Wennerhold, L., & Friese, M. (2020).

Why Self-Report Measures of

Self-Control and Inhibition Tasks Do Not Substantially Correlate.
Collabra: Psychology, 6(1): 9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.276

PERSPECTIVE/OPINION

Why Self-Report Measures of Self-Control and Inhibition

Tasks Do Not Substantially Correlate
Lasse Wennerhold and Malte Friese

Trait self-control is often defined as the ability to inhibit dominant responses including thoughts,
emotions, and behavioral impulses. Despite the pivotal role of inhibition for trait self-control, a growing
body of evidence found small-to-zero correlations between self-report measures of trait self-control and
behavioral inhibition tasks. These observations seem puzzling considering that both types of measures

Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article-pdf/6/1/9/437312/276-4106-1-pb.pdf by guest on 25 June 2023

are often seen as operationalizations of the same or at least closely related theoretical constructs.
Previous explanations for this non-correspondence focused on psychometric properties of the measures.
Here, we discuss three further factors that may explain the empirical non-correspondence between trait
self-control scales and behavioral inhibition tasks: (1) the distinction between typical and maximum
performance, (2) the measurement of single versus repeated performance, and (3) differences between
impulses in different domains. Specifically, we argue that a) self-report measures of trait self-control are
designed to assess typical performance, and relative to these, behavioral inhibition tasks are designed to
assess maximum performance; b) self-report measures of trait self-control capture central tendencies of
aggregates of many different instances of behavior, whereas behavioral inhibition tasks are momentary,
one-time state measures; and c) most self-report measures of trait self-control are designed to measure
general, cross-domain inhibition, whereas behavioral inhibition tasks also measure narrower, domain-
specific inhibition to a substantial degree. In conclusion, we argue that it is implausible to hypothesize
more than a low correlation between self-report measures of trait self-control and behavioral inhibition
tasks as they genuinely focus on different aspects of the theoretical construct of self-control. We
also discuss the broader implications of these issues for self-control as a theoretical construct and its
appropriate measurement.

Keywords: self-control; self-report measures; Self-Control Scale; inhibition tasks; executive function;
typical versus maximum performance; impulses

Consider the following scenario: A researcher employs Randles, & Inzlicht, 2018). For example, Saunders et al.
two different measurement instruments designed to (2018) published a series of studies suggesting that trait
measure the same construct. To her surprise, she ends self-control and inhibitory control are not meaningfully
up with a low correlation between the two measures. A associated. Trait self-control was assessed with the most
different researcher does the same thing with slightly prominent self-report measure in the field (i.e., the Self-
different measures – again, almost no correlation Control Scale, Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004);
between the measures. How is this possible? These inhibitory control was assessed with two established
(non-)correlations require an explanation. executive function tasks (i.e., the Stroop task, Stroop,
In recent years, a situation akin to the one described 1935, and the Flanker task, Eriksen & Eriksen, 1974) that
in the previous paragraph has emerged in the field of are commonly used to assess inhibitory control (e.g.,
self-control. A growing body of evidence found small- Diamond, 2013). An internal Bayesian meta-analysis
to-zero correlations between self-report measures of across 5 studies (overall N > 2,600) revealed a null
trait self-control and behavioral inhibition tasks (Allom, relationship between the two types of measures. Similar
Panetta, Mullan, & Hagger, 2016; Duckworth & Kern, results emerged for other constructs closely related to
2011; Eisenberg et al., 2019; Nęcka, Gruszka, Orzechowski, trait self-control, for example, conscientiousness and
Nowak, & Wójcik, 2018; Saunders, Milyavskaya, Etz, impulsivity (Edmonds, Bogg, & Roberts, 2009; Eisenberg
et al., 2019; Enkavi et al., 2019; Fleming, Heintzelmann,
& Bartholow, 2016; Frey, Pedroni, Mata, Rieskamp, &
Department of Psychology, Saarland University, Saarbruecken, DE Hertwig, 2017; Stahl et al., 2014).
Corresponding author: Lasse Wennerhold These empirical observations seem puzzling.
([email protected]) After all, self-report measures of trait self-control
Art. 9, page 2 of 8 Wennerhold and Friese: Self-Report and Inhibition Tasks Measuring Self-Control

and behavioral inhibition tasks are often seen as self-control. While most self-report measures of trait self-
operationalizations of the same or at least closely related control are designed to assess trait-like typical inhibitory
theoretical constructs. They are designed with the performance that is repeatedly shown across a broad
intention to capture the ability of a person to inhibit range of impulses from different domains, behavioral
dominant responses including thoughts, emotions, and inhibition tasks are designed to measure ability-like
behavioral impulses (Tangney et al., 2004). This ability maximum inhibitory performance shown on single
is classically considered the central definitional aspect occasions for specific kinds of impulses.
of the construct of self-control (e.g., Baumeister, 2014; Note that we use the wording “self-report measures
Duckworth & Kern, 2011; Hofmann, Schmeichel, & of trait self-control” and “behavioral inhibition tasks”
Baddeley, 2012). Thus, it would seem appropriate to expect to refer to methodological categories of operationali­
moderate or even strong correlations between these zations: self-report questionnaires on the one hand
measures. When we talk about self-control in this article, and performance tasks on the other hand. We do
we also refer to this conceptualization of the construct. this to stress the point that, although we refer to the
Saunders et al. (2018) discuss three factors that might Self-Control Scale and the Stroop/Flanker tasks as
contribute to this seeming conundrum. First, the Self- prominent examples of their respective methodological
Control Scale (Tangney et al., 2004) might capture other categories following the example of Saunders et al.
things than inhibition alone (e.g., items like “I am able (2018), most issues raised in this article do not only

Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article-pdf/6/1/9/437312/276-4106-1-pb.pdf by guest on 25 June 2023

to work effectively toward long-term goals”, “I engage in pertain to the Self-Control Scale and the Stroop/Flanker
healthy practices”) while the focus of behavioral inhibition tasks specifically, but their respective methodological
tasks is much narrower. Second, behavioral inhibition categories more generally. When discussing issues that
tasks are often selected for little between-subject refer to the Self-Control Scale or the Stroop/Flanker
variability, which limits their ability to assess between- tasks as specific operationali­ zations, we name them
person differences and correlate with other individual directly as “the Self-Control Scale” or “the Stroop/Flanker
difference measures (reliability paradox, Enkavi et al., task”. In general, we refer to the level of self-control
2019; Hedge, Powell, & Sumner, 2018; Rouder, Kumar, & measurement when not directly stating that we refer
Haaf, 2019). Third, previous meta-analytic estimates of to the theoretical construct level of self-control. We do
the relationship between self-report measures of trait self- not discuss which methodological approach towards the
control and behavioral inhibition tasks (e.g., Duckworth measurement of self-control, self-report questionnaires
& Kern, 2011) may have overestimated the relationship or performance tasks, may generally be preferable as a
due to publication bias (which does not explain the low benchmark measure of self-control.
correlations, but the surprise about them).
We agree with all three arguments Saunders et al. (2018) Typical versus maximum self-control performance
consider to explain the observed negligible correlations In industrial and organizational psychology, there exists
between measures of trait self-control and inhibition. the well-established distinction between typical and
In the present article, we offer three further factors not maximum performance (Sackett, Zedeck, & Fogli, 1988).
addressed by Saunders et al. (2018) that may explain this Typical performance refers to the tendency to perform
empirical non-correspondence. From our perspective, relatively consistently at some level across different
considering these factors is important for two reasons: situations over a prolonged period of time. By contrast,
First, they help to explain a series of seemingly surprising maximum performance refers to the ability to perform at
empirical findings (Allom et al., 2016; Duckworth & the highest possible level on a specific occasion. Although
Kern, 2011; Eisenberg et al., 2019; Nęcka et al., 2018; typical and maximum performance are not independent,
Saunders et al., 2018). Second, despite them being rarely they correlate only moderately (for a meta-analysis, see
considered in the self-control literature, we believe that Beus & Whitman, 2012).
these issues are of broader relevance as they help to The distinction between typical and maximum
distinguish between trait self-control as a construct and performance nicely maps onto the distinction between
its operationalization by measurement instruments. The self-report measures of trait self-control and behavioral
first issue is the distinction between typical and maximum inhibition tasks. The instruction of the Self-Control Scale
performance; the second refers to the measurement of (Tangney et al., 2004) asks respondents to “[…] indicate
single versus repeated performance; the third relates to how much each of the following statements reflects how
differences between impulses in different domains. you typically are” (emphasis added, p. 323), thus clearly
Because of these issues, we argue that it is not plausible asking about respondents’ typical behavior rather than
to hypothesize more than a low correlation between their maximum ability. This also pertains to the wording
self-report measures of trait self-control and behavioral of many of the scale’s items that make clear that what
inhibition tasks, even if a) the respective self-report respondents are asked for is typical behavior rather than
measure of trait self-control would measure inhibitory maximum ability (e.g., “I am lazy”). Similar observations
processes alone and b) the behavioral inhibition apply to other self-report measures of trait self-control;
tasks would show high retest reliability in measuring they are designed to assess typical thoughts, feelings, and
between-person differences. Putting psychometric behaviors of respondents.
issues aside, both measurement approaches genuinely Consistent with the notion that the Self-Control Scale
focus on different aspects of the theoretical construct of assesses typical rather than maximum performance,
Wennerhold and Friese: Self-Report and Inhibition Tasks Measuring Self-Control Art. 9, page 3 of 8

growing evidence suggests that the plentiful associations Taken together, the distinction between typical and
of the Self-Control Scale with desirable life outcomes are maximum performance helps to explain low correlations
to a large extent due to beneficial stable habits, not due to between self-report measures of trait self-control and
effortful inhibition in particular situations (e.g., de Ridder behavioral inhibition tasks because (1) self-report
et al., 2012; Galla & Duckworth, 2015; Grund & Carstens, measures such as the Self-Control Scale (Tangney et al.,
2019; Hofmann, Baumeister, Förster, & Vohs, 2012). In 2004) are designed to assess typical performance, and
other words, it is not mainly individual differences in behavioral inhibition tasks are designed to assess
maximum performance, but in typical performance that maximum performance, (2) typical and maximum
differentiates between respondents on this scale. performance are conceptually different and empirically
If we assume a continuum between typical performance only modestly related, and (3) maximum performance
on one end and maximum performance on the other measures might show comparatively little between-
end, behavioral inhibition tasks are clearly designed to person variability, limiting their ability to correlate
assess behavior more on the maximum performance end with other individual differences. Note that we are
of the continuum compared to self-report instruments not claiming that the distinction between typical and
such as the Self-Control Scale. In behavioral inhibition maximum performance is the factor that explains low
tasks, respondents are instructed to avoid making errors correlations between self-report measures of trait
and/or to try being fast in the task that is to follow. self-control and behavioral inhibition tasks. In fact,

Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article-pdf/6/1/9/437312/276-4106-1-pb.pdf by guest on 25 June 2023

Nothing suggests to participants that what the researchers the moderate associations between the two types of
seek to measure is something akin to how they typically performance (Beus & Whitman, 2012) would still predict
behave. Rather, the context makes it clear that what a discernable correlation. Nevertheless, this distinction
counts is a performance that is as good as possible. is one factor worth considering to understand why self-
Admittedly, many people might not be maximally report measures of trait self-control and behavioral
motivated and thus might not show their absolute inhibition tasks show small-to-zero correlations.
maximum performance on behavioral inhibition tasks We believe that the implications of the distinction
when they take part in a scientific study. Thus, provided between typical and maximum performance go beyond
strong enough incentives it may be possible to improve the explanation of low correlations between self-report
performance beyond baseline levels. The point that measures of trait self-control and behavioral inhibition
we make here is that there is a pronounced difference tasks. One implication refers to the measurement of
between self-report measures of trait self-control and trait self-control. A seminal definition describes traits
behavioral inhibition tasks. Self-report instruments as “[…] individual differences in tendencies to show
are designed to measure something clearly more on the consistent patterns of thoughts, feelings, and actions”
side of typical performance and behavioral inhibition (McCrae & Costa, 2003, p. 25, see also Roberts, 2009;
tasks are designed to measure something clearly more Roberts & Jackson, 2008). The typical versus maximum
on the side of maximum performance. distinction highlights that having the ability to perform
The distinction between typical and maximum at a certain maximum level does not imply the tendency
performance has not been picked up in the self- to consistently live up to this ability. Thus, when
control literature to a great extent. One exception measurement instruments seek to assess trait self-control
is a study by Freudenthaler and Neubauer (2007) in they should focus on relatively consistent tendencies to
the domain of emotion management, an important show self-control, not on maximum ability. In other cases,
aspect of self-control (see also Neçka et al., 2018). researchers may specifically conceptualize self-control
Typical and maximum emotion management as an ability or specify different dimensions of self-
performance were measured between participants. control, some of which might refer to ability aspects of
Their correspondence could therefore not be assessed. the construct and others to trait-like aspects, and measure
However, the authors found that self-reported typical them separately.
emotion management performance was less optimal A second implication refers to associations between
than maximum performance. In addition, self-reported measures of self-control and outcome variables. Behaving
typical emotion management varied more strongly in a self-controlled way is not particularly hard for most
between persons than maximum performance. In situations prototypically seen as self-control dilemmas.
other words, most participants were aware of adequate Yes, some impulses are stronger than others, but in
emotion management strategies that should optimally principle, most persons are able to eat an apple instead of
be used (maximum performance), but not all of them a chocolate bar or work instead of checking social media
reported typically employing them in the relevant in any specific situation. Whether or not they do so will
situations. This suggests that typical performance likely have little impact on their overall success in life.
might be a more reliable indicator of between-person That is not to say that single acts of behavior may not have
differences compared to maximum performance. This profound impacts on people’s lives. However, desirable
corresponds to the discussion about the reliability life outcomes that are associated with trait self-control
paradox mentioned previously, that is, the selection such as academic achievement, financial wealth, health,
of behavioral inhibition tasks and other executive or stable social relationships (Moffitt et al., 2011; Tangney
function tasks for little instead of ample between-person et al., 2004), are usually the result of “doing the right
differences (Enkavi et al., 2019; Hedge et al., 2018). thing” most of the time over extended periods of time, not
Art. 9, page 4 of 8 Wennerhold and Friese: Self-Report and Inhibition Tasks Measuring Self-Control

in single situations. In other words, what differentiates tendency of this person’s behavior is relatively stable at
people with high versus low trait self-control and helps a moderate level of self-control (Figure 1C), compared to
them to achieve a multitude of desirable life outcomes that of others. For example, the average self-control level
over months, years, and decades is that people with of a person during a certain time period (e.g., one week)
high trait self-control tend to typically act in a more self- tends to be similar to this person’s average self-control
controlled manner. level during another time period (e.g., the following
week). This led Fleeson to conclude that traits are density
Single versus repeated performance distributions of states such as those depicted in Figure 1.
The observation that relative to self-report instruments Thus, there is strong variability within persons, but also
such as the Self-Control Scale behavioral inhibition tasks high stability of the central tendencies between persons.
assess something more akin to maximum performance This intriguing insight effectively resolved a good part
can partly explain the low correspondence between these of the person-situation debate that kept social and
variables. However, even if one would assume that, on personality psychologists busy for decades (Fleeson &
average, participants in scientific studies show so little Jayawickreme, 2015).
motivation to perform well on behavioral inhibition tasks We regard inhibition as a personality trait. Figure 1B
that these tasks do not work as measures of maximum illustrates that a one-shot behavioral measurement of
performance at all, they would likely make relatively poor inhibition is unlikely to reflect the central tendency of a

Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article-pdf/6/1/9/437312/276-4106-1-pb.pdf by guest on 25 June 2023

trait measures. The reason is that any measurement of person. For behavioral inhibition tasks to indicate typical
inhibition would remain a momentary, one-time, state performance they would need to be applied multiple
measure of inhibitory performance that would be heavily times in different circumstances, ideally in participants’
influenced by situational factors and likely be unreliable daily lives via ecological momentary assessment (see
as an indicator of this person’s typical performance. By Shiffman, Stone, & Hufford, 2008, for an overview) to
contrast, self-report instruments that ask about typical increase external validity. The result would be a density
behavior like the Self-Control scale provoke responses distribution of inhibition states, the central tendency
that are central tendencies of aggregates of many different of which would be a more reliable indicator of typical
instances of behavior and are therefore more likely to inhibition (that is, the trait). This indicator should correlate
reliably grasp trait levels. more substantially with any other measure indicating
In his seminal contributions to the person-situation typical inhibition performance than single-shot measures
debate, Fleeson (2001, 2004) discovered that personality of the same construct.
traits are characterized by strong intraindividual
variability. That is, a moderately self-controlled person Inhibition of different kinds of impulses
does not behave in a moderately self-controlled way all Another factor that may contribute to explaining the
the time (Figure 1A). Instead, there are many instances in null relationship between self-report measures of trait
which this person behaves in a more or less self-controlled self-control and behavioral inhibition tasks is that both
way than at a moderate level (Figure 1B).1 What justifies measures differ in the range of impulses that are inhibited
calling this person moderately self-controlled is that in different domains they focus on. Specifically, we argue
on average across many different situations the central that self-report measures of trait self-control typically

A B C
Average self−control time period 2
Frequency acted that way

How much self−control the person showed How much self−control the person showed Average self−control time period 1

Figure 1: Each graph depicts the number of times a hypothetical person acted at each level of self-control. The graph on
the left (A) depicts the density distribution of self-controlled behavior with on average moderate level of self-control
and relatively low intraindividual variability (i.e, this fictitious person almost always behaved in a moderately self-
controlled way). The graph in the middle (B) also depicts the density distribution of a self-controlled behavior with
on average moderate level of self-control, this time with relatively high intraindividual variability (i.e., this fictitious
person often behaves considerably more or less self-controlled than on a moderate level). Fleeson (2001) found that
actual distributions more resemble Figure 1B than Figure 1A. In Figure 1C, each point in this graph represents one
person’s average level of self-control in two different time periods (e.g., one week). The work by Fleeson (2001, 2004)
suggests that how self-controlled a person acts on average in one time period is highly similar to how self-controlled
the person acts on average in another time period. Figure adapted from Fleeson (2004).
Wennerhold and Friese: Self-Report and Inhibition Tasks Measuring Self-Control Art. 9, page 5 of 8

measure general, cross-domain inhibition, whereas inhibition. Similarly, the validity of behavioral inhibition
behavioral inhibition tasks measure also narrower, tasks as pure measures of inhibition can be questioned.
domain-specific inhibition to a substantial degree. Whether performance on these tasks is determined by
The role of potential qualitative differences of impulses inhibitory control alone or other processes as well, for
in different domains is rarely discussed in the self- example, selective attention, is not entirely clear (Cohen,
control literature (e.g., an impulse to eat unhealthy food Dunbar, & McClelland, 1990; Egner & Hirsch, 2005). This
versus an impulse to insult someone in an argument). notwithstanding, these tasks arguably measure inhibition
As a consequence, a naive reader of the literature might to a substantial degree and are commonly used as
assume that there are few qualitative differences between measures of inhibition. Thus, one should expect at least
impulses across domains and that people are typically a moderate correlation of these measures with a self-
able to inhibit impulses in different domains to roughly report scale that measures inhibition if both approaches
the same extent. Domain-general measures of trait self- captured similar inhibitory processes.
control – like the Self-Control Scale (Tangney et al., 2004) Behavioral inhibition tasks are meant to assess domain-
– predict a wide range of desirable life outcomes across general inhibition as well. It is not clear, however, to what
different domains (e.g., de Ridder et al., 2012; Tangney et extent they actually achieve this goal. We argue that these
al., 2004). It is therefore indeed plausible that there are tasks substantially measure the inhibition of rather specific
causes of self-control performance that might be common kinds of impulses as well. For instance, in the Stroop task

Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article-pdf/6/1/9/437312/276-4106-1-pb.pdf by guest on 25 June 2023

across domains. At the same time, a growing literature reading a written word evokes an impulse to indicate the
advances theoretical arguments and/or provides empirical lexical meaning of that word. As respondents are given a
evidence suggesting that there are noteworthy differences different task, namely to indicate the physical color of a
between domain-general and domain-specific self- written word, they have to overcome the impulse to refer
control (de Ridder et al., 2012; Duckworth & Tsukayama, to the lexical meaning when physical color and lexical
2015; Eisenberg et al., 2019; Haws, Davis, & Dholakia, meaning are incompatible. This task clearly involves some
2016; Roberts, Lejuez, Krueger, Richards, & Hill, 2014). kind of inhibition. However, we deem it implausible to
For example, Haws et al. (2016) report only moderate assume that inhibiting to name the lexical meaning of
correlations between the Self-Control Scale (Tangney a word in split-second decision making is qualitatively
et al., 2004) and domain-specific adaptations of this scale identical to the kind of inhibition that is required when
for spending and eating behavior. To be successful in a inhibiting other impulses from other domains (e.g.,
given domain, people likely need domain-general self- resisting a palatable chocolate bar or resisting to insult
control plus domain-specific skills. another person in a heated discussion). In other words,
In their meta-analysis of the associations of different although the Stroop task (and other behavioral inhibition
self-report measures of trait self-control with behavior tasks for that matter) may appear to be domain-general
in various life domains, de Ridder et al. (2012) found measures of inhibition due to their affectively cold and
substantial variability of these relationships across abstract content and design, it likely captures substantial
domains. Thus, it seems plausible that people differ in their aspects of inhibitory control that are specific to these
domain-specific self-control across domains. This could particular contents and that may not easily generalize
be due to a) differences between impulses in different to the inhibition of impulses from real life domains.
domains that make – on average – impulses feel stronger The more task-specific inhibition is captured by these
in one domain than in another (i.e., a bottom-up process) tasks, the more their capacity to predict outcomes across
or b) due to differences in the capacity to inhibit impulses domains would be compromised. Indeed, this reasoning
across different domains (i.e., a top-down process). The is in line with recent empirical evidence finding very low
Self-Control Scale is conceptualized as an instrument to correlations between executive function measures and
indicate the strength of the inhibitory top-down process various life outcomes (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 2019).
and does not distinguish between these different aspects. One possible solution to this problem is to assess a
Admittedly, it is a matter of debate to what extent the variety of different inhibition tasks and model a latent
Self-Control Scale measures the inhibition of impulses variable that indicates general, cross-domain inhibition
alone, whether domain-general or domain-specific. (e.g., Miyake & Friedman, 2012; Miyake et al., 2000).
Likely, it measures also other, and even a broad array The resulting latent variable would represent the shared
of processes. This is one of the points Saunders et al. variance between the different measures and thereby
(2018) made to explain the zero-correlation between the reflect more general inhibitory ability. In line with our
scale and behavioral inhibition tasks. It is also currently reasoning, studies that model a latent inhibition variable
unknown to what extent the inhibition of impulses per based on different inhibition tasks (e.g., Stroop, Stop-
se is conducive to the relationships of the Self-Control Signal, Antisaccade) often find relatively low standardized
Scale with real-life outcomes. The point here is that even factor loadings ranging in the .30s to .50s, indicating that
if the Self-Control Scale measured general, cross-domain despite their similarities these tasks assess substantial
inhibition alone (which is what it is intended to do) we task-specific aspects (Miyake & Friedman, 2012; Miyake
should not expect particularly strong correlations with et al., 2000).
behavioral inhibition tasks (e.g., Stroop task, Flanker task). To the extent that the Self-Control Scale or other self-
We noted doubts about the validity of the Self-Control report measures of trait self-control capture general
scale as a (more or less) pure measure of domain-general inhibitory ability, a latent variable approach would
Art. 9, page 6 of 8 Wennerhold and Friese: Self-Report and Inhibition Tasks Measuring Self-Control

increase measurement correspondence between these by contrast, are typically designed to measure ability-
scales and (the latent variable of) inhibition. Measurement like maximum inhibitory performance shown on single
correspondence has been widely discussed in other fields. occasions for more specific kinds of impulses. Future
For example, the seminal correspondence principle by theoretical and empirical research should examine more
Ajzen and Fishbein (1977) suggests that the relation closely which of the discussed (and possibly additional)
between measures of attitudes and behavior increases with factors contribute to which extent to the degree of
increasing correspondence between the measurement empirical (non-)correspondence of different measures
instruments across different entities (e.g., target, action, of self-control, helping the field to understand both the
context, time). Strong attitude-behavior relations can only theoretical nature and suitable measurement approaches
be expected when there is high correspondence between of the construct better.
at least some of these entities. Applied to the present
context, a higher correspondence between the types of Note
inhibition – general versus domain-specific – assessed 1
Fleeson (2001) did not examine this idea with trait
by self-report measures and the indicator of inhibition self-control specifically, but with other traits like
derived from behavioral inhibition tasks should increase agreeableness, extraversion, or conscientiousness
their empirical correlation. (the latter being conceptually closely related to trait
Taken together, we argue that domain-general self- self-control).

Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article-pdf/6/1/9/437312/276-4106-1-pb.pdf by guest on 25 June 2023

report measures of trait self-control (e.g., the Self-Control
Scale), and behavioral inhibition tasks (e.g., Stroop, Acknowledgements
Flanker) might measure the inhibition of different types The authors thank Blair Saunders, an anonymous
of impulses varying in specificity. Self-report measures reviewer, and the handling editor Simine Vazire for
typically measure the inhibition of a broad array of stimulating comments and fruitful advice on how to
impulses while behavioral inhibition tasks might measure improve and expand this manuscript.
(among other things) domain-general inhibition, but also
to a substantial degree the inhibition of narrower task- Competing Interests
specific impulses that are not representative of impulses The authors have no competing interests to declare.
encountered in various domains of daily life. Again,
we do not claim that this issue is the factor explaining Author Contributions
the lack of correspondence between both types of LW and MF conceived the manuscript. LW drafted the
measures. It is plausible that there are common aspects initial manuscript. LW and MF revised the manuscript.
of inhibition across domains, and this should lead to
a moderate correlation if this factor would be the only References
relevant issue. However, the issue might be one of several Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior
factors explaining the empirical non-correlation between relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical
self-report measures of trait self-control and behavioral research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888–918. DOI:
inhibition tasks. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888
Allom, V., Panetta, G., Mullan, B., & Hagger, M. S.
Conclusion (2016). Self-report and behavioural approaches to
We discussed three issues that might explain the empirical the measurement of self-control: Are we assessing
small-to-zero relationship between self-report measures the same construct? Personality and Individual
of trait self-control and behavioral inhibition tasks found Differences, 90, 137–142. DOI: https://doi.
by a growing number of studies (e.g., Saunders et al., org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.051
2018; Nęcka et al., 2018): the distinction between typical Baumeister, R. F. (2014). Self-regulation, ego depletion,
versus maximum performance, the distinction between and inhibition. Neuropsychologia, 65, 313–319.
single versus repeated performance, and the relevance DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.
of considering different kinds of impulses. Bearing 2014.08.012
these issues in mind, we argue that it is implausible to Beus, J. M., & Whitman, D. S. (2012). The
hypothesize more than a low correlation between self- relationship between typical and maximum
report measures of trait self-control and behavioral performance: A meta-analytic examination. Human
inhibition tasks even if a) the respective self-report Performance, 25, 355–376. DOI: https://doi.org/
measure of trait self-control would measure inhibitory 10.1080/08959285.2012.721831
processes alone and b) the inhibition-related measures Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J. L. (1990).
of executive function would show high retest reliability On the control of automatic processes: A parallel
in measuring between-person differences. Beyond distributed processing account of the Stroop effect.
psychometric issues, both approaches genuinely focus on Psychological Review, 97, 332–361. DOI: https://doi.
distinct facets of the theoretical construct of self-control. org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.332
Most self-report measures of trait self-control are designed de Ridder, D. T. D., Lensvelt-Mulders, G., Finkenauer,
to assess trait-like typical inhibitory performance that C., Stok, F. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2012). Taking
is repeatedly shown across a broad range of impulses stock of self-control: A meta-analysis of how trait
from different domains. Behavioral inhibition tasks, self-control relates to a wide range of behaviors.
Wennerhold and Friese: Self-Report and Inhibition Tasks Measuring Self-Control Art. 9, page 7 of 8

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 76–99. conscientiousness and executive functioning:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311418749 Mental set shifting, not prepotent response
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual inhibition or working memory updating. Journal
Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168. DOI: https://doi. of Personality, 84, 1011–1027. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750 org/10.1037//0022-3514.80.6.1011
Duckworth, A. L., & Kern, M. L. (2011). A meta-analysis Freudenthaler, H. H., & Neubauer, A. C. (2007).
of the convergent validity of self-control measures. Measuring emotional management abilities: Further
Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 259–268. DOI: evidence of the importance to distinguish between
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.02.004 typical and maximum performance. Personality and
Duckworth, A. L., & Tsukayama, E. (2015). Domain Individual Differences, 42, 1561–1572. DOI: https://
specificity in self-control. In C. B. Miller, R. M. doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.10.031
Furr, A. Knobel, & W. Fleeson (Eds.), Character: Frey, R., Pedroni, A., Mata, R., Rieskamp, J., &
New directions from philosophy, psychology, Hertwig, R. (2017). Risk preference shares the
and theology (pp. 393–411). New York: Oxford psychometric structure of major psychological traits.
University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ Science Advances, 3, e1701381. DOI: https://doi.
acprof:oso/9780190204600.003.0019 org/10.1126/sciadv.1701381
Edmonds, G. W., Bogg, T., & Roberts, B. W. (2009). Galla, B. M., & Duckworth, A. L. (2015). More than

Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article-pdf/6/1/9/437312/276-4106-1-pb.pdf by guest on 25 June 2023

Are personality and behavioral measures of impulse resisting temptation: Beneficial habits mediate
control convergent or distinct predictors of health the relationship between self-control and positive
behaviors? Journal of Research in Personality, life outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social
43, 806–814. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Psychology, 109, 508–525. DOI: https://doi.
jrp.2009.06.006 org/10.1037/pspp0000026
Egner, T., & Hirsch, J. (2005). Cognitive control Grund, A., & Carstens, C. A. (2019). Self-control
mechanisms resolve conflict through cortical motivationally reconsidered: “Acting” self-controlled
amplification of task-relevant information. Nature is different to “being good” at self-control. Motivation
Neuroscience, 8, 1784–1790. DOI: https://doi. and Emotion, 43, 63–81. DOI: https://doi.org/
org/10.1038/nn1594 10.1007/s11031-018-9721-3
Eisenberg, I. W., Bissett, P. G., Enkavi, A. Z., Li, J., Haws, K. L., Davis, S. W., & Dholakia, U. M. (2016).
MacKinnon, D. P., Marsch, L. A., & Poldrack, Control over what? Individual differences in general
R. A. (2019). Uncovering the structure of self- versus eating and spending self-control. Journal of
regulation through data-driven ontology discovery. Public Policy & Marketing, 35, 37–57. DOI: https://
Nature Communications, 10, 2319. DOI: https://doi. doi.org/10.1509/jppm.14.149
org/10.1038/s41467-019-10301-1 Hedge, C., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2018). The
Enkavi, A. Z., Eisenberg, I. W., Bissett, P. G., Mazza, reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do
G. L., Mackinnon, D. P., & Marsch, L. A. (2019). not produce reliable individual differences. Behavior
Large-scale analysis of test – retest reliabilities of Research Methods, 50, 1166–1186. DOI: https://doi.
self-regulation measures. Proceedings of the National org/10.3758/s13428-017-0935-1
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Hofmann, W., Baumeister, R. F., Förster, G., &
116, 5472–5477. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/ Vohs, K. D. (2012). Everyday temptations: An
pnas.1818430116 experience sampling study of desire, conflict,
Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social
letters upon the identification of a target letter Psychology, 102, 1318–1335. DOI: https://doi.
in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, org/10.1037/a0026545
16, 143–149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/ Hofmann, W., Schmeichel, B. J., & Baddeley, A. D.
BF03203267 (2012). Executive functions and self-regulation. Trends
Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure- and process- in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 174–180. DOI: https://doi.
integrated view of personality: traits as density org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.01.006
distributions of states. Journal of Personality and McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2003). Personality in
Social Psychology, 80, 348–360. DOI: https://doi. adulthood: A five-factor theory perspective (2nd Ed.).
org/10.1111/jopy.12163 New York, NY, US: Guilford Press. DOI: https://doi.
Fleeson, W. (2004). Moving personality beyond the org/10.4324/9780203428412
person-situation debate: The challenge and the Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (2012). The nature and
opportunity of within-person variability. Current organization of individual differences in executive
Directions in Psychological Sciene, 13, 83–87. DOI: functions: Four general conclusions. Current Directions
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00280.x in Psychological Science, 21, 8–14. DOI: https://doi.
Fleeson, W., & Jayawickreme, E. (2015). Whole trait org/10.1177/0963721411429458
theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 82–92. Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki,
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.10.009 A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The
Fleming, K. A., Heintzelman, S. J., & Bartholow, unity and diversity of executive functions and their
B. D. (2016). Specifying associations between contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent
Art. 9, page 8 of 8 Wennerhold and Friese: Self-Report and Inhibition Tasks Measuring Self-Control

variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49–100. psyarxiv.com/3cjr5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31234/

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 osf.io/3cjr5
Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, Sackett, P. R., Zedeck, S., & Fogli, L. (1988). Relations
N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., … & Sears, between measures of typical and maximum job
M. R. (2011). A gradient of childhood self- performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. 73, 482–486. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, BRS.0b013e3181da3737
108, 2693–2698. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/ Saunders, B., Milyavskaya, M., Etz, A., Randles, D.,
pnas.1010076108 & Inzlicht, M. (2018). Reported self-control is not
Nęcka, E., Gruszka, A., Orzechowski, J., Nowak, meaningfully associated with inhibition-related
M., & Wójcik, N. (2018). The (in)significance of executive function: A Bayesian analysis. Collabra:
executive functions for the trait of self-control: A Psychology, 4, 39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/
psychometric study. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1139. collabra.134
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01139 Shiffman, S., Stone, A. A., & Hufford, M. R. (2008).
Roberts, B. W. (2009). Back to the future: Personality Ecological momentary assessment. Annual Review
and assessment and personality development. of Clinical Psychology, 4, 1–32. DOI: https://doi.
Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 137–145. DOI: org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091415

Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article-pdf/6/1/9/437312/276-4106-1-pb.pdf by guest on 25 June 2023

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.015 Stahl, C., Voss, A., Schmitz, F., Nuszbaum, M.,
Roberts, B. W., & Jackson, J. J. (2008). Socioge­ Tüscher, O., Lieb, K., & Klauer, K. C. (2014).
nomic personality psychology. Journal of Behavioral components of impulsivity. Journal of
Personality, 76, 1523–1544. DOI: https://doi. Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 850–886.
org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00530.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033981
Roberts, B. W., Lejuez, C., Krueger, R. F., Richards, Stroop, R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal
J. M., & Hill, P. L. (2014). What is conscientiousness reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18,
and how can it be assessed? Developmental 643–661. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054651
Psychology, 50, 1315–1330. DOI: https://doi. Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L.
org/10.1037/a0031109 (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment,
Rouder, J., Kumar, A., & Haaf, J. M. (2019, March 25). less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal
Why most studies of individual differences with success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271–324. DOI:
inhibition tasks are bound to fail. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x

Peer review comments

The author(s) of this paper chose the Open Review option, and the peer review comments can be downloaded at:
http://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.276.pr

How to cite this article: Wennerhold, L., & Friese, M. (2020). Why Self-Report Measures of Self-Control and Inhibition Tasks Do
Not Substantially Correlate. Collabra: Psychology, 6(1): 9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.276

Senior Editor: Simine Vazire

Editor: Simine Vazire

Submitted: 25 July 2019 Accepted: 03 January 2020 Published: 28 January 2020

Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Collabra: Psychology is a peer-reviewed open access

journal published by University of California Press.
OPEN ACCESS