Whether you record what you eat every day or not, it’s useful to do an eating self-assessment before deciding what needs to change in your current eating routine. The first step in this process is to apply the five W’s of journalism: What, When, Why, Where and Who. That will help you get a more thorough understanding of your eating patterns so you’ll know where to focus your change goals.

What: When you try to recall your usual eating patterns, it may be easiest to go through your daily routine, and write down (with brutal honesty, if necessary) the types of meals and snacks that you tend to prefer and are most likely to eat throughout the day. What do you have for breakfast, if at anything at all? What choices do you make and what portion sizes do you take? Do you prefer to prepare your own meals, like cooked or raw salads, or do you go for convenience? If it’s the latter, is it usually frozen meals, diet plan trays, or take-out? Another important ‘What’ question is, what are you doing while you eat? Are you reading, watching TV, working at the computer? Or are you simply focused on the experience of eating whether alone or with others?

When: Once you think about what you usually eat and how much, you can think about your daily pattern of when you get the cues to eat and respond to them. Do you eat at scheduled mealtimes, or do you graze throughout the day? When do you usually eat the first meal of the day? At what point do you stop eating at individual meals? When in the day do you stop eating? Are you a late night snacker? Think about whether your total calorie intake is spread throughout the day, or is it more packed into the one part of the day or another. Is your pattern to eat a lot but infrequently or less and more frequently?

Why: Next, take note of what typically prompts you to eat at each of those opportunities. Of course, I have been talking about emotional eating throughout this book and how feeling controlled tends to trigger an episode of emotional eating. So identifying what the experience is that made you respond by eating is one example of how to answer the Why question. When it’s not a response to an emotional trigger, you can track the timing of your eating. Is it mainly the time of day that makes you think about having a meal, or do you respond mostly to hunger cues? Or do you eat simply because food is in your line of vision and available? (My father, a master of lame dad humor, used to call that his see-food diet.) If your eating has no discernible pattern, then that’s your pattern. Make note of the cues that prompt you to eat when you do.

Where: Now think about where you are at each of those occasions. Are you standing or sitting? Are you at a kitchen or dining room table or at a coffee table or TV tray? Do you eat in the company cafeteria, at your office desk, or in a restaurant – fast-food or other? Do you eat in the car? (Here’s a hint: don’t!)

Who: Do you usually eat with others or by yourself? When you eat around other people do you tend to make better choices and limit how much you eat or are you influenced in one way or another by the choices of others?

This self-assessment is the first step in behavior change. Understanding your eating patterns can help you identify obvious problems. In the next few posts, I’ll go over some of the less obvious patterns that research has shown to increase calorie consumption and where making some changes can be especially helpful. But first I’ll start with some of the more irrational mental habits that may not be obvious but really should be. As you’ll see, you don’t need a researcher to tell you that they add calories, just a little common sense.

Advertisements

I’m very ambivalent about the issue of keeping a food diary. I know that when people do it, the impact it has on their eating can be very impressive. So what’s the down side of recommending it? For one thing, when someone who is just trying to be helpful, tells you that you “really should” keep a daily food diary, that’s one more rock dropped into the pan that hangs on the external control side of the scale.  It’s just as likely to have a negative effect as a positive one.

People differ in how they feel about keeping journals, diaries, or scrapbooks. Personally, if I was told to record everything I ate, I would either give up after about a day, or if I did stick with it, the information wouldn’t be worth the electronic pixels that it’s recorded on. And I know from my patients’ responses to this recommendation that there are many people who have the same attitude toward recording everything they eat as I do.

Even dedicated diarists who are knowledgeable about nutrition can be way off in their estimates of portions and calories that they consume. A study published in 2002 showed that although dietitians who were asked to record their food intake over a seven-day period were more accurate than non-dietitians, they still underestimated the calories they consumed by more than 10 percent. The non-dietitians in the study were off by more than 20 percent!

I believe, however, that the accuracy of the details recorded is not the key factor in explaining the effectiveness of keeping a food journal. The real value of the diary comes back to mindful awareness. Just the process of thinking about what you have eaten forces you to stop and reflect on your eating behavior. That alone can be a very sobering experience for many people who eat so automatically they’re not even aware of having other more appropriate options. If you’re not aware that you have options then literally, you don’t have a choice. From a practical point of view, it’s no better than being forced to eat. More than that, the fact that what you’re about to put in your mouth will be recorded, makes a big difference in whether you eat it or not. Or, put another way, it allows you to make choices.

There’s an old joke about a couple on vacation in the Catskill Mountains in one of those old resorts. They were looking at their menus and pointed out to the waitress that under side dishes it just says “choice of vegetables.” “So?” asked the waitress. The man asked, “Well, what’s the choice?” The jaded server rolled her eyes and said, “The choice is, do you want it or don’t ‘cha?” When you consider any global behavior change on the microscopic, nano-level, it all comes down to individual decisions: Should I have this one or that one? Should I take another portion or not? Do you want this or don’t ‘cha?

How frequently are we confronted with choices about what we eat? A study done by Brian Wansink at Cornell looked at how many food-related decisions we think we make every day and compared it to how many we actually make. The results were pretty astounding. The researchers found that we’re aware of making about 15 daily decisions concerning food. The reality? We make over 200 food-related decisions every day! That difference is where most of your excess calories come from.

So the real low-hanging fruit, where a minor effort can have a major impact, lies in being more aware of even a small percentage of those 185 or so unconscious decisions you make every day. The accuracy and details of your food diary are not the critical factor in its effectiveness. Instead, the value of writing it down is that it encourages you to open your eyes to the many opportunities you have every day to make better decisions.

What does that mean for those of you who, like me, don’t care for keeping track of everything you eat? It means two things: one, you don’t have to obsess over the details. Just making a quick note – even a mental note – in the evening of whatever you can recall eating during the day can make a difference. Second, you don’t have to do it for the rest of your life. You can quit when you start thinking automatically about what you’re eating rather than just eating automatically.

If you feel that you have a good understanding of how I explained autonomous control, then this part may or may not be useful to you. If that’s the case, feel free to skip it. At the risk of overexplaining it, this schematic serves my need to clarify things visually. That’s how I learn best, so I like to use visual images to explain things as well.

This is a graphical depiction of the important role that a balanced sense of autonomous control plays in behavior, and how that can be set off-balance by a shift to the extreme on either side. As the term implies, true autonomous control combines autonomy, or independent action, with control, or responsibility and structure. Going to an extreme on either side of the scale can throw everything off-balance which is psychologically unsustainable.

When that does happen, the imbalance tends to be restored by going to the extreme on the other side. Too much structure begins to feel like externally-imposed control, which is counteracted by defiant or oppositional behavior. Since the counter-reaction, rather than the outcome, is the primary motivation, this behavior is often acted out on impulse rather than by weighing costs and benefits.

It would also follow that lacking a sense of control and structure would be equally destabilizing by creating a feeling of internal chaos, and could lead to restoring balance in the other direction by becoming overly structured or self-restrictive. This may explain what motivates certain behaviors such as anorexia or other types of extreme dieting.

The ideal approach is to maintain balanced moderation by having a sense of authority and self-direction, but also by taking into account a sense of responsibility: to others, to your work, to society, and so on. That responsibility can take the form of conforming to external expectations, like getting up to go to work in the morning, obeying the law, adhering to a schedule when necessary, or offering a compromise when your legitimate autonomous needs conflict with those of someone else.

When there are moderate and reasonable limits on your freedom, then you are able maintain an emotionally even keel. This allows you to pursue goals autonomously, guided by your own needs and by how those are met by the behavior, rather than impulsively acting in opposition to your perception that someone else is trying to control you.

I call this a dynamic equilibrium model of autonomous control. Dynamic equilibrium is a term used primarily in the natural sciences, but has also been used in the social sciences. The idea is that a system is maintained in a relatively steady and balanced state (homeostasis) while the elements that maintain the balance are in flux and they react to each other to maintain equilibrium. That is, they move in tandem mirroring each other so that if one moves to the extreme, the other does too to maintain constancy. It’s a zero-sum game.

When the counter-balancing elements involve emotions and behavior, and they shift to the extremes, you can see the kind of problems that may result (in the boxes at the bottom of the graphic). That brings us back to our topic and illustrates how emotional eating fits in.

Of course, understanding the theory and successfully applying it to your behavior are two separate things. The four-step approach that I outlined here is necessary for overcoming emotional eating, but may not be sufficient in conquering overeating. A long-standing pattern of emotional eating may become so habitual that even without the external control stressors triggering the behavior, simple habit can keep it going. In future posts I will focus on the mental habits that over time tend to groove a rut in your eating behavior and how to get a handle on pulling yourself out of them.

This step is the take-away, bottom line, upshot, payoff, etc. for everything we’ve discussed up to this point. So pay close attention. Once you have identified the reason (or reasons) you feel controlled, the next step is to take a good look at the situation that is causing the stress to see if you can change how it impacts you.

The key to doing this successfully involves the effective use of coping mechanisms. In psychology, coping with stress is broken down into three basic strategies. Depending on the nature of the stressor, each of these can be used to reduce or eliminate the impact of the problem that is making you feel controlled. These are:

  1. problem-focused coping
  2. appraisal-focused coping
  3. emotion-focused coping

Problem-focused strategies are simply solution-oriented approaches to dealing with a situation that causes stress. If the problem is due to something that can be changed, you can solve it by reducing or eliminating the source of the stress. Let’s say you’re tense and anxious due to your hectic schedule. You feel like you’re running from one meeting to another, while always being afraid that you’ll be late to the next one. You would look at how you are managing your appointments to see how you can reduce the problem.

A patient of mine was dealing with an extremely stressful work situation. He is a doctor working in a busy outpatient clinic where there tends to be a lot of patients who don’t show for their appointments. As a result, the clinic administrators looked for a way to balance patient flow without causing too many gaps for the doctors or delays for the patients. They found a good balance by looking at the average number of no-shows for the clinic and developed a practice of triple-booking each appointment slot to manage the patient flow.

This worked well for the most part. The problem was that cancellations and no-shows varied according to specialty and my patient’s specialty area had fewer missed appointments than the others. As a result, he was constantly overbooked, running late for each appointment and working late every day. The simple fix was to show the administrator how his cancellations and no-shows differed from the others, and that his appointments should therefore not be triple-booked. Problem solved.

This simple approach is the best way to deal with problems that are causing stress, so it should be the first thing to look for when you identify the situation that is causing you to feel controlled. If you’re overwhelmed with work, hire an assistant or delegate responsibilities to others. If your office desk has developed geological strata and finding things you need requires the skills of a trained archeologist, enlist the help of an organized person to help you come up with a better system.

These are fairly straightforward solutions to problems that can really end up controlling your life. In reality, though, it’s usually not so simple. Most of the time, the problem you’re dealing with is not so readily solvable but is rather an ongoing situation that does not lend itself to a simple fix. That leaves you with the next option: appraisal-focused coping strategies.  This means reappraising and challenging your assumptions – or in plain English, turning on your mental crap detector.

Without getting too philosophical about it, when we respond to any event, we feel and believe that we are responding to the plain reality that’s out there. That’s a reasonable and common shortcut that we use to unclutter our brains and streamline how we think. Unfortunately, it’s not true. The idea that we see things as they really are is a simplified but wrong view of the cognitive process we go through when we respond to events. The truth is that we’re really responding to our interpretation of the experience, which can be very different from the reality. So it’s essential to challenge the assumptions we make about how we first view the event.

Everything we see and experience first has to pass through a process of perception and interpretation before we respond to it. That interpretation of what we perceive is our own addition to the experience and it colors or even completely distorts our understanding of the event. It’s like a filter that we use on the camera lens of our mind. It distorts the picture we take of reality in a way that is unique to us. Often, we may apply the same filter to many different experiences. We don’t give too much thought to it when we do this, because it occurs at a level beyond our conscious awareness, and besides, most of the time it has no practical impact.

However, when we respond emotionally to our experience of an event, and then behave in some way that is in turn triggered by that emotional response, how we filter reality can make a huge difference. For the purposes of our discussion, it can determine whether or not an event will trigger an episode of binge eating or not.

It’s too easy to accept the sense of being controlled as the reality and to respond to that perception by eating. But what if your perception is not the reality? It is very possible that your filter tends to allow perceptions of external control to pass through more easily than alternative interpretations. So the most important question to ask is, “Am I really being controlled or are there ways that I can look at this situation differently?”

Appraisal-focused strategies are appropriate when there is no straight-forward solution to a problem. Instead of changing the cause, you modify how you think. This is what I wrote about in some detail concerning Hamlet’s prison. Whether you feel trapped or not may depend entirely on how you look at things.

Another patient of mine grew up as the oldest of six children. Her parents, whether by their nature or necessity, were very rigid about expectations of behavior and fairness. Among those rules were that the older children had to be responsible for their younger siblings. This wasn’t just a matter of watching out for their safety, but also making sure they were happy.

As a consequence, my patient had to do things like include her younger sister whenever she went out with friends, give up her right to an extra piece of pizza if her sister wanted it, and so on. Now, as adults, she doesn’t particularly enjoy the company of her younger sister, but feels incredibly guilty about not wanting to spend more time with her. Unlike the other person’s work schedule problem, this is not a situation that lends itself to an easy solution. So what does she do about the overwhelming stress that comes from the guilt she feels about not liking her sister? She had to reappraise the situation.

First, she had to recognize that perhaps her parents’ expectations were not fair to her. True, she was the oldest, but she was still just a little girl herself and had her own need to be a kid, not a nanny. So a lot of her resentment toward her sister was probably redirected from feelings she had toward her parents that were unacceptable for her to acknowledge. Second, she and her sister are very different people as adults, with different interests and personalities. Sometimes people who are members of the same family wouldn’t choose to be friends with each other if they weren’t related and they don’t have to feel guilty about that.

For this patient, of course, that was not an acceptable option growing up, and she never got the memo as an adult that this rule had ever been repealed. Allowing herself to admit that she would probably not choose her sister as a friend if they met as adults was a revelation to her. That doesn’t mean that she can ignore her as if they had no connection, but including her in her life her as one would any family member is not what was stressful to her. Essentially, she had to give herself permission to disregard rules that were at best obsolete and probably were never a good idea to begin with. This, not surprisingly, was a pattern that repeated itself in her relationships with friends, co-workers, and the men she dated.

This process of reassessing how one interprets and responds to reality is in fact the majority of what goes on in therapy. It’s what most of the talk in talk therapy is about. It’s a process that requires examining patterns of events and relationships and noting how you tend to respond to them until there are enough data points to connect the dots and see a consistent picture emerge.

Since the process relies on no one but you to accomplish, together with a therapist who supports your budding independence, it is a very good example of how to develop a sense of autonomous control in your life. If you commit to it and put what you discover into practice, it is usually a very effective and powerful way of implementing change. But even then, there will be lifelong habits of thinking and behaving that slip through, no matter how effective therapy is. That’s where the third coping technique, emotion-focused coping, can be very helpful.

Emotion-focused strategies involve dealing with the feelings that are stirred up as a consequence of the stressor. This can include managing hostile feelings by counting to ten, or reducing anxiety by meditating or using relaxation techniques. Unlike the first two strategies, which are directed at reducing the source of stress, emotion-focused coping is more tactical than strategic, since it is aimed at the effects of the stress. Distracting oneself from the urge to binge would be an example that is most relevant to emotional eating. This is what many therapists who work with emotional eating recommend when they encourage people to “surf the urge,” meaning, distract yourself from the urge to binge until it passes.

Other useful responses could include any type of pleasant activity that serves as a distraction and occupies your attention, preferably while occupying your hands as well. Any kind of needlework, doing crossword puzzles or taking a hot bath, might be some examples of emotional-coping behaviors. Going for a walk, exercise or reading could also work well. Watching TV might be an effective way to divert your attention, but it could also allow for having a snack while you watch, and the opportunity for habitual eating could defeat the purpose of distracting yourself from emotional eating.

Surfing the urge, and any other response that you might choose to take the place of emotional eating, can be helpful advice when you feel like bingeing and have no other way of dealing with it. However, I see this as a last resort, after the attempts to address the source of the stress has failed. That’s because emotional eating is the effect; the stressor, whether it is a problem that can be fixed or a perception that can be changed, is the cause. Whenever there is a cause and effect relationship, the most effective way to minimize the effect is to first address the cause.

With most of my patients, even those who have binged on a daily basis for years, I don’t begin treatment by getting them to change their behavior. If anything, that would just introduce a new form of external control that sooner or later would have the exact opposite effect of what we are trying to accomplish. Instead, I help them defuse the power of food by encouraging them to view all food as on the menu. Then we’ll look at their experience of external control and discuss the coping techniques I describe here. Often, after only a few weeks of therapy with someone who has been struggling daily, I’ll ask them how their eating has been. They’ll usually think about it for a few seconds and look up with an expression of puzzlement when they realize that it’s been a week or more since the last time they binged.

When it comes to emotional eating, perceived control is the cause; rejection of control is the effect. First try to solve the problem that causes the experience of feeling controlled; if that’s not possible, change your perception of that control. When that’s not enough, find better ways to respond to those feelings. The unwanted behavior will often take care of itself.

In the second act of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark welcomes his friends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to  his country, although Hamlet feels sorry for them that they have to be there…

HAMLET:   … What have you, my good friends, deserved at the hands of Fortune that she sends you to prison hither?

GUILDENSTERN:   Prison, my lord?

HAMLET:   Denmark’s a prison.

ROSENCRANTZ:   Then is the world one.

HAMLET:   A goodly one; in which there are many confines, wards, and dungeons, Denmark being one o’ the worst.

ROSENCRANTZ:   We think not so, my lord.

HAMLET:   Why, then ’tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison.

Imagine you’re in a room that has lots of things to keep you busy and occupied – a computer with internet, books, television, music, a well-stocked kitchen and a bathroom. You could easily stay there for days without feeling bored or unproductive. There’s only one problem: you’re locked in. You know there are people who may be around who can let you out, but they’re not responding right now and you have no way of knowing if they’ll be back in a few hours or a few days. You look around for the key and can’t find it anywhere. You try to get work done but you have a hard time concentrating because you keep thinking about how long it will be before you can get out. Not that you have to or even want to leave; you just want to know that you can. Until then, however, you can’t focus on anything else.

This is the situation in which a lot of people find themselves. They feel stuck in circumstances that are not of their own choosing. What bothers them isn’t the way their lives are right now, it’s just the feeling that they don’t have other options if they wanted them. The sad thing is that they could be perfectly content with what they’re doing and whom they’re with, and they may even choose to stay just where they are even if they felt there were many other options available. The problem is that they don’t feel that they have other options, and that is keeping them from enjoying and being productive with what they have.

Let’s go back to the imaginary room. What if, at some point during your many breaks from work to get up and look around for that key, you suddenly found it? Would you feel the need to open the door and run out? You may, but not necessarily. You might want to unlock the door and then go back to work or whatever it is you were doing. Or you may just want to leave the door locked for privacy.

Whichever you choose,  it just feels better to know that you could leave if you wanted to. Now that you know that, you find yourself able to concentrate on what you’re doing, and feel much happier and content staying in that room. What happened to make you feel better if you haven’t changed anything about your circumstances? Your perception of the situation has changed. You know that you have the freedom to do something different if you choose to.

I’ve been talking about the importance of autonomous control and the role it plays in how you feel and, as I’ve also been arguing, in how you behave. In this illustration, the sense of having the ability to choose is the only thing that has really changed. You’re there now because you choose to be, not because you have to be. It’s about perception: Hamlet and his friends are talking about the same place; to him it’s a prison and he pities them, but to them it’s not and they’re fine with it.

Think about situations that you may be in, like relationships or work, that make you feel stuck and unhappy. Is it all bad? Are there any benefits to being there? For example, if you’re not happy at your job, do you find yourself focusing on all the reasons you feel that way? Put those aside for a minute and think of aspects of it that you like and would want to have even if you had the option of leaving. Thinking of those things doesn’t mean you shouldn’t leave, but until you have that opportunity, it could make life a lot more pleasant.

Just having the knowledge that you can take control of your situation by viewing it differently is a major part of feeling less trapped and hopeless. This can affect not just how you feel, but how you actually perform at work or behave in other situations, since, just like knowing where the key is in case you want to leave the room, you can now focus on getting back to work and being more productive.

The implication of this as it relates to emotional eating, is that when you feel trapped in one area of your life you may feel the need in some other area to prove to yourself that you’re really free to behave as you wish; for example, by breaking your self-imposed rules about eating. The ability to see yourself as more in charge of your life could reduce the need to find that “freedom” elsewhere in ways that, ironically, make you feel a prisoner of your own behavior.

Have you ever found that it’s easier to diet when you’re doing it for yourself rather than to please someone else? If you have, research backs that up; people who make the effort to lose weight for their own reasons are more successful at it than those who are doing it for external reasons.

At least that’s what people in a six-month weight loss program said when they were asked about their reasons for dieting. The participants who reported more internal motivation to lose weight attended the program more regularly, lost more weight during the program, and maintained the weight loss better than those whose motivation was more external.

Mark Muraven was not involved in that study, but he is one of the researchers who helped develop the depletion model of self-control. In fact, as a graduate student working on his master’s thesis, he designed and carried out the original study that demonstrated how self-restraint has a negative impact on later attempts to control behavior, and concluded that it’s an indication that self-control or willpower  is a limited resource that gets depleted with use. Muraven is now an associate professor at the University of Albany and wanted to examine the effects of internal versus external motivation on self-control.  About five years ago he published an interesting paper that describes a study he carried out to explore this question.

He told participants (82 undergraduates) that the purpose of the study was to see the effect that sugar had on strength. It actually had nothing to do with that, but he needed the subjects to be blind to the real purpose of the study. (He straightened them out afterwards in a standard debriefing.) First, they were asked to squeeze a spring-loaded hand grip, which is a common task used to measure self-control. The more self-control they had, the longer they would squeeze the device before giving up. This was their baseline measure of how long they can hold it.

He then presented them with plates of assorted cookies and told them that he’ll be stepping out for a few minutes. Before he left, he explained that they can choose to eat the cookies or not. However, the researchers for the (mock) “sugar strength” test especially need participants who could be in the group of those who did not eat any cookies.  “The choice,” he emphasized, “is entirely yours. But we would really appreciate it if you would not eat the cookies.” When the investigator returned to the room, he administered the grip test again.

Only three of the 82 participants ate any cookies (their results were excluded), so the group was pretty compliant, but they had different motivations for not eating them. As they revealed on a questionnaire they were given afterward, some people endorsed internal reasons not to eat the cookies, like, “it’s fun to challenge myself,” which would be an internal motivation. Others didn’t eat them “because I want the experimenter to like me,” an external motive. The questionnaire was designed to measure autonomous self-control on a continuum from very internally motivated to very externally motivated.

They also measured the difference between the baseline and follow-up grip-strength endurance times for each person and compared the degree of drop-off in endurance with the degree of autonomy the subjects felt. The results? As the previous observations indicated, it confirmed that internal motivation for self-control was less “depleting” (in depletion model terms) than external motivation. The problem is, the resource-depletion theory has no explanation for why that should happen. As Muraven concluded, “this study indicates that the [depletion] model needs a significant revision, as autonomous self-control appears to deplete far less self-control strength than compelled self-control.”

I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one who has had this experience: You’re rushing to get out of the house on a winter morning to drive the older kids in carpool, and as you struggle to get the youngest into his snowsuit he’s screaming, “No! I want to do it myself!!”  Or you might be old enough to remember the tagline from the Anacin commercial, “Mother, please! I’d rather do it myself!” Young or old, people have a need to feel that they are the source of their own actions. Why is the need to do it by and for yourself so important?

The need for autonomous control, or the self-driven motivation to act, has been explained by two psychologists at the University of Rochester, Richard Ryan and Edward Deci. According to this idea,  called Self-Determination Theory, a feeling of autonomy is, along with competence and relatedness, one of the three main elements of intrinsic motivation. For a good non-technical explanation of these ideas, read Edward Deci’s Why We Do What We Do. In it, he relates an old Jewish fable told to him by a friend.

It seems that bigots were eager to rid their town of a Jewish man who had opened a tailor shop on Main Street, so they sent a group of rowdies to harass the tailor. Each day, the ruffians would show up to jeer. The situation was grim, but the tailor was ingenious. One day when the hoodlums arrived, he gave each of them a dime for their efforts. Delighted, they shouted their insults and moved on. The next day they returned to shout, expecting their dime. But the tailor said he could afford only a nickel and proceeded to hand a nickel to each of them. Well, they were a bit disappointed, but a nickel is after all a nickel, so they took it, did their jeering, and left. The next day, they returned once again, and the tailor said he had only a penny for them and held out his hand. Indignant, the young toughs sneered and proclaimed that they would certainly not spend their time jeering at him for a measly penny. So they didn’t. And all was well for the tailor.

As long as their motivation was their own sheer pleasure at giving this poor tailor a hard time, they would do it for free. But once they got used to doing it for a reward, their internal motivation was replaced by the external reward. When the incentive ended, the behavior stopped. (Think about the implications for corporate wellness programs that rely on incentives to get employees to lose weight and exercise!) Similarly, the surest way to doom whatever you might accomplish on a diet is to lose the weight for someone else rather than for yourself. At some point, the pay-off ends while the deprivation continues and is no longer worth it.

But what does all this say about whether self-control is the result of willpower, as the depletion-resource-strength model theorists contend? If you recall from my previous post about why people would repeat something that they know will cause them to feel worse afterward, my conclusion was that the reinforcement for that behavior was actually very powerful; it was all about freedom, autonomy, and control, as self-determination theory has been saying all along.

When Muraven says that the results of his study on autonomy and self-control indicate the need to revise the depletion model, I would agree.  It seems that when there is a sense of imbalance between having control over your own choices versus feeling forced or pressured to behave according to expectations – even self-imposed expectations – that balance must be restored. Sometimes, that may even be at the expense of having to deal with unpleasant consequences later .

When the depletion theorists describe certain behaviors, such as emotional eating, as a “breakdown” of restraint, it is not due to a passive depletion of the strength to resist; rather, it’s an active strategy to restore an imbalance in autonomy. In the next post I’ll describe in more detail this idea of balance, imbalance and restoration, and how it can be applied to improve the self-regulation of behavior.