ORIGINAL RESEARCH

published: 09 July 2018

doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01139

The (In)significance of Executive

Functions for the Trait of
Self-Control: A Psychometric Study
Edward Necka
˛ * , Aleksandra Gruszka, Jarosław Orzechowski, Michał Nowak and
Natalia Wójcik
Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland

Self-control (SC) is an individual trait defined as the ability to pursue long-distance goals
in spite of the obstacles generated by current desires, innate or learned automatisms,
and physiological needs of an organism. This trait is relatively stable across the life
span and it predicts such important features as level of income, quality of social
relationships, and proneness to addictions. It is widely believed that the cognitive
substrate of SC involves the executive functions (EFs), such as inhibitory control,
shifting of attention, and working memory updating. However, the empirical evidence
concerning the relationships between trait SC and EFs is not convincing. The present
Edited by: study aims to address two questions: (1) what is the strength of relationships between
Gail Robinson, trait SC and EFs, and (2) which aspects of SC are predicted by particular EFs, if at
The University of Queensland,
Australia all. In order to answer these questions, we carried out a psychometric study with
Reviewed by: 296 participants (133 men and 163 women, mean age 23.31, SD 3.64), whom we
Katie Moraes de Almondes, investigated with three types of tools: (1) a battery SC scales and inventories, (2)
Federal University of Rio Grande do
a battery of EFs tasks, and (3) two general intelligence tests. Structural equation
Norte, Brazil
Alexander Strobel, modeling approach was used to analyze the data. We found that the latent variables
Technische Universität Dresden, representing SC and the latent variable representing EFs did not show any relationship.
Germany
The standardized path coefficient between EFs and general intelligence turned out
*Correspondence:
Edward Necka
˛ rather strong. We conclude that the trait of SC, measured with questionnaires, does
[email protected]; not depend on the strength of cognitive control, measured with EFs tasks.
[email protected]
Keywords: self-control, self-regulation, executive functions, cognitive control, intelligence
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Cognition, INTRODUCTION
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology Self-control (SC) is a human capability to pursue distant valuable goals in spite of obstacles
Received: 01 March 2018 produced by situational influences, innate or learned automatisms, and inner impulses caused
Accepted: 14 June 2018 by current physiological needs. Traditionally, this phenomenon has been explored within
Published: 09 July 2018 two research paradigms. Firstly, there are studies publishes by Roy F. Baumeister and his
Citation: colleagues, who showed that doing a task that requires effortful control results in transient
Necka
˛ E, Gruszka A, Orzechowski J, reduction of one’s capability to exert SC furthermore (Muraven and Baumeister, 2000).
Nowak M and Wójcik N (2018) The For instance, watching a movie with an instruction to ignore subtitles appearing at the
(In)significance of Executive Functions
bottom of the screen makes a person less able to do higher-order cognitive tasks, such
for the Trait of Self-Control:
A Psychometric Study.
as cognitive tests (Baumeister et al., 1998). Such studies provided empirical background for
Front. Psychol. 9:1139. the so-called strength theory of SC, also known as the ‘ego depletion’ theory (Baumeister
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01139 et al., 2007; Hagger et al., 2010), according to which self-regulation is a kind of resource

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 July 2018 | Volume 9 | Article 1139

Necka
˛ et al. Self-Control and Executive Functions

that can be ‘spent’ on tasks requiring effortful control. The functions determine the general trait), whereas the latter one
more is ‘spent’ on a preceding task the less can be ‘spent’ on is called the top-down approach (the general trait determines
the following tasks, unless the resources are renewed during a cognitive functions). The training studies (e.g., Jaeggi et al.,
recreational break. The ‘ego depletion’ effect, which we suggest to 2008) showed that enhancement of intelligence may result
label with a neutral term ‘the Baumeister effect,’ is now debated from systematic improvement of working memory capacity
concerning its strength and generality (Lurquin et al., 2016). (a far transfer effect), which favors the bottom-up stance. The
Secondly, there are studies published by Mischel (1974) and bottom-up explanations, according to which specific cognitive
his collaborators (Mischel et al., 1989), showing high predictive functions determine the level of intelligence, rather than the
value of one’s ability to refuse immediate gratification for the opposite, are also supported by theoretical considerations (e.g.,
sake for a much larger but delayed reward. In the so-called Sternberg, 2008). However, there are serious doubts concerning
marshmallow paradigm, preschool children were rewarded with the question whether intelligence really can be improved
one cake, which they could eat immediately, unless they decided through training (e.g., Shipstead et al., 2012), so the bottom-
to wait for the second cake, which – unbeknownst to them – up explanations of intelligence still need stronger empirical
would be delivered 15 min later. The median waiting time for evidence.
the second cake was about 7 min, although some children could As regards the trait of SC, there is a widespread conviction
not wait longer than 1 min whereas others could withstand the that it is cognitively subserved by executive functions (EFs).
whole waiting period. These huge individual differences in the According to a definition proposed by Akira Miyake and his co-
ability to delay gratification, measured in the preschool period, workers, EFs are ‘. . .general-purpose control mechanisms that
appeared highly predictive concerning important aspects of adult modulate the operation of various cognitive subprocesses and
life, such as higher income, better and more stable relationships, thereby regulate the dynamics of human cognition’ (Miyake
and reduced vulnerability to addictions (Mischel et al., 1988; et al., 2000, p. 50). Various cognitive processes, involved in
Casey et al., 2011). reception and storage of information (perception, memory), but
Recent approaches to SC underline its involvement in the also implicated in manipulation with mental representations
process of value-based decision-making (Inzlicht and Berkman, (thinking), need some kind of integration and supervision.
2015; Berkman et al., 2017). The decision to exert SC, or not, Without such a management, human cognition would get
is described as a function of choice, determined by different disintegrated, thus being unable to play its fundamental
values ascribed to potential personal goals. According to this function, namely, the control of behavior. In other words,
account, sometimes people are able to delay gratification because cognitive processes must be effectively controlled in order
the value of the delayed goal is much higher than the value of to be able to command our behavior (Diamond, 2013).
the immediately accessible goal, although the latter looks rather Cognitive control seems particularly important in situations
tempting and may be reached without any effort. In other cases, that need overriding automatic behavioral tendencies, since
people with enough resources to control themselves may decide such situations are very complex, unexpected, or novel. In
that immediate pleasure is more valuable than a long-distance such situations, a dominant behavioral tendency must be
goal, whose attainment needs time and effort. The ‘Baumeister suppressed (inhibition), a new pattern of behavior or a new
effect’ can therefore be accounted for in terms of value weighting mental set must be initiated (shifting), and the awareness
and failures of motivation rather than in terms of depletion of concerning the ongoing task must be refreshed (working memory
‘ego resources.’ updating). No wonder, then, that Miyake and co-workers
In this paper, we discuss the problem of cognitive consider Inhibition, Shifting, and Updating, to be the most
underpinnings of SC, understood as a relatively stable individual important EFs.
trait. We assume that such a trait can be assessed with reliable The definition proposed Miyake et al. (2000) declares that
psychometric tools, and the scores gained by a person with such EFs are general-purpose mechanisms, meaning that they should
tools can be related to other individual traits, such as personality be implicated in all kinds of cognition. However, they appeared
and intelligence. Next, we assume that the trait of SC is subserved particularly important for higher-order cognitive processes, such
by specialized cognitive functions, similarly to other individual as thinking and problem solving. Consequently, EFs must be
traits. For instance, it has been convincingly demonstrated that considered as important determinants of individual differences
general fluid intelligence depends on individual differences in in cognition. Indeed, the results of research on intelligence (e.g.,
working memory capacity (e.g., Colom et al., 2004; Chuderski N˛ecka, 1998; Chuderski and N˛ecka, 2010; Cole et al., 2012) and
and Necka, 2012, and the trait of creativity is related to divergent creativity (e.g., Groborz and N˛ecka, 2003; Benedek et al., 2014)
thinking skills (McCrae, 1987; Baer, 1993). Since stable traits are support this conclusion. Regarding SC, many authors seem to be
hardly susceptible to experimental manipulations, the studies convinced that EFs demonstrate huge individual differences that
on cognitive underpinnings of individual differences are mostly subserve individual level of SC (e.g., Hofmann et al., 2009, 2012).
correlational in nature, so the causal explanations are quite For instance, Kotabe and Hofmann (2015, p. 625) maintain that
risky. It may be claimed, for example, that capacity of working ‘the importance of EFs to SC is clear.’ In the theoretical model
memory determines the level of general fluid intelligence or outlined by these authors, individual differences in SC depend,
that the level of general intelligence determines accuracy in among other cognitive and motivational factors, on the capacity
dealing with working memory tasks. The former account is to exert control. This capacity is supposed to be measured by tasks
sometimes referred to as the bottom-up approach (cognitive that engage executive control.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 July 2018 | Volume 9 | Article 1139

Necka
˛ et al. Self-Control and Executive Functions

On the one hand, the importance of EFs for SC has been MATERIALS AND METHODS
demonstrated in many studies. For instance, the longitudinal
study carried out by Friedman et al. (2011) showed in that Participants
preschool children who were able to restrain themselves from We investigated 296 participants recruited via two social media
immediate gratification demonstrated, as adolescents, higher networks. There were 133 men and 163 women in the sample.
level of the common EF factor (closely related to Inhibition) Their mean age was 23.31 years (SD = 3.64). All participants
and Shifting, but not Updating. Young et al. (2009) determined were from outside of the Psychology Department. Participants
that behavioral misconduct among adolescents (e.g., substance obtained 60 PLN (ca. 15 €) for 4 h of testing, including a 15-min
abuse) was correlated with lower scores in three EFs tasks: refreshment break.
Stroop, anti-saccade, and stop-signal. People who were able to
delay gratification in the marshmallow experiment at the age of
four showed better performance in the ‘go-no go’ and prepotent
Ethics Statement
The committee for ethics in studies involving human
response inhibition tasks at the age of 16–18 (Eigsti et al., 2006).
participants, assigned by the Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian
There are also findings suggesting that criminal and violent
University in Krakow, approved this study on the basis of
behavior may be related to deficient executive control (Meijers
extended description of methods, materials, and procedure.
et al., 2015).
According to the Helsinki declaration, participants signed
On the other hand, there are studies showing very weak
written informed consent forms.
relationships between EF tasks performance and self-report
measures of behavioral control (N˛ecka et al., 2012). Duckworth
and Kern (2011) carried out a meta-analytic study (282 Self-Control Measures
samples, 34,564 participants), trying to establish the strength NAS-50
of relationships between various measures of SC (self-report, This is a self-report questionnaire of SC developed by us (N˛ecka
informant report, delay of gratification) and executive control. et al., 2016). It consists of 50 items divided into five subscales:
The authors found rather weak inter-correlations between Initiative and Persistence (IP), Proactive Control (PC), Switching
various types of tasks, but also within each type of tasks. For and Flexibility (SF), Inhibition and Adjournment (IA), and
instance, EF tasks appeared inter-correlated among themselves Goal Maintenance (GM). This tool has been subjected to the
at the level of r = 0.14; the average correlations between validation study with 934 participants (see: N˛ecka et al., 2016).
EF tasks and other groups of measures appeared weak as Its reliability was assessed with internal consistency measures
well: r = 0.11 for delay tasks, r = 0.10 for self-reports, (Cronbach’s α = 0.86) and test/retest approach (intraclass
and r = 0.14 for informant reports. Interestingly, average correlation coefficient ICC = 0.94). The validation study revealed
convergent validity measures appeared much higher for self- that five subscales correlated with the NAS-50 general score at the
report (r = 0.48) and informant-report (r = 0.54) measures. moderate or high level (+0.47 < r < +0.70, depending on the
These results suggest that both SC and executive control are subscale). The general score turned out strongly associated with
highly heterogeneous constructs that need to be assessed with Baumeister’s (see: Tangney et al., 2004) SC Scale (r = 0.77). Also,
heterogeneous batteries of tests, scales, or questionnaires. They the Conscientiousness dimension of the Big Five model predicted
also suggest that the category of EF tasks is much more the NAS-50 general score (r = 0.54). So, the convergent validity
diversified than the category of self-report and informant-report of NAS-50 seems suitable. As to divergent validity, this measure
measures. Low level of inter-correlations between various EF appeared completely independent of general mental ability scores
tasks may result from their ‘impurity,’ meaning that such tasks (see: N˛ecka et al., 2016, for details).
measure not only one specific EF but also other functions,
not to mention a number of other factors, such as general NAS-40
speed of responding, attentional alertness, susceptibility to This is a mutation of NAS-50 prepared for the informant report
boredom during long experimental sessions, lack of computer studies. We removed 10 items from the original version (NAS-
phobia, etc. 50), due to their overly introspective content that would make
In this paper, we attempt to investigate the relationship them difficult to use by informants. The remaining 40 items
between executive control, measured with standard EF tasks, were converted into the third person grammatical version (e.g.,
and SC, measured with both self-report and informant-report ‘He/she is usually not late for meetings’ instead ‘I’m usually not
questionnaires. In order to overcome to problem of diversity late for meetings’). In this way, NAS-40 became possible to fill in
and ‘impurity’ of EF tasks, we adopted the structural equation by somebody who knows the participant proper (a colleague, a
modeling approach with a relatively large sample of participants. teacher, etc.). The reliability measures of NAS-40 turned out to be
The SEM approach allows extraction of latent variables that satisfactory (α = 0.84, ICC = 0.92).
ignore specificity of various tasks, thus expressing the common
factor that these tasks refer to. Additionally, we included two Self-Control Scale (SCS)
general intelligence tests, in order to establish whether possible The Self-Control Scale (SCS), developed by Tangney et al. (2004),
relationships between SC and EFs would be moderated by the is a self-report questionnaire consisting of 36 items. The authors
general mental ability, which is implicated in executive control report good reliability characteristics (Cronbach’s α = 0.89, test–
as well. retest reliability = 0.89).

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3 July 2018 | Volume 9 | Article 1139

Necka
˛ et al. Self-Control and Executive Functions

Conscientiousness (C) signal of stop and the internal (i.e., mental) reaction to this
We administered the NEO-FFI questionnaire (Costa and signal. If there is a.50 probability of responding in spite of the
McCrae, 1992) in the Polish adaptation (Zawadzki et al., 1998). stop signal, time of the unobserved internal response to the
This tool was important for its Conscientiousness scale, since signal of stop must be equal to the mean reaction time for
description of this personality dimension pertains to some go responses. Since SSD is adjusted on the basis of accuracy
aspects of SC, understood as an individual trait. observed in the recent trial, the probability of responding in
spite of the signal of stop must be 0.50. Therefore, SSRT is
Executive Control Tasks calculated as the difference between mean RT and adjusted
We administered a battery of five computerized EF tasks that SSD (see: Verbruggen et al., 2008). The shorter (faster) the
were supposed to engage three major EFs: Inhibition, Shifting, SSRT the better is one’s ability to inhibit the unnecessary
and Updating (Miyake et al., 2000). For Inhibition, we selected response.
the Stop signal task. For Shifting, we chose the CATT procedure,
already used in some studies of ours (N˛ecka et al., 2012). N-Back
For Updating, we decided on the n-back procedure, which We used the figural version of the n-back task, the same as in
requires constant refreshment of the content of working memory. Experiment 5 reported by Chuderski and Necka (2012). The task
Additionally, this specific version of n-back requires that false consisted in serial presentation of simple figural symbols, such a
signals (a.k.a. ‘lures’) be ignored, so this task allows assessment star, a triangle, an arrow etc., each approximately 2.5 cm × 2.5 cm
of the Inhibition function as well. The second task engaging in size. Stimuli remained at the screen for 1500 ms and were
the function of Updating is called COUNT, since it requires masked for 300 ms. The task consisted of four series. In every
mental counting of sequentially presented stimuli up to their series we presented 88 stimuli, so altogether there were 352
third appearance and again from the beginning. Furthermore, we stimuli showed to each participant, plus some training stimuli
administered the Stroop task, although it is hard to decide which before each series. Sixteen out of 88 stimuli in every series
specific EF this task refers to. However, in spite of its ‘impurity’ were presented twice. The participants were supposed to decide
it is widely used in the cognitive control research as an example whether the second presentation took place n elements after
of the category of interference resolution tasks (Chuderski et al., the first one. The predefined n number equaled two. Hence,
2012). It is supposed to capture the Inhibition function as well participants were instructed to press a space bar if and only if
(Miyake et al., 2000). All these tasks have been already used in the currently presented symbol had already appeared two items
many studies carried out in our lab (e.g., Chuderski and N˛ecka, back. For instance, if a symbol reappeared in the stream of
2010; Chuderski and Necka, 2012; Chuderski et al., 2012; N˛ecka stimuli separated by just one other symbol (e.g., star, triangle,
et al., 2012). Ideally, it would be advisable to have at least two star again) this repeated symbol became a target that required
tasks engaging each EF, and this was our initial plan. However, detection and speedy response with the space bar. If an item
we could not find an acceptable version of a second task that reappeared too early, i.e., immediately after its first presentation,
would involve the function of Shifting, so we decided to use only or too late, i.e., separated by two symbols instead of just one, it
the CATT procedure. The function of Updating is represented was to be ignored. Stimuli reappearing too early (n = 1) or too
by two tasks: COUNT and n-back, the latter being important late (n = 3) were classified as ‘lures,’ since their function was
in reference to signal detection only. The function of Inhibition to ‘tempt’ participants to respond with no required accuracy.
is represented by Stop-Signal, Stroop, and n-back again, the There were eight targets, four n = 1 lures, and four n = 3
latter being important as far as inhibition of distracting lures is lures in every series. Majority of stimuli (72 in every series)
concerned. did not reappear shortly after their first presentation. These
stimuli may be termed “noise,” since they were to be ignored. If
Stop Signal a participant responded to such stimuli, he/she committed the
Participants performed the stop signal task (Logan, 1994) error of false alarm. Also, if a participant pressed the space bar
modified by Verbruggen et al. (2008). Pictures of an arrow in response to the stimuli that reappeared at “wrong” positions,
heading left or right served as the visual stimuli in this version i.e., n = 1 or n = 3, he/she earned the error of lure detection.
of SST. Participants were asked to press left or right arrow We registered accuracy scores for each participant, defined as
keys according to direction of the arrow on the screen. These the proportion of correct signal detections and the proportion
go stimuli were presented randomly one at a time, each with of erroneous lure detection. We also registered reaction time of
50% probability. Participants were supposed to be as fast and every response.
correct as possible unless an auditory stop signal was presented
over the headphones. In this case they were instructed to stop COUNT
the response. After successful inhibition, the interval between This task was based on the mental counters procedure (Larson,
go and stop stimuli became 50 ms longer, after unsuccessful 1986). Participants were presented with a sequence of randomly
inhibition the interval became 50 ms shorter (minimum 50 ms, repeated figures: triangle, circle or square. They were supposed
maximum 1150 ms). The stop-signal delay (SSD) was set to to count how many times each figure has already appeared. If
250 ms at the start of each experimental block. This task allows the currently displayed figure appeared for the third time in the
calculation the SSRT (stop signal reaction time), according to sequence, the participants had to press space key. Additionally,
the following rationale: SSRT is the time elapsing between the the third appearance of any figure meant that counting of this

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4 July 2018 | Volume 9 | Article 1139

Necka
˛ et al. Self-Control and Executive Functions

particular type of stimulus should start from the beginning. et al., 1983) in the paper-and-pencil form. This test consists of
In this way, the participants had to keep in mind and update 36 items that include a three-by-three matrix of figural patterns.
three ‘stacks’ of elements (i.e., figures). Auditory feedback took The bottom-left pattern is always missing. A testee is supposed
place after each erroneous reaction or lack of reaction for to fill in this blank space with the correct pattern, which he/she
the third presentation of any figure. There were 45 instances can choose from eight response options provided at the bottom
of the third repetition (15 for each figure). The program of the sheet. This test is regarded a good estimation of general
registered the number of misses (lack of notification of the third fluid intelligence since it requires grasping the abstract rules that
repetition), the number of other errors, and the mean response govern the composition of the matrix and to apply this rule while
time. choosing the accurate response. The pilot study showed that the
whole procedure was too long and tiresome for participants;
CATT therefore, only the even items from RAPM were administered,
This task allows the analysis of controlled switching of attention which did not worsen the reliability of assessment.
and its logic was borrowed from Meiran (1996). Participants
were presented with separate digits, which appeared at the screen Analogies (TAO)
for 3 s or until the response was made. They were instructed We also administered another paper-and-pencil test of fluid
either to categorize the digits into odd (left key) and even (right reasoning, which requires understanding and using the relations
key) or to categorize them into smaller than five (left key) and of analogy. Jarosław Orzechowski and Adam Chuderski have
bigger than five (right key). Of course, the digit “5” had to be designed this analogical reasoning test in our lab. It has been used
removed from the set of stimuli. Given that the task required in several published studies (e.g., Chuderski and Necka, 2012;
double categorization, the participants were provided with cues Chuderski et al., 2012). The test includes 36 figural analogies in
that indicated which task they should fulfill in the upcoming trial. the form ‘A is to B as C is to X,’ where A, B, and C are types of
The cues were just single words followed by a question mark, relatively simple patterns of figures, A is related to B according
i.e., “EVEN?” or “SMALLER?”, and they appeared 500 ms before to two, three, four, or five latent rules (e.g., symmetry, rotation,
the stimulus proper. Participants were trained first in the correct change in size, color, thickness, number of objects, etc.), and X is
use of instructions, response keys, and cues (20 trials, 1000 ms an empty space. The task is to choose one figure out of four choice
for a cue). Then, they were asked to perform a series of 148 alternatives that relates to figure C, as B relates to A. Again, only
trials, which were arranged randomly in sequence in relation the even items of TAO were administered.
to repeat and switch conditions. Participants had 3000 ms to
respond (4000 ms in the training phase). Each digit that served as Procedure
a stimulus was masked for 500 ms (1000 ms in the training phase). Participants were invited to the lab in pairs. In the ads that
We registered the reaction time of correct responses as well as advertised participation in this study, we put the precondition
misses and false alarms. Participants were asked to be accurate that two people are welcome together if they know each other for
rather than quick. at least 6 months. This requirement was important, since every
participant was supposed to fill in all self-report questionnaires
Stroop plus one informant-report tool (i.e., NAS-40), pertaining to
We used the numerical version of the Stroop task, which required the colleague he/she appeared with. After reporting to the lab,
counting digits and ignoring their meaning (Fox et al., 1971; participants filled in the conscious consent form, and next they
Chuderski et al., 2012). The screen showed three, four, five, or six started to do the proper tasks in the following sequence: NAS-50,
exemplars of a digit drawn from the set [3, 4, 5, 6]. Each digit NAS-40, SCS, CATT, Count, n-back, Stroop, Stop signal, NEO-
was 0.6 cm × 0.8 cm in size. In congruent trials, the number FFI, Raven, TAO. In the middle of the procedure, which took ca.
of stimuli was in concord with the digits to be counted (e.g., 4 h altogether, participants had a 15-min break when they could
four exemplars of the digit ‘4’). In incongruent trials, the former have snacks and soft drinks.
and the latter differed (e.g., five exemplars of the digit ‘4’). Trials
lasted 3 s or until response was given. There was also a neutral
condition, in which participants were supposed to respond to the RESULTS
number of stimuli not being digits. The instruction was to avoid
reading a digit and to press a response key that was assigned In Table 1 we report basic descriptive statistics. Since every
to a presented number of stimuli. There were 60 congruent, 60 computerized EF task yielded several indices, such as latencies
incongruent, and 60 neutral stimuli altogether. Accuracy and and (in)accuracy measures for different series or level of difficulty,
latency of each response was registered. Dependent variables we do not report all possible measurement outcomes. Only the
(DVs) were as follows: the number of correct responses in each DVs that entered into further structural modeling are displayed
condition and the average response time in each condition. in Table 1. These data pertaining to range and standard deviation
suggest that there were huge inter-individual differences among
Intelligence Tests participants, which make further correlational and structural
Raven analyses acceptable.
In order to assess their level of fluid intelligence, participants were Table 2 shows the first-order correlation coefficients
given Raven’s Progressive Matrices Advanced Version (Raven pertaining to the formerly described variables. Since some

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5 July 2018 | Volume 9 | Article 1139

Necka
˛ et al. Self-Control and Executive Functions

TABLE 1 | Descriptive statistics.

Minimum Maximum Mean Standard deviation

Statistic Standard error

Age 18.00 43.00 23.35 0.21 3.64

NAS-50 105.00 225.00 165.15 1.17 20.04
NAS-40 85.00 180.00 136.42 1.01 17.45
S-C Scale 65.00 164.00 110.71 1.02 17.57
C (NEO-FFI) 11.00 52.00 32.96 0.46 7.89
TAO 0.00 18.00 13.93 0.18 3.07
RAPM 1.00 23.00 16.16 0.22 3.76
CATT (errors) 0.00 99.00 12.32 1.00 17.28
COUNT (errors) 0.00 33.00 11.56 0.42 7.20
SST (Ssrt) 130.16 477.85 246.73 2.72 46.86
N-BACK (correct) 6.00 24.00 17.72 0.22 3.84
N-BACK (lures) 0.00 21.00 4.04 0.22 3.72

NAS-50, Self-control questionnaire, self-report version (Necka

˛ et al., 2016). NAS-40, Self-control questionnaire, informant version (Necka
˛ et al., 2016). SCS, Self-Control
Scale (Tangney et al., 2004). C (NEO-FFI), Conscientiousness from the NEO-FFI questionnaire. TAO, Analogical Reasoning Test. RAPM, Raven’s Advanced Progressive
Matrices. CATT (errors), Task switching, DV – the overall number of errors. COUNT (errors), Mental counters procedure, DV – the overall number of errors. SST (ssrt),
Stop signal task, DV – stop signal reaction time. N-BACK (correct), Figural n-back task, DV – number of correct responses (n = 2). N-BACK (lures), Figural n-back task,
DV – number of erroneous responses to lures (n = 1 or n = 3).

TABLE 2 | Zero-order correlation coefficients between the indices of self-control (NAS-50, NAS-40, SCS, C), general fluid intelligence (TAO, RAPM), and executive
functions (CATT, COUNT, SST, N-BACK correct, N-BACK lures).

Variable NAS-40 SCS C NEO-FFI TAO RAPM CATT COUNT SST (Ssrt) N-BACK N-BACK
(Errors) (Errors) (Correct) (Lures)

NAS-50 0.290∗∗ 0.759∗∗ 0.726∗∗ −0.020 0.038 −0.010 0.041 0.013 0.022 0.042
NAS-40 0.303∗∗ 0.285∗∗ 0.078 0.096 −0.128∗ −0.044 −0.061 0.026 −0.097
SCS 0.682∗∗ −0.024 0.022 −0.031 −0.009 −0.079 0.065 −0.030
C NEO-FFI −0.097 −0.044 0.027 0.115∗ −0.071 −0.063 0.021
TAO 0.551∗∗ −0.302∗∗ −0.247∗∗ −0.202∗∗ 0.310∗∗ −0.235∗∗
RAPM −0.270∗∗ −0.275∗∗ −0.116∗ 0.311∗∗ −0.27∗∗
CATT (errors) 0.233∗∗ 0.145∗∗ −0.354∗∗ 0.142∗
COUNT (errors) 0.069 −0.311∗∗ 0.158∗∗
SST (Ssrt) −0.160∗∗ 0.113
p = 0.051
N-BACK (correct) −0.255∗∗

NAS-50, Self-control questionnaire, self-report version (Necka

˛ et al., 2016). NAS-40, Self-control questionnaire, informant version (Necka
˛ et al., 2016). SCS, Self-Control
Scale (Tangney et al., 2004). C (NEO-FFI), Conscientiousness from the NEO-FFI questionnaire. TAO, Analogical Reasoning Test. RAPM, Raven’s Advanced Progressive
Matrices. CATT (errors), Task switching, DV – the overall number of errors. COUNT (errors), Mental counters procedure, DV – the overall number of errors. SST (ssrt),
Stop signal task, DV – stop signal reaction time. N-BACK (correct), Figural n-back task, DV – number of correct responses (n = 2). N-BACK (lures), Figural n-back task,
DV – number of erroneous responses to lures (n = 1 or n = 3). ∗ p < 0.05 (two-tailed). ∗∗ p < 0.01 (two-tailed).

DVs were not distributed according to the Gaussian curve, level, which is a result comparable to what has been observed
they were log-transformed before entering the correlational in other studies suing these tools (e.g., Chuderski and Necka,
procedures. We can see that there are strong inter-correlations 2012). In contrast to the above-mentioned relationships, the
between various indices of psychometric SC. In particular, the correlation coefficients pertaining to different measures of EFs
NAS-50 total score turned out highly correlated with SC Scale turned out rather weak, although statistically significant. Some of
(r = 0.759), and with the Conscientiousness scale from the these correlation coefficients are positive and some are negative
NEO-FFI questionnaire (r = 0.726). The informant version of because of the nature of dependent variables (the number of
our scale (NAS-40) shows much weaker, albeit positive and errors versus the number of correct responses). Therefore,
significant correlations with self-report tools (0.290 < r < 0.303, the absolute value of these coefficients should be taken into
depending on the scale). It seems that assessment provided by account as the strength of relationships. The absolute values
peers reveals somewhat different aspects of SC than assessment oscillate between r = 0.069 (n.s.) and r = 0.354 (p < 0.01).
based on one’s own judgment. Table 2 also shows that two Once again, the mutual relationships between various aspects
tests of general fluid intelligence are correlated at the r = 0.551 of executive control appeared not very strong (compare:

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6 July 2018 | Volume 9 | Article 1139

Necka
˛ et al. Self-Control and Executive Functions

Duckworth and Kern, 2011; N˛ecka et al., 2012). Notably, the kurtosis < 7.1) for some measures. This model showed an
absolute values of correlation coefficients between psychometric acceptable model fit: χ2 (26) = 34.301, p = 0.128; CFI = 0.987,
SC and EFs oscillate between r = 0.009 (n.s.) and r = 0.128 RMSEA = 0.033 (90% CI: 0.000, 0.060). Figure 1 displays the
(p < 0.05), and only two of them, out of twenty, surpassed the standardized path coefficients of this model. Note that the fit of
p-level of 0.05. the measurement model of SC was satisfactory: χ2 (2) = 0.766,
In the next step of data analysis, we tested structural models p = 0.682; CFI = 1.000, RMSEA = 0.00 (90% CI: 0.00, 0.087).
that were supposed to capture the relationships between latent Similarly, the fit of the measurement model of executive
variables. The relationships between SC, fluid intelligence, and functioning was very good: χ2 (2) = 1.067, p = 0.586; CFI = 1.000,
EFs were tested by means of latent variable modeling with IBM RMSEA = 0.00 (90% CI: 0.00, 0.096).
SPSS Statistics Amos v. 24, using maximum likelihood (ML) In the next step, both SC and fluid intelligence were regressed
estimation method. The latent variable SC was defined by the on executive functioning (see Figure 2). Again, no error
following measures: NAS50, NAS40, SC Scale and C (NEO-FFI). correlations were specified. This model confirmed that executive
The latent variable executive functioning was defined by five functioning did not predict SC (β = 0.003, n.s.). By contrast, it
measures stemming from four tasks: total number of errors for strongly predicted fluid intelligence (β = −0.74, p < 0.001). The
the CATT task, total number of errors for the COUNT task, stop- correlation between SC and fluid intelligence was set free because
signal reaction time (SSRT) obtained from the Stop-Signal task, zero-order correlation coefficients between SC and intelligence
and two measures from the n-back task: the number of correct measures turned our very weak (see Table 2). The fit of this
responses for N2 condition and the number of lures for N1 and model was also very good: χ2 (42) = 50.20, p = 0.180; CFI = 0.990,
N3 conditions. Note that all indicators except of the number RMSEA = 0.026 (90% CI: 0.00, 0.049). Figure 2 shows the
of correct responses for N2 condition were reversed: they were standardized path coefficients of this model.
either errors or response latencies. Therefore, their higher values We report only the models that obtained acceptable fit indices.
indicate lower performance, thus justifying negative signs of Alternative models, built with other DVs, did not fit properly with
relationships reported in Figures 1, 2. Finally, the latent variable the data. In particular, models in which the Stroop task was taken
Fluid intelligence was defined by two tasks: TAO and RAMP. It into account turned out unacceptable.
must be underscored that the interference effect from the Stroop
task, computed as the proportion of RT in the incongruent and
congruent conditions, did not contribute to this latent variable, DISCUSSION
since the loading was as low as 0.11. Other DVs obtained from
the Stroop task (e.g., latencies, error rates) did not contribute In order to examine the significance of EFs for the trait of SC
anything, either. For these reasons, we excluded the Stroop in adult healthy volunteers, we investigated 296 people with
task indices from further analyzes, although some models that the battery of five EF tasks and three psychometric measures
included Stroop showed acceptable fit. of SC. We also added two general fluid intelligence tests (Gf)
In the first model, SC was regressed on executive with the intention to check whether potential relationships
functioning. No error correlations were specified. The analysis between SC and EF would be affected in some way (i.e.,
revealed evidence for moderate non-normality (skew < 2.7, strengthened, weakened, mediated) by Gf. In the structural

FIGURE 1 | The structural equation model linking executive functions with self-control.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7 July 2018 | Volume 9 | Article 1139

Necka
˛ et al. Self-Control and Executive Functions

FIGURE 2 | The structural equation model linking executive functions with intelligence and self-control.

equation modeling approach, we extracted three latent variables, still unknown relationships (Ackerman, 2018). According to
representing executive control, behavioral control, and general the mainstream of the personality research, major personality
fluid intelligence. We found that the EF—SC relationship was dimensions should be regarded orthogonal to mental abilities.
non-existent, whereas the EF—Gf relationship turned out quite Apart from the existing body of evidence (e.g., McCrae and Costa,
strong. No relationship between SC and intelligence became 1987; Ackerman and Heggestad, 1997), this conviction may be
evident. supported by theoretical arguments. For instance, personality
Lack of relationship between the latent variables representing traits are usually bipolar in nature (e.g., extraversion versus
executive control, measured with EF tasks, and psychometric SC, introversion) and none of their poles are regarded ‘better’ or
measured with questionnaires, is probably the most important ‘worse’ as such. Rather, being close to one of the extremes
finding of this study. On the one hand, it might be regarded may help in specific tasks, situations, or job requirements:
unexpected taking into account the widespread conviction about extraverts usually do better as salespersons although introverts
the importance of EFs for effective control of behavior (e.g., may prevail in laboratory job (Barrick and Mount, 1991).
Hofmann et al., 2009, 2012; Diamond and Lee, 2011; Kotabe and Intellectual traits work in a different manner, since it is usually
Hofmann, 2015). According to this stance, EFs play a crucial beneficial for a person to demonstrate high rather than low
role in determination of the efficacy of behavioral SC, being its level of cognitive abilities. General intelligence seems particularly
cognitive substructure. On the other hand, our findings should helpful because it contributes to performance in all cognitive
not be surprising in the context of other studies reporting rather tasks. Another argument pertains to the distinction between
weak relationships of executive control tasks with self-reported typical and maximal performance (Goff and Ackerman, 1992).
measures of behavioral control (e.g., Reynolds et al., 2006; N˛ecka Personality traits shape human behavior in typical, repetitive,
et al., 2012). The meta-analysis performed by Duckworth and everyday situations, whereas intellectual traits determine human
Kern (2011) seems particular interesting from this point of view performance in very specific situations, such as exams or test
because the authors found that the average correlation coefficient taking sessions, in which a person attempts to obtain the
between these two types of measures, obtained after examining best possible result. IQ scores predict real-life achievements
282 studies, was as low as r = 0.10. What is a tenable explanation with limited precision because of this gap between typical and
of these discrepancies, then? maximal performance. Standard personality assessment tools
To begin with, there is a possibility that SC is a personality (i.e., questionnaires) include items referring to typical everyday
trait rather than a cognitive ability. Personality traits are believed situations, whereas standard intellectual tests consist of cognitive
to be independent of both general intelligence and particular tasks that require the highest possible engagement.
lower-order abilities constituting the g factor, although there If this line of reasoning is sound, we should treat the trait
are arguments that change of research paradigms might reveal of SC as a dimension belonging to the realm of personality

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8 July 2018 | Volume 9 | Article 1139

Necka
˛ et al. Self-Control and Executive Functions

rather than to the category of cognitive abilities. Specifically, and their implementation for particular study. Being aware
this trait probably does not work according to ‘the more the of this problem, we deliberately designed the study in the
better’ principle, which is characteristic of intellectual abilities. manner that allowed construction of latent variables, which were
It would be fascinating to reveal possible dark sides of high supposed to go beyond specificity of various tasks and capture
level of behavioral SC, since over-control may cause a number the common variance pertaining to all tasks. To some extent,
of problems in social adjustment and personal satisfaction, such we succeeded because the latent variable representing executive
as inflexibility or obsessive-compulsive behavior. Anyway, the control demonstrated quite strong relationship with the latent
trait of SC may not need any cognitive functions underlying its variable representing general fluid intelligence. From this point
mode of functioning. Consequently, it should not enter in any of view, lack of relationship between EF and the trait of SC turns
relationship with executive control, measured with EF tasks. out to be significant. If the standardized path coefficient between
So, it is possible that the trait of SC does not need any EF and Gf is rather strong, and the analogical coefficient between
underlying cognitive functions but it is also possible that it EF and SC is non-existent, then this ‘negative’ result probably
needs functions that were not investigated in our study. We supports the stance according to which SC in adult healthy people
based this investigation on the Miyake et al. (2000) model of does not depend on the strength of executive control. Still, this
EFs, for its widespread acceptance and popularity. However, this conclusion must be supplemented with the caveat that different
model lacks some EFs that might be important for SC, mostly set of EF tasks might have resulted in quite different pattern of
for its proactive aspects. Careful planning of behavior, including relationships between the latent variables.
creation a schedule of goals and actions, is undoubtedly an Another explanation of the lack of any EF—SC relationship
important facet of SC. But planning is rarely taken into account pertains to the characteristics of the sample. We investigated
in EF studies, except of some clinical studies in which Shallice healthy adult volunteers who demonstrated the wide range of the
(1982) Tower of London (ToL) task is adopted (Mihalec et al., trait of SC, whereas studies demonstrating the existence of the
2017). Although ToL engages short-term planning of actions, EF—SC relation were typically run with special populations, such
which tends to be impaired in the frontal lobe patients, as well as as incarcerated violent offenders (Seruca and Silva, 2016; Meijers
in PD and AD patients, it does not engage the processes involved et al., 2017). Still, the relationships reported are rather weak. For
in long term planning performed by healthy people during their instance, Meijers et al. (2017) investigated 130 prisoners with
goal-oriented activities. Another EF function that is absent in the a neuropsychological battery suitable to assess such functions
Miyake et al. (2000) model pertains to goal maintenance. Inability as response inhibition, planning, attention, shifting, working
to remember what is the goal of one’s currently performed memory, and impulsivity. They found only one significant
action results in chaotic behavior and overly dependence on difference between violent and non-violent offenders, which
environmental influences, at the expense of behavior triggered by referred to response inhibition (partial correlation r = 0.205).
endogenous decisions. On the contrary, the ability to maintain They also report a weak relationship between recidivism and
the goals allows efficient control of actions. Had we included planning (r = 0.209). As we can see, some EFs may demonstrate
the goal maintenance function into the battery of EF tasks, we predictive value for SC when the latter is really weak. If the whole
might be able to obtain a bit stronger relationships between range of SC variance is taken into account, such relationships –
executive control and behavioral control. Inclusion of updating being generally scarce and weak – disappear. Interestingly, the
tasks did not help to resolve this problem because such tasks evidence demonstrating the predictive value of SC for various
pertain to short-term updating of the content of working memory aspects of life success pertains mostly to low level of this trait,
rather that long-term keeping in mind personal goals, particularly so to speak – to lack of SC. For instance, the results reported
their hierarchy of importance and time scheduling. Tasks that by Moffitt et al. (2011) show that it is the low level of SC that
would be able to engage long-term processes of planning and goal predicts such teenage problems as smoking, school absenteeism,
maintenance are still lacking in the standard list of EF procedures, or unplanned parenthood. Their participants were divided into
although they seem to be of utmost necessity. quintiles according the informant-based ratings of SC. The first
It is also possible that the trait of SC needs EFs, including quintile differed substantially from the rest of participants, while
the ones that were investigated in our study, but we were unable the fifth quintile – representing to highest level of SC – did
to unveil such relationships due to psychometric reasons. The not contribute much as to prediction of behavioral conduct or
EF tasks have been designed not for psychometric purposes but misconduct. It is possible, then, that SC is important for life
for investigation of the general aspects of cognition. Therefore, success in the sense that lack of it predicts many problems but
their psychometric properties are quite low, particularly in its high level of development does not have predictive value
reference to stability of measurement. These tasks are also very anymore. In other words, there may be a threshold principle
narrow in scope, meaning that each of them engages a very involved in this relationship: the trait of SC might be important
specific process or function, such as disengagement of attention up to some specific value (threshold), above which it loses
(the flanker task) or conflict resolution (the Stroop task). For significance as a predictor of life success.
psychometric purposes, the EF tasks should be much broader Finally, there is a possibility that self-report measures do not
in scope. Moreover, the existing EF tasks are characterized provide exact estimation of the individual capacity to control
by large amount of specific variance resulting from specificity one’s behavior. Consequently, they should be replaced with
of stimuli, procedure, implementation, equipment, instructions, some more objective measures, such as informant reports (e.g.,
etc. There is no standard rule of construction the EF tasks Moffitt et al., 2011) or specially devised experimental tasks

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9 July 2018 | Volume 9 | Article 1139

Necka
˛ et al. Self-Control and Executive Functions

(e.g., Steimke et al., 2016). SC is a highly valued personal impairments. Still, a balanced combination of self-reported and
trait, therefore the social desirability factor is likely to influence objective sources of knowledge should be adopted in further
the way in which people approach particular items in self- studies. Finally, our sample of participants, albeit quite large, was
report questionnaires. Deliberate decision to present oneself in probably not diversified enough concerning age, socio-economic
a positive way is probably not very likely in procedures that status, and the general level of the trait of SC. In particular,
assure full anonymity, as was the case of the present study. Still, we lacked participants who would suffer from mild, sub-clinical
at least some participants could choose to present themselves impairments of SC. Maybe the relationship we were not able to
as more ‘organized’ and ‘reliable’ than they know is the case find takes place only as far as such people are concerned.
in reality. Moreover, the results could be biased not only due
to conscious decisions to boost the questionnaire results but
also because of reduced awareness one’s own personal traits. CONCLUSION
We simply may not know how much control do we have
over our own cognitive control (N˛ecka et al., 2012), therefore, While planning this study, we assumed that at least weak
our questionnaire responses may not reveal the real state of relationships between the trait of SC and efficiency of
affairs. However, this kind of bias seems unlikely to act in executive control would turn out significant. Former studies
just one direction, namely, toward the unrealistically high level were conducted with smaller samples and usually without
of assessment. If people are not aware how much control latent variable modeling. Since latent variables go beyond
do they have, they may either overestimate or underestimate specific variance produced by particular measurement tasks and
their capability of behavioral control. In consequence, the procedures, thus capturing ‘the essence’ of the constructs of
overall results should not be systematically heightened, although interest, such modeling seemed much more promising than
reliability of assessment is likely to suffer. To prevent this regular correlational approach. So far, the hypothesis that EFs
threat, items of our questionnaires did not require general constitute the cognitive substrate of the trait of SC must be
knowledge about one’s trait but only some level of awareness rejected. In its strong version, our take-home message would
concerning specific situations. For instance, we did not ask sound like the following: EFs are not significant for SC, probably
‘Do you think you are a self-controlling person?’. Rather, we because they belong to the realm of abilities whereas the latter is
attempted to ask, for instance, about being late for meetings or a part the personality domain. In a weak and humble version, the
doing deadlines. Additionally, we supplemented the battery of message is that we were not able to prove such a relationship.
SC tools with the informant-based questionnaire NAS-40. Still,
there is a possibility that the battery of tools supposed to assess
the trait of SC suffered from subjectivity and bias toward social AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
desirability.
This study suffers from some limitations that make the final EN designed the study and drafted the manuscript. AG helped
conclusions questionable. Firstly, the number and variety of to prepare the materials, performed all major statistical analyses,
EFs tasks should be increased. EFs responsible for planning and helped to prepare the final version of the manuscript. JO
and goal maintenance seem particularly important for SC but helped to prepare the materials and improved the final version
they are mostly missing in experimental studies, including of the manuscript. MN and NW helped to prepare the materials,
ours. Working memory updating tasks appear to involve short- participated in the data gathering, and helped to prepare the final
term goal maintenance, but not planning. Secondly, assessment version of the manuscript.
of SC should be made more objective, for instance through
application of observational scales referring to participants’
behavioral characteristics (e.g., Moffitt et al., 2011). We used the FUNDING
informant version of the SC questionnaire, which undoubtedly
helped to improve objectivity of assessment, but this solution This paper has been prepared thanks to the support from the
is far from perfect, mostly because of limited knowledge the Polish National Centre of Science (NCN), Grant No. DEC-
informants may have concerning the ‘real’ level of SC represented 2013/08/A/HS6/00045.
by the participants proper. The objective measures of SC are
rather difficult to employ because of the very nature of SC, which
seems to be a multi-dimensional and multi-faceted phenomenon. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Self-report questionnaires, in spite of all their limitations, have
a fundamental advantage: they allow holistic and generalized The authors wish to thank Olivia Kłodzińska for her cooperation
assessment that goes beyond specific situations and specific in the process of data gathering.

REFERENCES Ackerman, P. L., and Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and

interests: evidence for overlapping traits. Psychol. Bull. 121, 219–245. doi: 10.
Ackerman, P. L. (2018). The search for personality-intelligence relations: 1037/0033-2909.121.2.219
methodological and conceptual issues. J. Intell. 6:2. doi: 10.3390/ Baer, J. (1993). Creativity and Divergent Thinking: A Task-Specific Approach.
jintelligence6010002 New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 July 2018 | Volume 9 | Article 1139

Necka
˛ et al. Self-Control and Executive Functions

Barrick, M. R., and Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and Hofmann, W., Friese, M., and Strack, F. (2009). Impulse and self-control from a
job performance: a meta-analysis. Pers. Psychol. 44, 1–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1744- dual-systems perspective. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 4, 162–176. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-
6570.1991.tb00688.x 6924.2009.01116.x
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., and Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego Hofmann, W., Schmeichel, B. J., and Baddeley, A. D. (2012). Executive
depletion: is the active self a limited resource? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74, 1252– functions and self-regulation. Trends Cogn. Sci. 16, 174–180. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.
1265. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252 2012.01.006
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K., and Tice, D. M. (2007). The strength model of self- Inzlicht, M., and Berkman, E. T. (2015). Six questions for the resource model
control. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 16, 351–355. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007. of control (and some answers). Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 9, 511–524. doi:
00534.x 10.1111/spc3.12200
Benedek, M., Jauk, E., Sommer, M., Arendasy, M., and Neubauer, A. C. (2014). Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J., and Perrig, W. J. (2008). Improving fluid
Intelligence, creativity, and cognitive control: the common and differential intelligence with training on working memory. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105,
involvement of executive functions in intelligence and creativity. Intelligence 6829–6833. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0801268105
46, 73–83. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2014.05.007 Kotabe, H. P., and Hofmann, W. (2015). On integrating the components of
Berkman, E. T., Hutcherson, C. A., Livingston, J. L., Kahn, L. E., and Inzlicht, M. self-control. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10, 618–638. doi: 10.1177/1745691615593382
(2017). Self-control as value-based choice. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 26, 422–428. Larson, G. E. (1986). The Mental Counters Test. San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel
doi: 10.1177/0963721417704394 Research and Development Center.
Casey, B. J., Somerville, L. H., Gotlib, I. H., Ayduk, O., Franklin, N. T., Askren, Logan, G. D. (1994). “On the ability to inhibit thought and action: a user’s guide
M. K., et al. (2011). Behavioral and neural correlates of delay of gratification 40 to the stop signal paradigm,” in Inhibitory Processes in Attention, Memory, and
years later. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 14998–15003. doi: 10.1073/pnas. Language, eds D. Dagenbach and T. H. Carr (San Diego, CA: Academic Press),
1108561108 189–239.
Chuderski, A., and N˛ecka, E. (2010). “Intelligence and cognitive control,” in Lurquin, J. H., Michaelson, L. E., Barker, J. E., Gustavson, D. E., von Bastian, C. C.,
Individual Differences in Cognition: Attention, Memory, and Executive Control, Carruth, N. P., et al. (2016). No evidence of the ego-depletion effect across
eds W. A. Gruszka, G. Matthews, and B. Szymura (New York, NY: Springer), task charactersitics and individual differences: a pre-registered study. PLoS One
263–282. 11:e0147770. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147770
Chuderski, A., and Necka, E. (2012). The contribution of working memory to fluid McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience.
reasoning: capacity, control, or both? J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 38, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 52, 1258–1265. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1258
1689–1710. doi: 10.1037/a0028465 McCrae, R. R., and Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of
Chuderski, A., Taraday, M., N˛ecka, E., and Smoleń, T. (2012). Storage capacity personality across instruments and observers. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 52, 81–90.
explains fluid intelligence but executive control does not. Intelligence 40, 278– doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81
295. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2012.02.010 Meijers, J., Harte, J. M., Jonker, F. A., and Meynen, G. (2015). The prison brain?
Cole, M. W., Yarkoni, T., Repovš, G., Anticevic, A., and Braver, T. S. Executive dysfunction in prisoners. Front. Psychol. 6:45. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.
(2012). Global connectivity of prefrontal cortex predicts cognitive control 2015.00043
and intelligence. J. Neurosci. 32, 8988–8999. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0536- Meijers, J., Harte, J. M., Meynen, G., and Cuijpers, P. (2017). Differences in
12.2012 executive functioning between violent and non-violent offenders. Psychol. Med.
Colom, R., Rebollo, I., Palacios, A., Juan-Espinosa, M., and Kyllonen, P. C. (2004). 47, 1784–1793. doi: 10.1017/S0033291717000241
Working memory is (almost) perfectly predicted by g. Intelligence 32, 277–296. Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance.
doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2003.12.002 J. Exp. Psychol. 22, 1423–1442. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.22.6.1423
Costa, P. T. Jr., and McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Pers. Mihalec, J., Bezdicek, O., Nikolai, T., Harsa, P., Jech, R., Silhan, P., et al.
Individ. Dif. 13, 653–665. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(92)90236-I (2017). A comparative study of Tower of London scoring systems and
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 64, 135–168. doi: normative data. Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 32, 328–338. doi: 10.1093/arclin/
10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750 acw111
Diamond, A., and Lee, K. (2011). Interventions shown to aid executive function Mischel, W. (1974). “Processes in delay of gratification,” in Advances in
development in children 4-12 years old. Science 333, 959–964. doi: 10.1126/ Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 7, ed. L. Berkowitz (New York, NY:
science.1204529 Academic Press), 249–292.
Duckworth, A. L., and Kern, M. L. (2011). A meta-analysis of the convergent Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., and Peake, P. (1988). The nature of adolescent
validity of self-control measures. J. Res. Pers. 45, 259–268. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp. competencies predicted by preschool delay of gratification. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
2011.02.004 54, 687–696. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.687
Eigsti, I. M., Zayas, V., Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., Ayduk, O., Dadlani, M. B., et al. Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., and Rodriguez, M. L. (1989). Delay of gratification in
(2006). Predicting cognitive control from preschool to late adolescence and children. Science 244, 933–938. doi: 10.1126/science.2658056
young adulthood. Psychol. Sci. 17, 478–484. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006. Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., and
01732.x Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their
Fox, L. A., Shor, R. E., and Steinman, R. J. (1971). Semantic gradients and contributions to complex “Frontal Lobe” tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cogn.
interference in naming color, spatial direction, and numerosity. J. Exp. Psychol. Psychol. 41, 49–100. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
91, 59–65. doi: 10.1037/h0031850 Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H.,
Friedman, N. P., Miyake, A., Robinson, J. L., and Hewitt, J. K. (2011). et al. (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and
Developmental trajectories in toddlers’ self-restraint predict individual public safety. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 2693–2698. doi: 10.1073/pnas.
differences in executive functions 14 years later: a behavioral 1010076108
genetic analysis. Dev. Psychol. 47, 1410–1430. doi: 10.1037/a00 Muraven, M., and Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited
23750 resources: does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychol. Bull. 126, 247–259.
Goff, M., and Ackerman, P. L. (1992). Personality-intelligence relations: assessment doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.126.2.247
of typical intellectual engagement. J. Educ. Psychol. 84, 537–552. doi: 10.1037/ N˛ecka, E. (1998). “Learning, automaticity, and attention: an individual differences
0022-0663.84.4.537 approach,” in Learning and Individual Differences: Process, Trait, and Content
Groborz, M., and N˛ecka, E. (2003). Creativity and cognitive control: explorations Determinants, eds W. P. L. Ackerman, P. C. Kyllonen, and R. D. Roberts
of generation and evaluation skills. Creat. Res. J. 15, 183–197. doi: 10.1080/ (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association), 161–181.
10400419.2003.9651411 N˛ecka, E., Lech, B., Sobczyk, N., and Śmieja, M. (2012). How much do we know
Hagger, M. S., Wood, C., Stiff, C., and Chatzisarantis, N. L. (2010). Ego depletion about our own cognitive control: self-report versus performance measures of
and the strength model of self-control: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 136, executive control. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 28, 240–247. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/
495–525. doi: 10.1037/a0019486 a000147

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 11 July 2018 | Volume 9 | Article 1139

Necka
˛ et al. Self-Control and Executive Functions

N˛ecka, E., Wujcik, R., Orzechowski, J., Gruszka, A., Janik, B., Nowak, M., et al. interpersonal success. J. Pers. 72, 271–324. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.
(2016). NAS-50 and NAS-40: new scales for the assessment of self-control. 00263.x
Pol. Psychol. Bull. 47, 346–355. doi: 10.1515/ppb-2016-0041 Verbruggen, F., Logan, G. D., and Stevens, M. A. (2008). STOP-IT: windows
Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., and Raven, J. (1983). Manual for Raven’s Progressive executable software for the stop-signal paradigm. Behav. Res. Methods 40,
Matrices and Vocabulary Scales (Section 4, Advanced Progressive Matrices). 479–483. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.2.479
London: H. K. Lewis. Young, S. E., Friedman, N. P., Miyake, A., Willcutt, E. G., Corley, R. P., Haberstick,
Reynolds, B., Ortengren, A., Richards, J. B., and de Wit, H. (2006). Dimensions of B. C., et al. (2009). Behavioral disinhibition: liability for externalizing spectrum
impulsive behavior: personality and behavioral measures. Pers. Individ. Dif. 40, disorders and its genetic and environmental relation to response inhibition
305–315. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.03.024 across adolescence. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 118, 117–130. doi: 10.1037/a0014657
Seruca, T., and Silva, C. F. (2016). Executive functioning in criminal behavior: Zawadzki, B., Strelau, J., Szczepaniak, P., and Śliwińska, M. (1998). Inwentarz
differentiation between types of crime and exploring the relation between Osobowości NEO-FFI Costy i McCrae. Adaptacja Polska. Podrêcznik [NEO-FFI
shifting, inhibition, and anger. Int. J. Forensic Ment. Health 15, 235–246. doi: Personality Inventory by Costa and McCrae. Polish adaptation. A Manual].
10.1080/14999013.2016.1158755 Warszawa: Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych PTP.
Shallice, T. (1982). Specific impairments of planning. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B
298, 199–209. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1982.0082 Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was
Shipstead, Z., Redick, T. S., and Engle, R. W. (2012). Is working memory training conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
effective? Psychol. Bull. 138, 628–654. doi: 10.1037/a0027473 be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Steimke, R., Stelzel, C., Gaschler, R., Rothkirch, M., Ludwig, V. U., Paschke, L. M.,
et al. (2016). Decomposing self-control: individual differences in goal pursuit Copyright © 2018 N˛ecka, Gruszka, Orzechowski, Nowak and Wójcik. This is an
despite interfering aversion, temptation, and distraction. Front. Psychol. 7:382. open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00382 License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted,
Sternberg, R. J. (2008). Increasing intelligence is possible after all. Proc. Natl. Acad. provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the
Sci. U.S.A. 105, 6791–6792. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0803396105 original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., and Boone, A. L. (2004). High self- practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply
control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and with these terms.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 12 July 2018 | Volume 9 | Article 1139