↓ Skip to main content

Being active and impulsive: The role of goals for action and inaction in self-control

Overview of attention for article published in Motivation and Emotion, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Being active and impulsive: The role of goals for action and inaction in self-control
Published in
Motivation and Emotion, November 2011
DOI 10.1007/s11031-011-9263-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Justin Hepler, Dolores Albarracin, Kathleen C. McCulloch, Kenji Noguchi

Abstract

Although self-control often requires behavioral inaction (i.e., not eating a piece of cake), the process of inhibiting impulsive behavior is commonly characterized as cognitively active (i.e., actively exerting self-control). Two experiments examined whether motivation for action or inaction facilitates self-control behavior in the presence of tempting stimuli. Experiment 1 used a delay discounting task to assess the ability to delay gratification with respect to money. Experiment 2 used a Go/No-Go task to assess the ability to inhibit a dominant but incorrect motor response to the words "condom" and "sex". The results demonstrate that goals for inaction promote self-control, whereas goals for action promote impulsive behavior. These findings are discussed in light of recent evidence suggesting that goals for action and inaction modulate physiological resources that promote behavioral execution.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
United States 2 2%
China 1 <1%
Unknown 123 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 22%
Student > Master 25 20%
Researcher 24 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 6 5%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 14 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 68 53%
Social Sciences 14 11%
Decision Sciences 5 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 3%
Arts and Humanities 4 3%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 17 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 September 2017.
All research outputs
#1,393,057
of 23,906,448 outputs
Outputs from Motivation and Emotion
#107
of 792 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,193
of 246,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Motivation and Emotion
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,906,448 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 792 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 246,239 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.