions to act on active goals. In this sense, effortless self-control may be best understood as avoiding rather than suppressing or resolving temptation and may actually benefit rather than suffer from delay discounting.
Taken together, taking a multiple goal perspective, we argue that research on self-control needs to consider the specific challenges and processes involved in choosing among two (or more) mixed-reward activities.
Like most self-control research, the target article by Ainslie conceptualizes self-control (or willpower) as the process of foregoing smaller sooner rewards in favor of larger later rewards. Prioritizing delayed over immediate reward activities can be challenging, and we do not dispute the importance of understanding how people negotiate such choices. Yet, we suggest that a more complete picture of self-control challenges involves a different type of choice people frequently face: choosing among activities that offer both delayed and immediate rewards.
Most goal-directed activities offer not just one but multiple distinct rewards (for a comprehensive account, see Berkman, Hutcherson, Livingston, Kahn, & Inzlicht, Reference Berkman, Hutcherson, Livingston, Kahn and Inzlicht2017). In this commentary, we focus on a specific subset of such multi-attribute activities, namely activities that offer a combination of delayed and immediate rewards. Goal pursuits are often selected for delayed outcomes, that is, for the prospect of reaping rewards that materialize at a later point in time (e.g., Mischel, Shoda, & Rodriguez, Reference Mischel, Shoda and Rodriguez1989). Yet, many goal pursuits also offer immediate rewards that lie in the goal-directed activities themselves or in small interim targets (e.g., Rheinberg, Reference Rheinberg1989; Woolley & Fishbach, Reference Woolley and Fishbach2016). For example, the activities of “community work” and “studying” may be primarily motivated by the prospect of achieving delayed rewards (e.g., for community work: contributing to societal good; for studying: good grades). However, engaging in these activities also offers immediate rewards (e.g., for community work: the enjoyment of engaging with people; for studying: the enjoyment of learning about interesting topics). We refer to activities that offer both types of rewards, immediate and delayed ones, as mixed-reward activities.
Assuming that many goal-directed activities are best described as mixed reward activities, we suggest that people frequently face a distinct type of choice: choosing among multiple mixed-reward options. More specifically, we suggest that mixed-reward choices are ubiquitous in multiple goal pursuit contexts. People usually strive for multiple long-term goals in their everyday lives (e.g., multiple work, leisure, and family goals; Freund, Knecht, & Wiese, Reference Freund, Knecht and Wiese2014). Balancing the demands of these goals can be challenging, as the amount of resources available for any goal pursuit (e.g., time) is finite. Choosing to act on one goal (e.g., studying) thus often comes at the expense of not being able to act on another goal (e.g., community work). Accordingly, whenever two (or more) mixed reward goal pursuits compete for the same finite resource, people are faced with the task of prioritizing among mixed-reward options.
To promote and sustain success in multiple mixed-reward long-term goals, people have to negotiate on a regular basis when to work on which goal, and for how long. Yet, despite their importance, mixed-reward choices are yet to be addressed by self-control research. Navigating mixed-reward choice options can be challenging because the use of suppression and resolve, as conceptualized by Ainslie (this volume), may be particularly effortful.
Suppression: When attempting to prioritize one mixed-reward activity over another mixed-reward activity, the alternative option may act as strong temptation, as it offers both immediate and delayed rewards. This can render suppression (i.e., blocking or interfering with a positive revaluation of alternative options) particularly effortful. For example, choosing to spend the afternoon at the library studying is difficult on a beautiful summer day, when the alternative of doing community garden work would offer not only higher immediate rewards (e.g., engaging with people and enjoying the weather) but would also allow for promoting the associated delayed reward of contributing to societal good. In short, temptation posed by alternative options that are temporarily preferred for their immediate rewards is further bolstered by the prospect of also promoting valued delayed rewards.
Resolve: Navigating mixed-reward decisions by means of resolve (i.e., avoiding perceived risks to larger incentives) can also be challenging, as these choices may be particularly susceptible to perceptions of what Ainslie termed “credible exceptions to one's rule.” Changing one's plans from studying at the library to community garden work can be framed as a credible exception rather than as lapse, because doing community work, albeit not compatible with the academic goal rule, is consistent with the community goal rule. In other words, choices between two mixed reward options can be perceived in terms of two rules, each of which can be used to argue the other, thereby creating “permissible temptations” (i.e., choosing a mixed-reward option based on immediate rather than delayed rewards seems like a justifiable decision).
Finally, we propose that successful (or effortless) resolve of mixed reward choice dilemmas may be promoted by capitalizing on – rather than interfering with – delay discounting. To reduce resource-based conflicts between goals (Riediger & Freund, Reference Riediger and Freund2004), people may decide to temporarily behaviorally disengage from some goal pursuits and shelve them with the intention to reengage in the future (Mayer & Freund, Reference Mayer and Freund2020). In shelving otherwise conflicting goals, people can reduce the availability of and exposure to permissible intergoal temptations. This approach is similar to strategies that support decision-making through the restructuring of one's decision-making environment (e.g., Hoch & Loewenstein, Reference Hoch and Loewenstein1991; Thaler & Shefrin, Reference Thaler and Shefrin1981): By means of postponing goals, people restrict their set of actively pursued goals, effectively reducing the complexity of their inter-goal decision-making environment. Critically, people can also capitalize on delay discounting: As both the (formerly) immediate and (now even further) delayed rewards of shelved goals can be (further) discounted, they should be less likely to interfere with intentions to act on active goals. In this sense, effortless self-control may be best understood as avoiding rather than suppressing or resolving temptation and may actually benefit rather than suffer from delay discounting.
Taken together, taking a multiple goal perspective, we argue that research on self-control needs to consider the specific challenges and processes involved in choosing among two (or more) mixed-reward activities.
Financial support
We have received no specific funding for this study.
Conflict of interest
We report no conflict of interest.