Self-control and self-expression.

Does self-control express or suppress our true selves? This article reviews the emerging body of literature on the effect of self-control on authentic self-expression from the actors' (self-signaling) and the observers' (other-signaling) perspective. While actors can experience self-control as either expression or suppression of the self, individual differences in decision-making or personal values can predict when self-control is more likely to be experienced in one way or the other. Self-control also signals to observers both positive (e.g., competent, trustworthy, powerful) and negative (e.g., inauthentic, robotic, less warm) identities, with specific inferences depending on the context (e.g., work vs. fun). Overall, the relationship between self-control and self-expression is more nuanced than earlier research suggested, and several open questions await further investigation.

Staying on track in turbulent times: Trait self-control and goal pursuit during self-quarantine.

Prior research has shown that routines and beneficial habits largely explain high self-control people's success at goal pursuit. However, COVID-19 self-quarantine measures and country-level lockdowns have largely challenged people's ability to stick to their daily routines and habits. How successful at goal pursuit are people with high self-control when the world around them is not as it used to be? We examined if self-control passes the 'quarantine test'. In an online study (N = 271), we measured trait self-control, goal progress, continued engagement in pre-pandemic goal-directed behaviors, development of new goal-directed behaviors and turning these new behaviors into habits. Results showed that during lockdown, people with higher (vs. lower) trait self-control were not only more likely to continue engaging in pre-pandemic goal-directed behaviors, but also found it easier to develop new goal-directed behaviors and were more likely to turn these behaviors into habits. High self-control people's ability to continue performing pre-pandemic goal-directed behaviors and to turn new behaviors into habits explained their success at goal attainment despite the major disruptions caused by the pandemic.

Choice as a Meaning-Making Device for Maximizers: Evidence From Reactance to Restrictions of Choice Freedom During Lockdown.

The current research investigates maximizers' responses to restrictions of choice freedom during lockdown in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Having as a starting point the assumption that for maximizers choice is constitutive of identity, this research proposes that maximizing is associated with search for existential meaning in life. In turn, maximizers' propensity to search for meaning is associated with a higher susceptibility to experience reactance when their freedom of choice is restricted, which is further associated with higher engagement in online shopping during lockdown presumably as a means to combat reactance and restore choice freedom. Using the lockdown in spring 2020 as a naturalistic context to study consumer responses to restrictions of choice freedom, results of an online study in Austria support these predictions. These findings advance a view of maximizers as "lay existentialists," who view choice as a meaning-making device that is tightly linked to their sense of identity. As a result, when their choice freedom is threatened, maximizers may respond with higher reactance and engage in restorative actions.

Would You Sacrifice Your Privacy to Protect Public Health? Prosocial Responsibility in a Pandemic Paves the Way for Digital Surveillance.

Digital surveillance methods, such as location tracking apps on smartphones, have been implemented in many countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, but not much is known about predictors of their acceptance. Could it be that prosocial responsibility, to which authorities appealed in order to enhance compliance with quarantine measures, also increases acceptance of digital surveillance and restrictions of privacy? In their fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, governments around the world communicated that self-isolation and social distancing measures are every citizen's duty in order to protect the health not only of oneself but also of vulnerable others. We suggest that prosocial responsibility besides motivating people to comply with anti-pandemic measures also undermines people's valuation of privacy. In an online research conducted with US participants, we examined correlates of people's willingness to sacrifice individual rights and succumb to surveillance with a particular focus on prosocial responsibility. First, replicating prior research, we found that perceived prosocial responsibility was a powerful predictor of compliance with self-isolation and social distancing measures. Second, going beyond prior research, we found that perceived prosocial responsibility also predicted willingness to accept restrictions of individual rights and privacy, as well as to accept digital surveillance for the sake of public health. While we identify a range of additional predictors, the effects of prosocial responsibility hold after controlling for alternative processes, such as perceived self-risk, impact of the pandemic on oneself, or personal value of freedom. These findings suggest that prosocial responsibility may act as a Trojan horse for privacy compromises.

True to which self? Lay rationalism and decision satisfaction in self-control conflicts.

Are people more satisfied with decisions to resist or to indulge temptation? We propose that the effect of restraint versus indulgence on decision satisfaction depends on individual differences in lay rationalism, that is, reliance on reason versus feelings to guide decisions. Across 2 pilot studies and 9 main studies (N = 3,264) with different methodologies and various self-control domains, we found consistent evidence that individuals experience higher satisfaction with restraint the more they rely on reason than on feelings. The proposed effect uniquely concerns individual differences in lay rationalism and is independent from individual differences in trait self-control. We also show that authenticity (feeling true to oneself) is the mechanism underlying this effect and rule out self-typicality (acting in ways typical of oneself) as an alternative account. Additionally, we examined downstream consequences of this effect for compensatory authenticity seeking. These findings advance a more nuanced view of self-control based on identity and suggest that the subjective utility of restraint is contingent upon individual differences in reliance on reason versus feelings in decision making. Our research contributes to the understudied topic of the phenomenology of self-control and provides novel insights into its potential downsides for some individuals. We discuss theoretical implications for research on self-control, lay rationalism and authenticity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Struggling to be liked: The prospective effect of trait self-control on social desirability and the moderating role of agreeableness.

Drawing from the literature on the interpersonal functions of self-control, we examined longitudinal associations between trait self-control and social desirability, using a survey of the general population in the Netherlands. Trait self-control at baseline was positively associated with social desirability at a follow-up, even when controlling for prior levels of social desirability. That is, high self-control contributed to individuals' tendency to give socially desirable responses in self-reports. This effect was moderated by individual differences in agreeableness. Highly agreeable individuals were more likely to "use" their self-regulatory resources to respond in a socially desirable manner, compared to less agreeable individuals, suggesting that individuals might use self-regulatory resources in a way consistent with the motivational bases of their personality.

Maximizing Without Borders: Evidence That Maximizing Transcends Decision Domains.

Do maximizers maximize across decision domains? An assumption underlying the literature on maximizing is that the tendency to strive to make the best choice spans domains. The current research provides a direct test of this assumption by examining the association between trait maximizing and domain-specific maximizing, consisting of maximizing measures in a wide range of decisions (consumer goods, services and experiences, and life decisions). Study 1 tested this association at two different time points in order to minimize common method bias. Study 2 was a high-powered pre-registered cross-sectional replication. Results of both studies showed that trait maximizing was associated with higher maximizing tendencies across all three decision domains. However, in line with prior research suggesting that people generally maximize less in experiential than in material domains, trait maximizing was associated with maximizing in services and experiences significantly less than with maximizing in consumer goods or in life decisions. These results provide empirical support for a central tenet of maximizing theory and suggest useful directions for future research.

Choice and dissonance in a European cultural context: the case of Western and Eastern Europeans.

Prior research demonstrates that members of collectivistic cultures are less likely to reduce cognitive dissonance after making a choice, compared to members of individualistic cultures. This difference has been attributed to different conceptualizations of choice that derive from different self-construals across cultures. In individualistic cultures, choice leads to stronger commitment to the chosen option compared to collectivistic cultures, because it implicates core aspects of the independent self, such as personal preferences. However, this cultural variation in postchoice dissonance has thus far been studied exclusively by comparing East Asians and North Americans. Building on the assumption that this difference is due to different construals of the self, we conducted an experiment with movie choices using the classic free-choice paradigm to examine differences in dissonance reduction between Western and Eastern Europeans, two populations known to differ with respect to interdependence. The results show that Eastern Europeans are less likely than Western Europeans to reduce postchoice dissonance by spreading their alternatives. Our findings speak to the generalizability of the hypothesis that in cultures differing in independence or interdependence people also differ in the way they construe choice, as well as in the way the act of choosing affects their self-concept.