Lead us not into Temptation..... The Psychology of Temptation
Edgardo Juan L. Tolentino, Jr, MD
Secretary, PASOO
Head, Section of Psychiatry, Makati Medical Center
President, Philippine Psychiatric Association
The Marshmallow Experiment
In the late 1960s and early 1970s psychologist Walter Mischel, then a professor at Stanford
University, performed the now-famous Stanford marshmallow experiment[1] which was a series
of studies on delayed gratification. In these studies, a child was offered a choice between one
small reward (sometimes a marshmallow, but often a cookie or a pretzel, etc.) either provided
immediately or two small rewards if he or she waited until the tester returned (after an absence of
approximately 15 minutes). In follow-up studies, the researchers found that children who were
able to wait longer for the preferred rewards,as adults, tended to have better life outcomes, as
measured by SAT scores,[2] educational attainment,[3] body mass index (BMI)[4] and other life
measures.[5]
Now, to an adult struggling with the temptation to partake of the dessert that was served under
his nose, Daniel Goleman who wrote about the marshmallow test in his book, Emotional
Intelligence, claims that delaying an impulse is "the essence of emotional self-regulation" and has
far-reaching implications.
Control Thyself
That freedom to choose is what differentiates us from animals and is directly related to an
understanding of weight control in humans. Psychologist Roy Baumeister, who has written
extensively on self-control, explains that " self-control allows humans to stop what they are doing
in the middle....(to) override responses that are already in progress" (Baumeister 2005). It is what
gives us the capacity for flexibility in our responses, unlike most other species - which have
"predictable & stereotyped behavior." Magen & Gross", in fact, defined temptation as the desire
to behave in a certain way that is expected to be regretted at a later time." As in, eating that
velvet cake now is certain to bring regret on weigh in or during the next blood exam.
If that is so, why does self-control fail us - a question that has puzzled researchers? Well, there are
truly irresistible impulses (like breathing - heaven forbid if we can resist such! Or sleeping - the
medical clerk from a 24-hour duty listening to a lecture on neurotransmitters can tell you that!;
and then, there are our guilty pleasures: eating & shopping, which truly are resistible impulses.
Baumeister (2002) once more interjects that unless we take care of our emotional distresses,
which can be causative factors for breakdowns in self-control, we will be apt to eat unhealthy
foods or seek immediate gratification. He also stressed that effective self-control involves having
standards (like goals, norms, ideals), some kind of monitoring system, & the capacity to modify
one's behavior. People get into trouble when they have conflicting goals or ambivalent attitudes
toward something. This view was reinforced by Sparks & colleagues (2001) in their observation
that people have ambivalent attitudes, including cognitive ambivalence ("mixed beliefs"), affective
ambivalence ("torn feelings"), or both. This is illustrated in individuals who may have conflicting
attitudes toward consuming foods like meat or chocolate (eg. Chocolate is yummy :-) vs. Chocolate
is fattening :-( which would interfere with their intention to eat or restrict chocolates.
On self-control or resistance to temptation, the saying: "different folks, different strokes" holds
true and the reasons are complex and varied: genetic, neuroanatomical, and environmental
influences interplay. What seems more constant is that self-control for most people is a finite
quantity - you can only have so much. Factors such as fatigue, stress, time of day, substance use
including alcohol use, and even the number of times it is called into effect - all exhaust our
"supply."
Dieter Beware!
What should we do?
Monitoring of one's behavior is a crucial element in maintaining self-control and one will return to
in maintaining weight loss. Top of mind should be remembering what one has done, whether it's
spending too much money or eating too many calories. Higgs (2008) observed that people will eat
less if they are reminded of what they have already eaten, & she even notes that both lab animals
and people with hippocampal lesions who cannot remember having eaten will eat another entire
meal immediately thereafter.
Another aspect to temptation is the temporal element involved. Magen & Gross (2007) note that
people often devalue or discount something that will take place in the future, and this may be part
of why people procrastinate, fail to maintain a diet, or do not exercise regularly. It may also be a
part of why people do not give up smoking: they can discount the possibility that they will get
cancer some time in the future.
To counter this, they recommended a "cognitive reconstrual" - a process of empowering people to
resist temptation by having them think more positively about their short-term goals and aligning
them with long-term goals to reduce the discrepancy between short- & long-term consequences.
The authors do appreciate that this reshaping may backfire because when someone fails to resist
temptation, he/she may develop low self-esteem and other negative feelings.
But Kivetz and Keinan believes otherwise. To them, "while yielding to temptation generates
regrets in the short run, it has the opposite effect in the long term. They expounded that people
have "indulgence guilt" in the short term that diminishes over time.
Change for the Better
Studies have shown that people initiate change in behavior when they have confidence in their
ability to change that behavior, or that they must first have the expectation of a favorable
outcome. This is called: "self-efficacy." In addition, the authors note that people tend to be more
successful when their goals can be met immediately. Like to the dieter, losing a few kilos initially
can be very reinforcing, ditto the smoker who notices the riddance of the foul cigarette stench on
his clothes & skin. But, wait! The flip side may also count: anything that undermines a person's
ability to be optimistic about the outcome will likely interfere with this vulnerable initial phase.
Read: sabotaging partner or a pessimistic personality.
If one can get beyond the initial phase, the next hurdle is the maintenance phase, where the new
behavior, like watching one's weight or giving up smoking, is continually being assessed.
Maintaining the new behavior takes less conscious effort; there is less active struggle, & one can
stay in this maintenance phase indefinitely.
Finally, the last transition is towards the new behavior becoming habit. Once in a habit stage,
people continue the behavior until an event of sufficient magnitude causes them to reconsider.