August
05th
  7:45:42 AM

Lead us not into temptation…

In a refreshing change from research that looks for excuses for everyday vices in people’s genes or family background, a study from the Kellogg School of Management looks at things like temptation, willpower and humility (yes, really) in impulsive and addictive behaviour.

Previous research has shown that people in a “cold state” (not experiencing hunger, anger, sexual arousal and so on) tend to underestimate how a “hot”, impulsive state will influence their behaviour. The new study led by Loran Nordgren confirmed that, and also found that those who are most confident about their self-control are the most likely to give into temptation.

“People are not good at anticipating the power of their urges, and those who are the most confident about their self-control are the most likely to give into temptation,” said Nordgren. “The key is simply to avoid any situations where vices and other weaknesses thrive and, most importantly, for individuals to keep a humble view of their willpower.”

Nordgren did his research mainly with college students and may not hold for the population at large. Here is one of his experiments:

Hunger pangs: Seventy-nine university students and employees rated a list of snacks from least to most favorite and then selected one. Participants were told, "You can eat the snack anytime you like. However, if you return the snack to this location in one week, we will give you four Euros (and you will get to keep the snack you chose)."

Questions also measured participants' level of hunger. Satiated participants exposed themselves to more temptation, generally choosing their first or second favorite snack, while the hungry individuals selected their second or third favorite item. Those with full bellies were also less likely to bring back an uneaten snack, Nordgren said.

The technical term for the human weakness he describes is “restraint bias”:

“A system which assumes people will control themselves is going to fall prey to this restraint bias; we expose ourselves to more temptation than is wise, and subsequently we have millions of people suffering with obesity, addictions and other unhealthy lifestyles,” said Nordgren. “And, while our study focused on personal behaviors like smoking and eating, it is easy to apply our findings to a broader context. Understanding the power of temptation, you might also ask about the extent to which we need oversight or regulatory guidelines for business and political leaders.”

Of course, there is another Power one could call on (in all humility) to counter temptation, but it appears that its effect has yet to be studied. In any case, avoidance seems the best strategy.




 
about this blog | Bookmark and Share

Search this blog

 Subscribe to FamilyEdge
rss RSS feed of posts

 Recent Posts
How men contribute to Australian happiness
24 May 2012
Truth or lies: a parenting challenge
23 May 2012
Girl violence and the parent gap
21 May 2012
Ottawa exhibition modified after complaints
17 May 2012
Self-control is the only magic bullet
16 May 2012

 MercatorNet blogs
Style and culture: Tiger Print
US political scene: Sheila Liaugminas
News about bioethics: BioEdge
From the editors: Conniptions

 Archive
May 2012 | Apr 2012 | Mar 2012 | more >>

 From MercatorNet's home page

Sensing the sacred
25 May 2012
Is there a sense of the sacred that even the non-religious can share?

Could geoengineering save the planet?
25 May 2012
And who is thinking about the ethics of a technological quick fix?

A thought experiment about marriage
24 May 2012
A world in which sexual intimacy could not produce children would never have come up with the idea of marriage.

Australia’s lifeline: its precarious sea lanes
23 May 2012
Large, isolated and rich, Australia needs to cultivate a friendship with the US to survive in an dangerous world.

It’s only natural
22 May 2012
The bitterest debates today in the public square often turn on what is "natural". The Chinese sages had a lot…


 Tags
men, family economics, religion, obesity, video games, Spain, one-child policy, New Zealand, poverty, young adult, social media, family values, character, abortion, mental health, fatherhood, Africa, Canada, health, abstinence, child safety, celebrities, child obesity, social networking, technology, large families, contraception, adolescence, prostitution, books, violence, brain, fertility, psychology, pornography, homosexuality, internet, baby boomers, character education, family, family meals, working mothers, media ethics, suicide, single motherhood, ageing, economics, demography, childcare, morality, dating, child behaviour, friendship, motherhood, immigration, education, United Nations, family policy, gendercide, recession, happiness, adoption, HIVAIDS, China, work, commitment, polygamy, UK, unemployment, media, parenting, schools, research, AIDS, smacking, child development, sex education, child abuse, family breakdown, marriage, sexual behaviour, women, Obama, South Africa, work-life balance, Sweden, Hollywood, parental rights, children's health, birth control, self-control, fashion, teen pregnancy, emerging adults, family relationships, cohabitation, teenagers, sexualisation of children, United States, divorce, education of children, feminism, fathers, television, child wellbeing, France, same-sex marriage, Australia, girls, youth, gender, European Union, family structure, gender equality, trafficking, anger, children, child welfare,