In other words: if I can say that “research supports a REALLY popular idea,” I make everyone happy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Alas, my job is often to say the opposite. As in:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nHere’s a really popular idea — an idea that sounds like common sense. And: this popular idea probably is not true<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
So:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
- No, Learning Styles are not a thing<\/a> (athough it’s a popular theory, and seems really plausible)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- No, handwriting probably isn’t better than typing<\/a> (although it’s a really popular claim, and — again — seems plausible)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- No, as far as I know, “brain foods” don’t exist<\/a> (although … you know the rest)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Today I want to explore another “probably not true” idea — one that’s important<\/strong>, and a little bit tricky to understand<\/strong>. Here goes…<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Self-Control, and Self-Control<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Psychology researchers spend lots of time thinking about “self-control.” Sadly, this compound word has at least two different meanings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
- Meaning #1<\/strong>: Let’s say you’re the kind of person who — naturally, without really thinking about it, most of the time — resists the tempting thing and does what you ought to do.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
We could say that “self-control” is a consistent personality trait<\/em> you have. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
- Meaning #2<\/strong>: Perhaps you’re standing in front of a plate of donuts. You say to yourself: “I’m SO HUNGRY, and the chocolate-y deliciousness looks amazing. BUT, I’m trying to get in shape, so I’ll take the fruit cup instead…”<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
We could say that you’re exhibiting “self-control” as a short-term behavior; you’re in a sort of state of self-control<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To distinguish between these two definitions, scholars write about<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
- Personality TRAIT self-control, and<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Short-term STATE self-control.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Although those two descriptors rhyme, they describe different kinds of self-control. One (“trait”) is a stable, ongoing, often unthinking self-control. The other (“state”) is short-term, contingent, self aware self-control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We have at least three reasons to care about trait vs. state self-control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
- TRAIT self-control correlates with all sorts of good outcomes. People with high trait self-control live longer, get better grades, and earn more money. They floss more regularly and probably are nicer to dogs. (I think I made up that last one, but it could be true.)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- It just seems obvious: TRAIT self-control is (probably) just lots-n-lots of STATE self-control moments all strung together. As Michael Inzlicht and Brent W. Roberts write<\/a>:\n
\n
- Conventional wisdom has it that people high in trait self-control reap all these benefits because they engage in more state self-control.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- For this reason, we have an obvious, common sense path to follow. If we train students to develop moment-by-moment STATE self-control, the result will be stable TRAIT self-control. “Grit,” anyone? All that gritty training means that students will get the benefits listed above: grades and jobs and cavity-free teeth and the love of dogs.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
But WAIT JUST A MINUTE…<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What if that popular, commonsense hypothesis just isn’t true<\/em>?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
How Can That Be?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
No, really: how could that commonsense hypothesis not be true? It’s just OBVIOUS that trait self-control results from moment-by-moment states of self-control. I mean: isn’t it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the brief (highly readable) article linked above, Inzlicht and Roberts give us plenty of reasons to doubt that conclusion. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/AdobeStock_315652826-v2-1024x636.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n