I read the book a few months ago and thought it was excellent. If anyone is interested, I took extensive notes (warning, they kind of spoil reading the book, which I think is very much worth reading): http://leopolovets.com/blog/2011/10/23/book-notes-on-willpow...
> Zeigarnik effect: uncompleted tasks and unmet goals tend to pop into one’s mind. Once the task is completed and the goal is reached, however, this stream of reminders comes to a stop. For example, if you listen to a song, your mind moves on; if you listen to a song that’s abruptly cut off in the middle, your mind will continue inserting bits and pieces of the song into your stream of thoughts, reminding you that you’re not “done” listening.
Interesting, I wonder if this is the same as when you have a song stuck (looping) in your head. I've been told that listening to the whole song will make it unstuck.
My observations confirm both of these assertions. Leaving a song (I was semi-actively listening to) unfinished will make it stuck in my head, finishing it will remove it.
>The best way to reduce stress is to stop screwing up and setting up your life to increase your chances of success. Successful people don’t use willpower as a last-ditch defense, they use it to set up good habits and avoid problem situations.
To idiomize this great point: Willpower is a hammer, not a shield.
That book and The Talent Code by Daniel Coyle[1] have both left a tremendous impact on me. I think partly because both eschew the mumbo-jumbo, hand wavy, pseudo-science approach, they're both easy to read for the layman and most importantly include lots of high-level summary and explanation about the research that supports the books.
From scanning that paper, I'm guessing that talking about willpower as a limited resource causes those in that group to assume that willpower is not only limited but small and about to run out as well.
So for example, if one were to talk about sunlight as being a limited resource (which it is), it carries the implication that that limit is close enough to worry about.
People's attention is drawn to the idea that they will run out of willpower. The first time they start to experience depletion, they give up, because they assume they've run out.
It would be interesting to repeat the experiment, but tell the participants that in addition to the normal amount of willpower, they also have a secondary reserve which, with a little more effort, they can tap into to double or triple their performance.
How generalizable is this outside food? There was the cheating example, but that felt a bit more abstract than the other examples. I wonder if a taxed mind simply makes us craze glucose to keep it powered.
Either way, I think most people could associate with this - if I'm stressed I'll figure I deserve whatever treat. I think part of the problem is the effort and reward aren't linked at all.
If I need to push on something - I try to build the reward in - e.g. Big week of work and I'll buy an LP, or go out, whatever. Then I feel less inclined to grab something unhealthy "cos I deserve it".
Sounds more like energy depletion that "ego depletion".
The more stress the person is undergoing the more energy is drained. Isn't this obvious? I thought Ariely was known for brilliant insights on human behaviour. Maybe he's become a dieting guru? That's where the money is?
People overeat when they're stressed. Everyone knows that. But why? I've sometimes thought it's because overeating is like an opiate. Think about how you feel after a big meal.
The blood rushes to your stomach, you might even feel sleepy and it's much more difficult to "get stressed" than it is on an empty stomach.
When you're stressed your blood's glucose levels get depleted which weakens your ability for self-control. Once you give in, especially when you are tired and exhausted, it's easier to go all "fuck this, imma eat all I can for now and eat better later on!". Of course, eating increases the glucose level of your blood and afterwards you feel kind of bad about it and the whole idea of giving in starts to feel stupid - "I could've sticked to my promise", "It was just stupid, I should have been stronger".
There's also the fact that habitual snacking and eating "just a bit... ...all the time" grows 1) a mental habit to the act of eating 2) physical dependency to the act of having glucose levels high 3) mental and physical dependency on the good experience(smell and taste).
I used to be a person who ate once a day(lunch), and perhaps ate a fruit(banana or an apple) a few times a week to supplement. Back then I really pitied people who couldn't control their weight. To me it was outright laughable that someone simply could not refuse the sweets, pastries, soft drinks, ... because for me they were never even an option I considered. These days though, while I am not obese(although I've gained a lot of weigh which I know I should get rid of) I've realized that I've became a habitual eater. I eat constantly, all the time. Small snacks, soft drinks, whatever. All the time. Every 15-30-45 minutes I check the fridge. And I can't help it. It's not hunger. It's not the taste itself. It's the act of eating. Act of having something down my throat. While I can resist it on irregular basis every now and then, I can't cancel the actual act of habit just like this. And man, this is horrible. Now I know how it is to not being able to "just refuse it and that's it". Luckily, I consume lots more than average person(physical work, hobbies, conscious effort) so I can control my weight at least. But I am hooked on eating. Habitual eater, no way to deny it.
It's interesting if you think about how easy is is to get food. The drives that cause us to eat probably evolved in the long period of human evolution where we had to work really hard, like every other animal, to find food. Hunger might cause stress, and rightly so. The search for food, for any animal, is always a top priority. But it's so ridiculously easy for people to feed themselves now. The search for food, driven by hunger, is "trivial". You could even eat just for the fun of eating. It's fun. It's also not very healthy. But how many fun things are also healthy?
I digress.
Maybe someone in the UK can comment on what it was like during WWII when there was a severe shortage of food. I have heard some say people were actually quite healthy because they were not eating "too much" as it is so easy to do under normal conditions. I don't know. Maybe some from the UK can comment.
In sum, given that we are still animals with animal drives like hunger, finding food and eating is way too easy. Maybe our evolution has not caught up.
I can't find any solid references, but there was an improvement in health, but part of the reason could be that people who would previously have had a poor diet were 'rationed up' to a balanced and healthy one: everyone got protein and fresh veg.
This is a habit of the adiction kind. It is like alcoholism. Stoping such habit takes week and extream willpower or stay at least one month in a place without fridge etc. After one week you will already see the effect. Note that, as like acoholism, you will very easily reaquire the habit. Don't work at Google or any company offering free snaks.
Masochist cold turkey remedy: Don't buy anything you can snack on for the fridge. When you leave your home bring neither card nor cash (Except when your weekly, well-planed shopping. Then you buy exactly those things that are on the grocery list).
Having just read "Willpower" last week: Yes, ego depletion stems from energy depletion. They did a series of experiments showing that exercising willpower consumes glucose, AND that the higher your blood glucose, the more willpower you had.
The "ego" in "ego depletion" has nothing to do with Freudian ego, except as an homage.
Does this explain why many crappy infomercials are airing late night on TV. By that point people have depleted their willpower and will just buy any junk that is shown to them?
No, that just happens to be the time when the networks don't have any programming, which they sell for a much more reasonable price than prime time commercials.
I hope a lot more research is put into this subject to find out. It's something that can greatly improve people's lives.
More effort thus far has been put into figuring out how to overcome people's willpower and induce them to make poor decisions not in their own interests.
On the bright side, most of the strategies to improve willpower will be effective regardless of which model is actually true.
From the article, it does appear to be so easy, if the article writer had not been intentionally obtuse and on purpose interpreted the "resource view" as significantly stricter than what he later admits the proponents of it actually intends it.
I found myself seeing example after example in that article and thinking I didn't see the purported problem, until I came to that bit at the end and realized that the author was knowingly presenting the examples in the context of a version of the "resource view" that I've not seen anyone argue for.
I have definitely noticed this effect after prolonged bouts of intense coding. There comes a point when the tank is just empty, and I might as well stop because I'll mostly just sit there and stare at the screen. I'm definitely more likely to succumb to easy but bad choices such as fast food at those times too.
A 10 minute nap seems to reset me though, which is cool. I try to take one after completing a good sized chunk of work so I'll be capable of completing another one or two in the same day.
"Judges are more lenient after taking a break, study finds. Prisoners are more likely to be granted parole early in the day or after a break such as lunch, according to researchers" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/apr/11/judges-lenient-bre...)
Here is the actual paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/108/17/6889