Efficacy of self-control and patience interventions in adolescents

ABSTRACT

Self-control and patience are character strengths predictive of positive developmental outcomes, but few interventions targeting their growth have been tested in adolescents. Moreover, interventions based on the limited-strength model of self-control have received considerable criticism, but few studies have tested moderation of interventions by motivational variables fundamental to computational and process models of self-control. To correct this deficiency, we tested the ability of three interventions—using one’s nondominant hand, engaging in cognitive reappraisal exercises, and tracking one’s schedule—to increase self-control and patience in 355 high school students (mean = 16.0 years; 59% female). The nondominant hand and schedule tracking conditions were found to increase self-control, patience, and well-being only when the perceived difficulty was low. Results suggest that the limited-strength model of self-control is insufficient and underscore the explanatory power of computational and process models that account for difficulty. Implications for constructing character interventions for adolescents are discussed.

Acknowledgment

The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.

Notes

¹The authors excluded three studies by Oaten and Cheng (2006a, 2006b, 2007) because the experimental paradigms employed differed, the results did not report all the necessary statistics for the meta-analysis, and the authors did not respond to requests for clarification or additional information.

²Two schools were religiously affiliated with Protestantism, and two schools were not religiously affiliated. Participants were primarily Protestant (n = 212, 59.7%), but there were also participants who classified themselves as Catholic (n = 44, 12.4%), Other (n = 40, 11.3%), Spiritual but not religious (n = 21, 5.9%), Atheist (n = 13, 3.7%), Agnostic (n = 13, 3.7%), Buddhist (n = 2, 0.6%), Muslim (n = 1, 0.3%), and Mormon (n = 1, 0.3%).

³Additional measures were administered to participants as part of the larger study but are not included in the present analyses. These include the Spiritual Transcendence Scale, Religious Commitment Inventory, Short Big Five Inventory, Engaged Living Youth Scale, Gratitude questionnaire, Self-Efficacy Scale, Short Strivings Questionnaire, UCLA Loneliness Scale, Group Entativity Measure, Self-Reported Athletic Performance, and God Concept Questions.

⁴Variables used in ANOVAs and hierarchical linear regressions were tested for parametric assumptions, and the data met criteria for all assumptions including linearity, homoscedasticity, independence, and normality. Scatterplots and comparisons of predicted versus residual values were used to test assumptions.

⁵Including only the 290 participants who completed the entire study (i.e., excludes three participants who took the pre- and post- surveys but did not engage in any intervention activities).

⁶For clarity of interpretation of the interaction effects, we use reappraisal as the reference condition (entering dummy variables for the nondominant hand and daily schedule tracking conditions). The reappraisal condition was largely ineffective, so this improved interpretability.

⁷Analyses were also run predicting post-test scores of outcome variables without controlling for pre-test scores, and interaction effects were congruent to the reported analyses controlling for pre-test scores.

⁸Error bars are not displayed on the graphs due to recommendations from Cummings and Finch (2005) concerning the display of within-subjects change.

⁹We choose to conclude that the limited-strength model is insufficient rather than erroneous based on arguments (Evans, Boggero, & Segerstrom, 2015; Harvey, 2013) that motivational accounts do not necessarily preclude limited resources. Instead, self-control failures may result from both depletion and motivation shifts, though motivational shifts are more often culpable.

¹⁰One reason for this may be that adolescents readily noticed when they were unable to recall what they did during a segment of the day but were less aware of the times they failed to use their nondominant hand.