SEEING IS FOR SELF-­‐CONTROL 1 Seeing is for Self-Control:
Motivated Perceptual Biases During Self-Control Conflicts
Shana Cole1
New York University
Job Market Paper
1 This work has been conducted with the invaluable input of my advisor Emily Balcetis, collaborators and
members of my dissertation committee Yaacov Trope and Adam Alter, and the incredibly hardworking and
motivated research assistants and Honors students in the SPAM Lab at NYU. SEEING IS FOR SELF-­‐CONTROL 2 Abstract
How do people forego proximal, short-term desires to meet their distal, long-term goals? In the
present studies, I test self-control processes that occur early in information processing, when people first
encode and interpret temptation-relevant visual information in the environment. In two research lines across
two different goal domains, I explore perceptual biases that emerge when people encounter temptations. In
the first set of studies, I explore motivated perceptual biases that emerge during romantic self-control
conflicts. Specifically, I test whether people perceptually devalue attractive others who represent a potential
threat to their long-term relationship goals. Compared to single individuals, people in committed
relationships perceive threatening others as less physically attractive (Studies 1 & 2). This occurs to the
greatest extent among people who are highly committed to and satisfied with their current relationships
(Study 2). In the second set of studies, I explore motivated perceptual biases that emerge during dieting
self-control conflicts. Specifically, I test whether people with strong dieting goals see tempting foods as
perceptually distal. Compared to unrestrained eaters, restrained eaters perceived tempting snack vendors
as farther away (Studies 3 & 4). This occurs to the greatest extent among people who are successful at
managing their dieting goals (Study 4). I discuss additional studies currently underway that test functional
links between perceptual biases and temptation resistance, and I emphasize the theoretical and applied
importance of including perceptual processes in models of self-regulation and self-control.
SEEING IS FOR SELF-­‐CONTROL 3 Seeing is for Self-Control:
Motivated Perceptual Processes During Self-Control Conflicts
What do golf pro Tiger Woods, actress Kirstie Alley, and President of the United States Barack
Obama have in common? In addition to garnering media attention for ups and downs in their professional
lives, the celebrities have also made headlines for their personal successes and failures. All three have
spoken candidly about their difficulties meeting and maintaining personal goals. Tiger Woods has struggled
with marital fidelity; his cheating scandal in 2009 resulted in a public apology where he lamented that the
indiscretions went against his “core values.” Kirstie Alley has struggled with weight loss; she captured
attention in 2007 after shedding 75 pounds as a spokesperson for Jenny Craig, only to appear two years
later on the cover of People magazine 83 pounds heavier and “hating herself” for it. And President Obama
has struggled to quit smoking; since starting as a teenager the President revealed he has spent most of his
adult life trying to kick the habit. Although he was finally able to quit in 2010, he has admitted it is something
he “constantly struggles with.” The three have famously wrestled with their goals under the public’s watchful
eye and are examples of the struggles that can plague goal pursuit.
Celebrity struggles are easy to call to mind because the trials and tribulations of the rich and
famous make for titillating headlines, but difficulties during goal pursuit are not confined to the newsworthy.
A recent analysis of 31 long-term dieting studies found that within five years two-thirds of dieters eventually
gained back more weight than they had originally lost (Mann, Tomiyama, Westling, Lew, Samuels, &
Chapman, 2008). Likewise, within a year of quitting, 75% of smokers started up again (Gorman, 2001) and
by Valentine’s Day nearly 80% of the individuals who had set New Year’s resolutions had broken them
(Williams, 2008).
One primary reason why goal pursuit is difficult is that as people work to achieve their goals, they
often encounter temptations that threaten to throw them off course. Dieters may be offered a piece of a
coworker’s birthday cake, people in committed relationships may have a flirtatious encounter at the gym,
and former smokers may come across a forgotten pack of cigarettes in the glove compartment. Indeed, in
daily life temptations abound. One study found that people spend over half of the time they are awake
every day desiring something (Hofmann, Vohs, & Baumeister, 2012). Many times the desires are
mundane—a glass of water, a warmer coat, a hug—but approximately 47% of the time the desires are
instead ones that conflict with larger values and goals. People often experience motivational pulls toward
behaviors that would detract from other important goals.
When an enticing proximal desire conflicts with an important distal goal, opposing behavioral
inclinations are activated and a self-control dilemma emerges (Ainslie, 1992; Loewenstein, 1996; Metcalfe
& Mischel, 1999; Trope & Fishbach, 2000). People often must make the difficult decision to forego
temptations in the service of their more abstract, long-term goals. How do people do it? What processes
help people continue to travel down the road to their goals instead of veering off course onto the path of
temptation? Whereas much previous empirical work has focused on cognitive strategies for resisting
temptations, the present studies instead explore perceptual routes to self-control. Specifically, I investigate
the role of motivated visual perception in the management of self-control conflicts. I suggest that during
conflict situations, distortions in the way that people see temptations may help to decrease the motivational
pull to give in to them.
Strategies for Self-Control
Because resisting temptations and staying on track to long-term goals can be difficult, people often
use tricks or strategies to help them stay the course. For example, when asked how they achieve their
goals, American adults reported using strategies such as reminding themselves why the goal is important,
talking to themselves in encouraging ways, and distracting themselves to avoid giving in to temptations
(APA, 2012). People also precommit to and incentivize their goals in order to stay on track. For example, in
recent months, new websites have cropped up that offer to support and manage people’s efforts to achieve
SEEING IS FOR SELF-­‐CONTROL 4 goals through “commitment contracts.” Individuals set a goal for themselves and put money on the line in
order to meet it. If they do not meet the goal in the specified time-frame, the money goes to either a friend,
to charity, or to a charity they hate. Currently stickk.com, one of the most popular of these sites, advertises
that 218,829 contracts have been created with over $15 million on the line. When people are struggling with
goal pursuit, they may employ different strategies that help them to regulate their thoughts and behaviors
toward effectively achieving goals.
In addition to anecdote and lay strategies, in the lab empirical studies have explored both
spontaneous and learned strategies that aid people in resisting temptations. A comprehensive survey of
cognitive processes that enable self-control is a task best suited for a lengthy review paper on the topic.
However, noting just a few is important for demonstrating the breadth and rigor with which researchers
have studied the topic. For example, Mischel’s (1974) seminal work on delayed gratification highlighted
explicit cognitive strategies that children use when faced with a choice between gobbling up tasty treats
immediately or waiting for even greater rewards later. Distracting themselves with other thoughts or
representing the treats in more abstract ways (e.g., thinking of marshmallows as fluffy white clouds) helped
children avoid the urge to give in to immediate temptations (Mischel, Ebbesen, & Zeiss, 1972; Moore,
Mischel, & Zeiss, 1976; Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999; Mischel & Baker, 1975; Mischel, 1974). In adults,
cognitive strategies like focusing and elaborating on the long-term consequences of giving in to a
temptation, rather than the short-term rewards, reduced food and cigarette cravings (Kober, Kross, Mischel,
Hart, & Ochsner, 2010). And recent work suggests semantically framing resistance to a temptation in terms
of empowered “I don’t” statements (e.g., “I don’t eat chocolate”) instead of “I can’t” statements (e.g., “I can’t
eat chocolate”) helped people resist temptations (Patrick & Hagtvedt, 2012).
Likewise, Counteractive Control Theory (Trope & Fishbach, 2000; Fishbach & Trope, 2007) has
proposed a variety of cognitive strategies that people employ to proactively counteract temptations. For
example, people may explicitly try to bolster the value of a goal by elaborating why the goal is important or
gratifying (Kuhl & Beckmann, 1985; Trope & Fishbach, 2000; Myrseth, Fishbach, & Trope, 2009) or may
exaggerate the negativity of the temptation so that they are less likely to give in to it (Zhang, Huang,
Broniarczyk, 2011). In addition, people self-impose penalties for deviating off track and make rewards
contingent on goal-consistent behaviors (Trope & Fishbach, 2000).
In addition to explicit strategies that people consciously employ, there are also implicit,
nonconscious cognitive strategies that deploy outside of conscious awareness and that require few
cognitive resources (e.g., Fishbach & Shah, 2006; Fishbach, Friedman, & Kruglanski, 2003; Moskowitz,
Gollwitzer, Wasel, & Schaal, 1999). For example, some research suggests that when people are faced with
a self-control dilemma, automatic implicit behavioral tendencies to approach goals and avoid temptations
are activated (Fishbach & Shah, 2006). In another study, when achievement goals were made highly
accessible via evaluative priming procedures, participants made more negative implicit evaluations of
tempting nonacademic concepts such as movies and beach compared to when achievement goals were
not primed (Fishbach, Zhang, & Trope, 2010). In addition, activating high-level, abstract mindsets led to
implicit associations of temptations with negativity (Fujita & Han, 2009). Temptations take on implicit
negative cognitive associations when higher-order goals are strong or made salient.
As these and other studies suggest, the range of cognitive processes available to individuals
engaged in a self-control dilemma are numerous. There are both deliberate, effortful activities that
individuals can choose to engage in and also more implicit, automatic strategies and associations that may
deploy outside of awareness. Although these strategies target different aspects of goal pursuit and manifest
in different ways, they have in common the fact that they primarily involve cognitive aspects of information
processing, targeting shifts in the way that people judge, evaluate, and think about the world in ways that
help them manage self-control conflicts.
Motivated Perception and Self-Control
SEEING IS FOR SELF-­‐CONTROL 5 Although researchers have rigorously studied biases and shifts in how people think about goals
and temptations, much less attention has been paid to people’s perceptual experiences during self-control
conflicts. I suggest that some self-control processes occur early in the information processing sequence, as
people first lay eyes upon temptation-relevant objects or information in the environment. As people encode
their surroundings, their visual experiences may be systematically influenced by their active goals, needs,
and motivations—a general phenomenon known as motivated visual perception (e.g., see Balcetis & Cole,
2013; Balcetis & Cole, in press; Riccio, Cole, & Balcetis, in press).
The phenomenon of motivated visual perception has its historical roots in the New Look in
perception of the 1940’s and 1950’s (e.g., Bruner, 1957; Bruner & Goodman, 1947; Bruner & Postman,
1947a, 1947b), but has received a flurry of empirical attention in the past 10-15 years. With increased
methodological rigor and theoretical precision, contemporary researchers have accumulated evidence that
visual perception is more malleable than once thought and is molded and shaped by top-down factors
including motivations and goal states of perceivers (see Balcetis & Lassiter, 2010; Adams, Ambady,
Nakayama, & Shimojo, 2010; Balcetis & Dunning, 2013). For example, people’s current desires for
favorable outcomes can influence their perception of visual stimuli that can be interpreted in either
favorable or unfavorable ways (Balcetis, Dunning, & Granot, 2012; Balcetis & Dunning, 2006). People’s
goals to conserve energy, to attain rewards, or to defend against threat can influence how far away or close
target locations appear (Proffitt, 2006; Balcetis & Dunning, 2010; Cole, Balcetis, & Zhang, 2013; Cole,
Balcetis, & Dunning, 2013). People’s motivations to be vigilant to potential sources of bias and their current
processing goals can influence perceptual attention to and neural representations of race (Amodio, 2010;
Kaul, Ratner, & Van Bavel, 2012). These, and myriad other empirical studies, have demonstrated that the
visual representations people form of the surrounding world are shaped by active goals and motivations.
The present research extends the work on motivated perception to explore perceptual biases
during self-control conflicts, as people wrestle with competing motivations. In this work, I suggest that
perception is not only sensitive to goals and motivations, but is sensitive to goal hierarchies present during
self-control conflicts. I explore specific perceptual biases that emerge when people struggle to resist
temptations that can thwart goal pursuit, and I test whether biases emerge that favor long-term goals. In so
doing, this work seeks to move beyond demonstrations of motivated visual perception to suggest functional
consequences of perceptual biases for helping people to meet and manage goals.
Overview of Present Studies
The present paper will outline two lines of research in which I test whether perceptual experiences
are biased in order to help people stay on track to long-term goals when they are faced with temptations.
Although successful self-control might be enacted by either increasing the motivational strength of goals or
decreasing the motivational strength of temptations (Fishbach & Converse, 2010), in this work I will
specifically focus on the latter, exploring perceptual processes that help to decrease the motivational
strength of temptations.
In the first line of research, I test whether perceptual devaluation occurs during self-control
conflicts. I suggest that one way visual perception may aid self-control conflicts is by producing biased
representations of the temptation such that it appears less appealing. Distortions in the way that a
temptation looks may lead to evaluations that it is actually not very tempting, which may reduce the
motivational drive to give in to the temptation.
In the second line of research, I test whether perceptual distality occurs during self-control conflicts.
I suggest that a second way visual perception may aid self-control conflicts is by producing biased
representations of temptations as further away. Perceptions of temptations as further away may reduce the
likelihood of acting on the temptation. In the following sections, I will provide a brief introductory theoretical
rationale for each line of research and then discuss several studies demonstrating perceptual biases that
emerge during self-control conflicts.
SEEING IS FOR SELF-­‐CONTROL 6 Research Line #1: Perceptual Devaluation
When people are faced with an enticing temptation, one way to manage the threat it presents to
long-term goals is to explicitly or implicitly evaluate the temptation as less appealing. Chocolate bars are
evaluated as less appealing when people have goals to maintain good health (Myrseth, et al., 2009) and
tempting nonacademic concepts such as movies are implicitly evaluated more negatively when people are
primed with achievement goals (Fishbach, Zhang, & Trope, 2010). Evaluating a temptation as less
appealing or attractive may help to decrease the motivation to pursue it.
In this stream of research, I suggest that in addition to cognitive strategies in which objects are
evaluated as less tempting, there may be perceptual differences in how temptations appear during selfcontrol conflicts. Perhaps cookies look less appealing—their color duller, the number of chocolate chips
fewer—to dieters who are effectively resisting their lure. Perhaps the smiles on friends’ faces appear less
big or less genuine to the studious undergraduate resisting the urge to join her friends at the party down the
hall. Perceptual biases in how the features of temptations are encoded may influence how appealing the
temptations appear.
This set of studies explored the perceptual devaluation hypothesis within the romantic relationship
domain. Although people may have strong goals to maintain long-term relationships with their current
partners, people often meet and interact with other attractive individuals who may put those goals at risk.
Indeed, 98% of men and 80% of women reported they had at least one sexual fantasy about someone
other than their current partner in the past two months (Hicks & Leitenberg, 2001). One poll found that 55%
of divorced individuals cited infidelity as the reason for their split (National Fatherhood Initiative, 2005). For
people in relationships, other attractive individuals can present a threat to the goal of maintaining
commitment to their current partner.
One way people may manage the temptations that arise when they encounter attractive others is to
devalue the individual. People in highly committed relationships who have the goal to maintain those
relationships evaluate attractive alternatives less favorably by disparaging their personal qualities, such as
their intelligence, their sense of humor, or their looks (Johnson & Rusbult, 1989). Indeed, people in
committed romantic relationships, when asked to explicitly evaluate the attractiveness of attractive others,
judge the individuals to be less attractive than single individuals or people who are not committed to their
relationships (Johnson & Rusbult, 1989; Lydon, Meana, Sepinwall, Richards, & Mayman, 1999; Lydon,
Fitzsimons, Naidoo, 2003; Karremans & Verwijmeren, 2008; Meyer, Berkman, Karremans, & Lieberman,
2011). The effect is especially strong when the other individual is a particularly threatening alternative, for
example when the person is actually attractive (Johnson & Rusbult, 1989), expresses interest in the
participant (Lydon et al., 1999), or is simply romantically available (Myrseth et al., 2009).
In the present research, I test whether perceptual devaluation occurs during romantic self-control
conflicts. Specifically, I test whether there are differences in how attractive individuals are perceived. In two
studies, without asking participants to make explicit attractiveness ratings and with strong accuracy
incentives, I test whether people in relationships see other attractive individuals as less attractive.
STUDY 1
In Study 1, I tested whether people in relationships perceptually devalue attractive individuals who
pose a potential threat to their relationships. Participants saw a photograph of an attractive opposite-sex
individual who they would ostensibly work very closely with later in the experiment. Some participants
learned that the person was already in a relationship and thus not a threat to their own relationships; others
learned that the person was single. Participants completed a visual matching task where their perceptions
of the attractiveness of the individual were measured. I expected perceptual devaluation to occur when
participants were in a relationship and the attractive individual was single. That is, I expected that those in
SEEING IS FOR SELF-­‐CONTROL 7 relationships would perceive a single, attractive individual as less attractive than would participants who
were themselves single.
Method
Participants and Procedures
In exchange for research credit or $10, 131 heterosexual NYU undergraduates (75% female)
participated in the experiment. In the lab, participants learned that they would form initial impressions of,
and then would later work closely with, an ostensible other participant sitting next door. In reality, no
participant was actually seated next door; the experimenter went to great lengths throughout the
experiment to ensure that participants believed another individual was there.
At the start of the experiment, participants learned they would first exchange information about
themselves with the participant next door (hereby referred to as the target) before working together.
Participants answered a few generic questions about their hometown, general interests, and pet peeves
and then had their photographs taken. While the experimenter ostensibly uploaded this information into the
computer, participants completed a few filler questionnaires. Embedded among filler questions was a
question that asked whether the participant was currently in an exclusive romantic relationship (Y/N).
Next, participants saw information ostensibly written by the target individual. In actuality, this profile
information was scripted and had been pretested to be moderately positive. Specifically, the profile stated
that the individual’s pet peeves involved “losing cell phone reception in all of NYU’s buildings,” hobbies
involved “hanging with friends,” and that “public speaking” was something that made the individual nervous.
To activate a potential threat to participants’ long-term relationship goals, we manipulated whether
or not the target individual was romantically available. All participants saw the exact same moderately
positive profile information, but half of participants (n = 66) read that the target individual was single
whereas the other half (n = 65) read that the target individual was already in a relationship. Consistent with
past research (Myrseth et al., 2009) we expected that romantically available attractive individuals would
represent more of a threat to participants’ relationships than individuals who were romantically attached. At
the top right hand corner of the profile page was one of two different photographs of an attractive target
individual.
Participants spent a few minutes reading about the target individual. Then the experimenter
returned, removed the profile sheet, and informed participants that they would engage in a “knowledge test”
to assess what they had learned about the target individual. Participants were given an incentive to answer
accurately; they learned that they would have their name entered into a raffle for $100 if they could answer
the questions correctly. Participants first answered a few questions about the hometown of the target, his or
her name, and his or her hobbies and stated pet
peeves. Then participants saw a screen that
contained the primary dependent variable,
perceptions of attractiveness of the target
individual.
For the measure of perceived
attractiveness, participants completed a visual
matching task. At the top right hand corner of the
computer screen, participants saw the target
individual’s real photograph, the same photograph
they had seen previously. Displayed on the rest of
the screen were 11 faces that represented the
target’s actual face at varying levels of
attractiveness (see Figure 1). One of the faces was
SEEING IS FOR SELF-­‐CONTROL 8 the target’s real face; five faces were less attractive versions of the target’s face and five faces were more
attractive versions. Participants’ task was to choose the correct face from the random line-up, using the
photograph at the top as a referent. The primary dependent variable was which face participants chose.
To construct the stimuli for the visual matching task, I adapted a clever paradigm from Epley and
Whitchurch (2008). Using a computer morphing software, I morphed the target individual’s face with first a
highly attractive and then a highly unattractive face. The attractive face was a composite image of a several
dozen faces (obtained from www.uniregensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie /Psy_II/
beautycheck /english/durchschnittsgesichter/durchschnittsgesichter.htm). The unattractive face was a
photograph of an individual who suffers from craniofacial syndrome (obtained from www.craniofacial.net).
The morphing process matches points on the target individual’s face with identical points on the attractive
and unattractive faces. Thus, a 50% morph with the attractive face represents a face that is halfway
between the target’s face and the attractive face on all the critical points. I produced a series of
photographs morphed at 10% increments with the unattractive and attractive faces (see Figure 2). A
photograph at +20% represents a face that is 20% attractive face, 80% target individual’s face; a
photograph that is -20% represents a face that is 20% unattractive face, 80% target individual’s face. The
procedure produces 11 faces: 5 faces morphed with the attractive stimulus (up to +50%), 5 faces morphed
with the unattractive stimulus (up to -50%), and the target’s actual photograph. The photographs were
randomly presented to participants during the visual matching task, as described previously.
After participants chose the correct face out of the line-up, they were debriefed about the true
nature of the study, probed for suspicion about the task, and thanked for their time.
Results
Primary Analyses
The photographs of the faces were coded to represent the 10% increments; the photographs were
numbered from -50 (least attractive) to +50 (most attractive). Although there were two different target
photographs used for each gender, there were no photo effects so the analyses are collapsed across the
photographs. To test the prediction that being in
a relationship and encountering a romantically
available attractive individual would lead to
perceptual devaluation, I conducted a 2
(Participant Status: Single, In a Relationship) x 2
(Target Status: Single, In a Relationship)
ANOVA predicting perceptions of attractiveness.
There was a marginal main effect of target
availability, F(1, 127) = 3.46, p = .065. The
target described as in a relationship (M = 3.1,
SD = 9.0) was perceived as slightly more
attractive than the target described as single (M
SEEING IS FOR SELF-­‐CONTROL 9 = 1.4, SD = 10.8). There was no main effect of participant relationship status, F(1, 127) = 2.7, p = .10. As
expected, there was a significant interaction, F(1, 127) = 6.12, p = .015. As seen in Figure 3, participants
who viewed the target as least attractive were those who were in relationships and who learned the target
was single, ps < .05.
Participants who encountered a potential threat to their romantic relationship goals engaged in a
perceptual devaluation strategy whereby they perceived the individual as less attractive. Though they had a
direct referent to compare to and an accuracy incentive, these participants chose a less attractive face as
the correct face. Importantly, participants were never asked explicitly about attractiveness during the task;
indeed, in debriefing no participant reported that they realized the faces varied on levels of attractiveness.
Thus, it is unlikely that the effects were due to demand characteristics or social desirability issues and it is
unlikely that the task recruited explicit cognitive strategies for devaluing others. Indeed, Study 1 serves as
preliminary evidence that when people are faced with conflict they may perceive temptations in less
attractive ways.
STUDY 2
In Study 2, I sought to replicate the results of Study 1 with a few important modifications. First, I
sought further support that perceptual devaluation occurs in order to protect long-term relationship goals. If
perceptual devaluation is a strategy that people use to maintain commitment to their relationships, it should
deploy to a greater extent when people have stronger goals to remain committed to their current partners.
Thus, in Study 2, participants provided additional information about their current relationships by indicating
how committed and satisfied they were with their current partners. I expected that participants who were
more committed and satisfied with their partners would show the greatest degree of perceptual devaluation.
This would serve as evidence that visual perception is sensitive to the motivational strength of long-term
relationship goals relative to short-term temptations.
Second, I manipulated threat to the relationship in a slightly different way. In the first study, I
manipulated threat by describing the target as single or in a relationship. Past research suggests this is an
effective way to manipulate threat to a relationship; single people represent more of a threat than do people
who are already in relationships (Myrseth et al., 2009). However, there is a possibility that participants in
relationships perceived the single targets as less attractive not because of threat but rather because they
made inferences of attractiveness based on the fact that the individual was not dating someone. In other
words, perhaps people in relationships made assumptions about the attractiveness of single others given
that they were not in relationships. This would represent a more cognitive than motivational explanation for
the perceptual devaluation effect. To rule out this alternative explanation, in Study 2 I described all target
individuals as single. To manipulate threat, I varied whether the target said they were interested in dating
someone right now or not. Thus, singleness was held constant across target individuals but the extent to
which the individual was actively seeking a romantic partner varied.
In addition, I made a few other minor changes. I morphed the faces at 7% increments in this study
to test the perceptual sensitivity of the devaluation effects. The 7% faces are more difficult to distinguish
from each other. I also included three photographs of each gender to ensure the effect generalizes to
people who are rated as attractive but have different specific features. In addition, I recruited more males to
explore whether there were any gender effects. Because the first study was predominantly female, I was
not able to explore whether the process occurs for both men and women.
Overall, I predicted that Study 2 would evidence the same pattern of results as Study 1. I expected
that participants in relationships would perceive targets who were single and interested in dating as less
attractive. In addition, I expected that perceptual devaluation would occur to a greater degree when
participants were more committed and satisfied with their current relationships partners.
SEEING IS FOR SELF-­‐CONTROL 10 Method
Participants and Procedures
In exchange for research credit or $10, 114 heterosexual NYU undergraduates (66% female)
participated in the experiment. The study had the same cover story and design as Study 1. Participants
learned they would work closely with an ostensible other participant. Before reading information about the
target, during a series of filler questionnaires, participants answered questions about their own relationship
status. If they identified as being in a relationship, they answered questions about how committed and
satisfied they were in the relationship (adapted from Johnson & Rusbult, 1989). Specifically, participants
answered questions about how satisfied they were, how strong their feelings for their partner were, how
physically attracted they were to their partner, and how they believed their relationship compared to other
people’s on 9-point Likert scales.
Participants learned about the individual next door. The target was always one of three oppositesex individuals pretested to be of above average attractiveness. To manipulate a potential threat to the
relationship, what differed was whether the target was described as single but not interested in dating (n =
58) or single and interested in dating (n = 56).
Participants completed the knowledge test, which contained the primary dependent variable, the
visual matching task where they had to choose the correct face out of a line-up of faces that varied in
attractiveness at 7% increments. Again they saw the actual face as a referent at the top of the screen and
had an accuracy incentive to choose the correct face.
At the conclusion of the study participants were probed for suspicion, debriefed, and thanked for
their time.
Results
The specific photograph presented, as well as participant gender did not produce significant main
effects or interaction effects, ps> .142. Thus, analyses were collapsed across these variables. To test
whether the study replicated the pattern of results in Study 1, I conducted a 2 (Participant Status: Single, In
a Relationship) x 2 (Target Dating Interest: Interested, Not Interested) ANOVA predicting perceptions of
attractiveness. There was a main effect of participant relationship status, F(1, 110) = 7.4, p = .008. In
general, single participants (M = 2.8, SD =
8.2) perceived the target individual as
more attractive than did participants in
relationships (M = -1.3, SD = 7.8). There
was no main effect of target dating
interest, F(1, 110) = 1.8, p = .18. As
expected, there was a significant
interaction, F(1, 110) = 4.7, p = .032. As
seen in Figure 4, the only group to
perceptually devalue the attractive target
was participants in relationships who
learned the target was interested in
dating, simple effect ps < .05.
2 Although the effect of gender was not significant, it is important to note that about twice as many males were single compared to in relationships. Thus, the cell sizes are not equivalent, which makes me reticent to conclude definitively that there are no gender differences. Future studies currently underway aim to balance the cells to represent equal numbers in each group. SEEING IS FOR SELF-­‐CONTROL 11 In addition, to explore whether participants devalued more when they had stronger relationship
maintenance goals, I tested whether relationship satisfaction and target dating interest predicted perceived
attractiveness. To compute a measure of relationship satisfaction, I aggregated the four questions that
assessed participants’ feelings about their current relationships (α = .79). I ran a regression analysis
predicting perceptions of attractiveness from the effect coded target dating interest condition (-1 = not
interested, 1 = interested), the centered aggregate relationship satisfaction variable, and their interaction.
The main effects of target dating interest and relationship satisfaction were not significant ps > .10.
However, there was a marginally significant interaction of target dating interest and relationship satisfaction,
b = - 3.66, t(44) = 1.97, p = .058. As seen in Figure 5, when participants were not very satisfied in their
relationships (-1SD), they perceived the target as equally attractive regardless of whether he or she was
interested in dating. When participants
were highly satisfied and committed to their
current relationships (+1SD), however, they
perceived the target who was interested in
dating as less attractive than the target who
was not interested. Thus, consistent with
Study 1, participants in relationships
perceptually devalued attractive others
when they represented a threat to current
relationships. In addition, the perceptual
devaluation strategy occurred to a greater
extent when participants were highly
committed to and satisfied with their current partners.
Devaluation Interim Discussion
The studies in this first line of work converge to suggest that during self-control conflicts, when
people have competing goals to act on present temptations or to maintain commitment to long-term goals,
the appearance of temptations may be perceptually distorted such that they ultimately appear less
tempting. In these studies, I specifically explored the perceptual devaluation hypothesis within the romantic
relationship domain, where people in committed relationships may feel conflicted when they encounter
desirable alternative partners. Across the studies, when participants in relationships encountered an
attractive individual who might represent a threat to the relationship they perceived the individual as less
attractive than did single participants and participants in relationships whose goals were not threatened.
Study 2 evidenced that these effects were stronger among individuals who were more satisfied with and
committed to their current partners.
Mechanisms Involved in Perceptual Devaluation of Attractiveness
Past research on devaluation of the attractiveness of desirable alternatives has focused on
judgments of attractiveness gleaned from Likert-type scales when participants were explicitly aware of the
nature of the judgments they were making. The results of the present studies suggest that devaluation does
not necessarily require explicit awareness or deliberative processing and that instead there may be
differences in how faces are perceptually encoded when they represent threats to relationships. Indeed,
despite accuracy incentives, which promote more rational and careful decision-making when a bias is
effortful (e.g., Epley & Gilovich, 2005), conflicted participants chose less attractive faces when attempting to
match the face of attractive individual.
However, the question remains as to what mechanisms contribute to biased perceptual processing.
How do people come to see attractive individuals as less attractive? Though speculative given the present
SEEING IS FOR SELF-­‐CONTROL 12 study design, it is possible that biased attention contributes to perceptual devaluation effects. Research
suggests that visual attention is implicated in romantic relationship maintenance. People in committed
relationships spontaneously direct attention away from attractive opposite-sex individuals (Maner, Gailliot,
& Miller, 2007). Although it is unlikely that the perceptual devaluation effects found in the current studies
were merely a byproduct of general inattentiveness—indeed then there should have been more errors on
the devaluation task in general rather than systematic errors—it is possible that attentional biases may
occur on a more localized scale when perceivers are made to attend to attractive faces.
For example, it is possible that directed attentional processes influenced the way people took in
and encoded the specific features of faces they saw. Certain facial features are biologically and
evolutionarily associated with attractiveness (Johnston & Franklin, 1993; Swami & Furnham, 2008; Perrett,
2010). For example, in women, indicators of youth and femininity including large eyes, small noses, fuller
lips, and smaller lower jaws are considered more attractive. In men, markers of masculinity and
testosterone—including broader jaws, pronounced brows, and jutting cheekbones—are markers of
attractiveness. In addition, basic facial symmetry and healthy skin is associated with increased
attractiveness among both sexes. Other researchers have identified a “golden ratio” of attractiveness
(Schmid, Marx, Samal, 2008). Using 29 different measurements, they have determined the optimal facial
structure for maximum attractiveness, including an ideal ratio of 1.6 of the length of the face to the width of
the face. Because certain specific features of faces indicate attractiveness, it is possible that during conflict
situations, people direct attention away from features of faces that are associated with attractiveness and
toward those that are associated with unattractiveness (e.g., particular facial flaws). Future research could
track participants’ eyes to see which areas of the face they attend to during visual matching tasks.
In addition, it is also possible that localized perceptual distortions occur. Perhaps people distort
individual features such that they appear less attractive, perceiving the distance between the eyes as
larger, the width of the face as bigger, or the nose as longer, for example. Such micro-biases may
contribute to an overall Gestalt impression of a less attractive face. Future research should further explore
the component perceptual processes that contribute to overall devaluation.
Perceptual and Cognitive Strategies
Importantly, although devaluation may arise from differences in the perceptual encoding of facial
features, this is not to suggest that cognition is absent in the devaluation process. Indeed, in order for a
perceptual devaluation strategy to work, it is likely that people would need to translate the information
gleaned from perceptual components into some extant judgment of (un)attractiveness. Moving from the
perception of large noses and thin lips to the conclusion that a person is unattractive likely involves a
judgment or appraisal as such. For as much as attractiveness has objective physical components, it also
involves subjective interpretations. Though Brad Pitt reputedly scores a 9.3 out of 10 on the “golden ratio”
measure, the majority of people only score between a 4 and a 6. And yet many average Joes are
considered attractive. Thus, it is likely that perceptual biases precede and influence cognitive appraisals of
attractiveness, though perhaps nonconscious ones, which enable people to debunk a tempting alternative
partner. Perception and cognition likely join forces to maximally affect resistance to temptations. Indeed,
the time course of the processes and mechanisms involved in the perceptual devaluation of attractive
alternatives is an exciting area for future research.
Additional Promising Avenues for Future Research
This first set of studies explored perceptual devaluation within the romantic relationship domain.
The devaluation of attractive individuals lent itself to clear predictions based on past empirical work on
cognitive devaluation strategies and the methodology of the morphing task made for an innovative test of
perceptions of attractiveness. However, the phenomena of perceptual devaluation may extend beyond the
domain of romantic relationships and face perception. Indeed, there is no a priori reason to suppose that
motivated visual perception only leads to devaluation in one domain, but rather that it might be a more
SEEING IS FOR SELF-­‐CONTROL 13 general process that occurs as people encode the features of any tempting object. Whichever perceptual
features amount to an appraisal of desirability—be it the icy condensation on a cold bottle of beer, the plush
cushions of the beckoning couch after a long day of work, or the blueness of the sky from the inside of an
office cubicle—might be distorted when long-term goals are strong enough to overcome short-term
temptations. Future research could explore perceptual devaluation in different domains to test the
generalizability of the effect to different aspects of self-control.
In addition, although these studies have explored perceptual devaluation effects, whereby the
motivational strength of temptations is dampened, the complementary process may also be at work during
self-control conflicts. Goal-relevant objects may be perceptually bolstered so that they ultimately appear
more attractive. For example, within the romantic relationship domain, there is some evidence to suggest
people see their own romantic partners’ faces as more symmetrical (Penton-Voak, Rowe, & Williams,
2008). Indeed, managing self-control conflicts may require both the “cooling” of temptations and the
“heating” of goals, and motivated perception may help facilitate both. Future research might explore ways in
which motivated perceptual representations of goal-relevant objects lead to resolutions of self-control
conflicts.
Finally, it is important to test whether perceptual devaluation is an effective strategy for helping
people to resist the temptation that attractive others may represent. In studies currently underway, I aim to
link perceptual devaluation to behavioral indicators suggesting individuals are less likely to engage in
flirtatious behaviors, less likely to self-disclose to attractive others, and more likely to increase commitment
to their current partners. In so doing, I seek evidence for the functional link between motivated perceptual
processes and behavioral efforts to resist temptations.
Conclusion
The present studies provide evidence that perceptual processes may be involved in regulating selfcontrol conflicts. When people in committed romantic relationships encounter desirable, available
individuals, they perceptually downgrade the attractiveness of the individual. Indeed, as the present studies
suggest, motivated perception may act as a self-regulatory thermostat, cooling otherwise “hot” temptations.
Research Line #2: Perceptual Distality
In a second line of work, I explore perceptions of distance in the dieting domain. Physical distance
from temptations is intuitively and anecdotally related to self-regulation during self-control conflicts. People
routinely increase the distance between themselves and temptations. They walk across the street from the
bakery to resist stopping in for a sugary snack, keep cigarettes outside of the house to make them harder
to attain when cravings set in, and avoid going to social events where people will be drinking in order to
keep from falling off the wagon. In self-control situations, people may be automatically oriented to move
toward objects related to goals and away from objects related to temptations. Indeed in one study, people
were faster to respond to temptation-related words by making a pushing motion away from the words
(Fishbach & Shah, 2006). As the researchers noted, “people secure attainment of goals by keeping a
distance from tempting objects…” (p. 821). In one 4-week longitudinal study, secretaries ate less chocolate
when the office candy dish was located further away from their desk (Wansink, Painter, & Lee, 2006). Selfcontrol may be facilitated by increasing the distance between oneself and a temptation.
If actual distance from tempting objects increases the likelihood of resisting a temptation, a
functional perceptual bias might be one in which tempting objects appear further away. In this line of
research, I test whether motivated perceptual processes lead people to represent the distance to
temptations as greater.
This set of studies explores the perceptual distality hypothesis within the dieting domain. In today’s
society, maintaining healthy eating goals can seem like an uphill battle. In 2009, the fast food industry spent
4.2 billion dollars on advertising (Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, 2010). As a result the average
SEEING IS FOR SELF-­‐CONTROL 14 person saw about 4.7 fast food ads every day. The effects of constant exposure to unhealthy foods may be
deleterious. One study found that greater recognition of fast food logos was related to obesity; teenagers
who identified more fast food brands were more likely to be overweight or obese (McClure, Tanski, &
Sargent, 2012). To again invoke the metaphor of “hot” and “cool” systems (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999),
successful strategies for resisting tempting foods are those that might involve “cooling” otherwise hot
temptation scenarios. Distance may act as a cooling mechanism. Just as dieting experts counsel people to
literally put distance between themselves and unhealthy foods in order to not give in to temptations (Beck,
2012), I will explore whether motivated perceptual processes lead to the perception of greater distances
between the self and tempting food items during self-control conflicts, particularly among people who are
successful dieters.
STUDY 3
In Study 3, I tested the perceptual distality hypothesis within restrained and unrestrained eaters.
Dietary restraint is commonly defined as the intention to restrict food intake in order to control body weight
(Herman & Mack, 1975). Thus restrained eaters are those who are expected to experience a conflict when
tempting, unhealthy foods are present as they have goals to restrict intake of high calorie foods. After
reporting their current levels of dietary restraint and making assessments of how tempted they felt,
participants estimated the distance they were standing from a snack cart. I expected that restrained eaters
who believed the snack cart contained tempting items would estimate the distance to be greater than would
unrestrained eaters or restrained eaters who did not believe the items to be tempting.
Method
In exchange for small souvenirs such as keychains and pens, 120 individuals (44% female) in
Washington Square Park participated. Research assistants stood approximately 30 feet away from snack
carts located at either end of the park. They asked passersby entering the park to participate in a short 5minute survey.
To assess restrained eating and current dieting behavior, participants first completed the 6-item
Concern for Dieting subscale of the Restraint Scale (Herman & Polivy, 1980). The scale contains questions
such as, “Do you have feelings of guilt after overeating?” and “How conscious are you of what you’re
eating?” (1 = never, 4 = always). Participants also answered a single-item question from the Three-Factor
Eating Questionnaire-Revised (Stunkard & Messick, 1985) that directly asked how restrained their eating
was on a 1 (no restraint, eating whatever you want whenever you want it) to 8 (total restraint, constantly
limiting food intake and never “giving in”) scale.
Next participants read a brief description of the snack carts in Washington Square Park.
Participants read that the snack carts sell treats like sodas, ice creams, hot dogs, and other snack foods.
Participants looked around and noted the snack cart nearest them (approximately 30-ft away). They first
answered general questions such as how they felt about the snack carts, whether they expected to get a
snack or drink from the cart, and how much they believed they would enjoy a snack from the cart.
To assess temptation level, participants indicated how much they “consider the items in the snack
cart to be temptations, or items you enjoy but that you ought not eat in order to maintain a healthy lifestyle”
on a 1 (not at all) to 7( very much) scale. Then, participants indicated how many feet away the snack cart
was from where they were standing. Finally, participants answered a few demographic questions such as
their age and gender.
Results
Data Exclusions
SEEING IS FOR SELF-­‐CONTROL 15 Data from seven participants were excluded from analysis. Four participants’ distance estimates
were 3 SD’s above the mean and three participants did not complete the back page of the survey. All
analyses were completed with a final sample of 113 participants.
Restrained Eating and Temptation
To compute an index of restrained eating, I summed participants’ scores on the seven restrained
eating items (α = .75). Participants’ scores ranged the full scale, from 7 to 33, with an average score of
17.1 (SD = 4.9). Participants’ responses on the single-item measure of temptation ranged from 1 to 7, with
an average rating of 3.5 (SD = 1.8). Unsurprisingly, restrained eating scores and evaluations of temptation
were significantly correlated, r(111) = .31, p = .001. However, importantly, the moderate strength of the
correlation suggests the two are not completely overlapping constructs. Some participants who were
restrained eaters did not believe the snack cart items represent temptations, and vice versa.
Primary Analyses
To test the perceptual distality hypothesis, I ran a regression analysis predicting distance estimates
from the centered restrained eating score, centered temptation evaluation, effect coded gender (-1 = male,
1 = female), and all interactions. The only lower-order effect to emerge was a significant main effect of
participant gender, b = -5.36, t(105) = -2.04, p = .044. On average, men perceived the snack cart to be
further away than did women. In addition, there was a significant 3-way interaction of restrained eating,
temptation, and gender, b = 0.59, t(105) = 2.2, p = .028. Figure 6 plots the separate graphs for men and
women.
For men, the snack cart appeared the same distance away regardless of whether or not men were
restrained eaters and regardless of whether or not the snack carts represented temptations.3 For women,
the expected, more complex, pattern of results emerged. Among women who were restrained eaters, the
greater the temptation the women believed the snack cart items to be, the further away the cart looked.
Thus, for women, the perceptual distality hypothesis was supported. When women experienced a conflict
between long-term dieting goals and short-term temptations, the snack cart appeared further away.
Interestingly, for women who were relatively unrestrained in their eating, the opposite pattern emerged; the
less tempting the snack cart items were, the further away they appeared. Items believed to be tempting
were actually seen as closer than items that were not tempting for unrestrained eaters. Although I did not
make a priori predictions about distance perceptions for unrestrained eaters, the pattern of results is
3 Although it may appear from the graph that men who believed the snack carts to contain tempting items saw the cart as further, the main effect of temptation level among men was actually not significant, b = 1.73, t(59) = -­‐0.64, p = .44. SEEING IS FOR SELF-­‐CONTROL 16 consistent with the a general notion that desirable objects are perceived as close (Cole & Balcetis, 2013;
Balcetis & Dunning, 2010).
STUDY 4
In Study 4, I again sought support for the perceptual distality hypothesis with several important
additions. First, I manipulated rather than measured participants’ beliefs about a food item. Restrained and
unrestrained eaters learned about nut carts in city parks. Half of participants learned the nuts were very
delicious but very unhealthy. The other half learned the nuts were delicious as well as healthy. Restrained
eaters with healthy eating goals were expected to feel conflict when they heard the delicious nuts were
unhealthy whereas restrained eaters were expected to be relieved of any conflict when they heard the
delicious nuts were also nutritious.
Second, I assessed whether participants considered themselves successful at meeting their dieting
and weight loss goals. The recruitment of strategies for resisting temptations are most apparent among
people who are successful self-regulators (Fishbach, Friedman, Kruglanski, 2003). Indeed, if perceptual
distality is an effective strategy for resisting temptations, then it should be most likely to occur among
people who are successful at meeting their healthy eating goals.
Participants then estimated the distance to the nut cart. I expected that for restrained eaters who
were successful at dieting, the unhealthy nuts would appear further away compared to participants who
were unrestrained eaters, were unsuccessful in dieting, or who saw the healthy nuts.
Method
Participants were 125 individuals (65% female) who participated in the study in exchange for a
small souvenir. Research assistants stood about 30 feet away from candied nut carts in various city parks
in Manhattan. They approached passersby and offered them a keychain to participate in a short 5-minute
survey.
On the first page of the survey, participants learned about nut carts in New York City. All
participants learned that the nut carts have been around the city for decades and that they sell roasted nuts
such as almonds, walnuts, and cashews that are known for their delicious smell and taste. They read an
ostensible testimonial from one individual on Yelp who claimed that the nuts were the first thing he looked
for when he came to the city.
Then, to manipulate conflict, participants read one of two different descriptions of the nuts. Half of
participants (n = 63) read that though the nuts were very delicious, they were unfortunately very unhealthy.
Specifically, they read that the nuts were high in sugar and calories which contribute to obesity, high in
sodium which contributes to high blood pressure, and coated in oil which adds saturated fats. The other
half of participants (n = 62) read that in addition to being delicious, the nuts were actually quite healthy.
Specifically, they read that the nuts were a great source of protein and fiber, that they lowered LDL or “bad”
cholesterol, that they were rich in Omega-3 fatty acids that help heart functions, and that they contained
Vitamin E which stops the development of plaque in arteries.
After the conflict manipulation, participants were instructed to look at the nut cart located nearest
them. They answered several general questions about the nut carts such as how they felt about them,
whether they expected to get nuts, whether they thought they would enjoy the nuts, and whether they were
allergic to nuts. As a manipulation check, participants indicated how much they believed the nuts to be
healthy items (1 = not at all, 7 = very much).
Participants then estimated how many feet away from the cart they were standing. Then they
indicated how restrained their eating was on the single-item measure of restrained eating from the Three
Factory Questionnaire-Revised (Stunkard & Messick, 1985). They also indicated how successful they were
SEEING IS FOR SELF-­‐CONTROL 17 at watching their weight and at losing extra weight (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely). Finally, participants
indicated demographic information such as age and gender before being thanked and debriefed.
Preliminary Results
Data Exclusions
Data from six participants were excluded from analyses. When asked to estimate how many feet
away the nut cart was, three participants’ answers suggested they did not understand directions; one gave
an estimate of 1 foot, one gave an estimate of 1000 feet (which was approximately 9.5 SD’s above the
mean), and one wrote in “a lot.” In addition, three participants indicated they had an allergy to nuts.
Analyses were conducted with the remaining 119 participants.
Manipulation Checks
The manipulated description of the nuts as healthy or unhealthy affected participants’ beliefs about
how healthy the nuts were, t(117) = 3.07, p = .003. Participants who read that the nuts were healthy
believed the nuts were healthier (M = 3.8, SD = 1.9) than participants who read the nuts were unhealthy (M
= 2.7, SD = 1.8). Consistent with the description that the nuts were delicious in both conditions, participants’
expectations of how much they would enjoy the nuts did not differ between the two groups, t(117) = 0.8 p =
.40. However, conflict condition did affect participants’ expectations about whether they would buy nuts,
t(117) = 2.1, p = .04. Participants who read that the nuts were healthy (M = 2.5, SD = 1.8) expected they
would get nuts more than participants who read the nuts were unhealthy (M = 1.9, SD = 1.5).
Primary Analyses
To test the perceptual distality hypothesis, I ran a regression analysis predicting participants’
distance estimates from their centered restrained eating scores, centered dieting success scores, the effect
coded conflict condition (-1 = conflict, 1 = no conflict), and all possible interactions. The expected 3-way
interaction was significant, b = 2.94, t(111) = 1.96, p = .053. The pattern of results is plotted in Figure 7.
For ease of interpretation, I will focus on the healthy and unhealthy nut conditions separately. In the
healthy condition, there was only a main effect of restrained eating, b = -6.11, t(55) = 2.03, p = .05. High
restrained eaters saw the nut cart as closer than low restrained eaters, regardless of their success at
dieting. This is again consistent with a general notion that desirable objects seem closer than undesirable
objects (Cole & Balcetis, 2013; Balcetis & Dunning, 2010), given that healthy items may represent more
goal-relevant items to restrained compared to unrestrained eaters.
In the unhealthy condition, however, the expected perceptual distality effect emerged. The 2-way
interaction between restraint and dieting success was significant, b = -6.08, t(56) = 2.60, p = .01. For
restrained eaters, the unhealthy nut cart was perceived as further away but only when participants reported
being successful at watching or losing weight. Self-regulatory success did not influence how far away
SEEING IS FOR SELF-­‐CONTROL 18 unrestrained eaters perceived the nut cart. Thus, the pattern of results in the unhealthy condition supports
the perceptual distality effect whereby unrestrained eaters see tempting food objects as further away.
Importantly the effect only holds when people are successful at managing their healthy eating goals.
Distality Interim Discussion
The studies in this second line of research converge to suggest that during self-control conflicts,
when people have competing goals to act on present temptations or to maintain commitment to long-term
goals, temptations may appear perceptually distal. In these studies, I explored the perceptual distality
hypothesis within the dieting domain, where restrained eaters may feel conflicted when they encounter
unhealthy food items that they find tempting. Across the studies, when dieters encountered a tempting food
item, they perceived the item to be further away than non-dieters and dieters who did not feel tempted.
Perceptual Proximity to Goal-Relevant Objects
The studies in this line of research tested a particular directional hypothesis whereby temptations
are perceived as further, however, the pattern of results that is beginning to emerge suggests the converse
may also be true. Indeed, restrained eaters may see healthy food items as perceptually proximal. This
would be consistent with research from our lab suggesting people see desirable objects that could satisfy
goals as perceptually close (Balcetis & Dunning, 2010; Cole & Balcetis, 2013; Cole, Balcetis, & Zhang,
2013). However, it is important to note that in the design of the current studies, a perceptual proximity effect
does not reveal anything about how people might resolve conflicts. Indeed, in the between-subjects design
I have employed, when people are perceiving the healthy items, they are by design not experiencing a
conflict. Thus, the perceptual biases that emerge when people perceive healthy items as close can not be
interpreted as a self-control strategy in these studies as the individuals are not experiencing a conflict;
rather they may be evidence of a more general phenomenon whereby people perceive goal-relevant
objects as physically close. To test whether people see healthy items as closer during self-control conflicts,
a design would need to be implemented whereby people felt conflicted and perhaps saw both tempting and
healthy food options. Then a prediction might be made that the healthy food item would be seen as
perceptually close and the unhealthy one as perceptually further. This would make for an interesting test of
the notion that in addition to decreasing the motivational strength of temptations, bolstering the motivational
strength of goals is also an effective route to self-control.
Future Research
Future research could explore the situational contexts under which perceptual distality biases
emerge. In the present studies, participants stood at a fixed distance while answering the surveys with the
experimenter. It would be interesting to explore whether this relative constraint on participants’ movements
is a necessary condition for perceptual biases to emerge. It is possible that perceptual distality may be
especially likely to emerge when people’s movements are constrained and they cannot act freely to
physically distance themselves. If they are able to, putting greater physical distance between oneself and a
temptation may be a more effective route to self-control as it also helps to reduce other sensory input. For
example, if one walks on the other side of the street from the wafting smells of the waffle truck, then it
reduces both tempting visual and tempting olfactory cues. Yet often times in everyday life the ability to
physically distance oneself is difficult. In such cases, the visual system may enact a biased representation
of the world so that temptations appear further away. Exploring the relative preference given to or the
substitutability of different self-control strategies when people have more or less control over their actions is
an important next step for this research.
In addition, it is important to test whether perceptual distality is an effective strategy for helping
people to resist the temptation that high-calorie foods can represent. In studies currently underway, I am
linking perceptual distality to behavioral indicators suggesting individuals are less likely to give in to
temptations, more likely to make healthier eating choices, and more likely to report intentions to eat well in
SEEING IS FOR SELF-­‐CONTROL 19 the future. In so doing, I seek evidence for the functional link between motivated perceptual processes and
behavioral efforts to resist temptations.
Conclusion
This second stream of research provides additional evidence that perceptual processes may be
involved in regulating self-control conflicts. When dieters encounter tempting food items, they may perceive
the items as further away. Such biases may ultimately help to decrease the motivational strength of the
temptation and lead to behaviors associated with making healthier food choices. As temptations and goals
battle it out, motivated perception may act as a self-regulatory stiff-arm, keeping temptations at bay in order
to allow individuals to make choices that favor long-term goals.
General Discussion
This work provides evidence for two different types of perceptual biases that may contribute to the
successful resolution of self-control conflicts. Supporting the perceptual devaluation hypothesis, people
perceived threatening attractive alternatives as less attractive when they were in relationships (Study 1)
and especially committed to their partners (Study 2). Supporting the perceptual distality hypothesis, people
perceived tempting food items as further away when they were restrained eaters (Study 3) who were
successful in managing their diets (Study 4). Across two different conflict domains, I have begun to build an
empirical foundation for theoretical models of the role of motivated perceptual processes in self-control.
Theoretical Implications for Two Fields of Research
By exploring the role of motivated perception in self-control processes, the present work has the
potential to advance two previously distinct fields of research. First, there are theoretical and applied
implications for the field of self-regulation. Current models of self-regulation and self-control typically focus
on the cognitive aspects of information processing—people’s thoughts, judgments, and evaluations—that
affect self-control. However, cognitions may only represent a portion of the processes that enables people
to make goal-relevant choices during self-control conflicts. Tools that enable goal achievement may also
operate during early perceptual processes. Theoretical models that describe the routes by which people
effectively manage goals might benefit from broadening to include early-stage perceptual processes.
Indeed, cognitive strategies—particularly those that require cognitive effort or exertion—are often subject to
failure. In contrast, perceptual processes that deploy outside of awareness and do not require conscious
cognitive resources may be optimal self-regulatory tools (for a full discussion see Cole, Balcetis, Alter, &
Trope, 2013). Thus, incorporating perceptual processes into the study of goal pursuit is an important next
step for the field of self-regulation. Indeed, understanding how perceptual processes are involved in selfcontrol may help researchers identify individuals who are susceptible to goal failure and develop
interventions that enable people to more effectively resolve self-control conflicts.
Second, there are implications for the field of motivated perception. Research across many labs
now suggests people’s active desires, goals, and motivations can penetrate early visual processes such as
perception and attention. However, thus far the empirical findings have mostly remained one-off, isolated
studies whose primary purpose has been to demonstrate that motivated perceptual biases occur. As such,
the literature has not yet tackled broader theoretical issues such as why perceptual processes might be
sensitive to motivations or what the consequences of perceptual biases might be. The current work will
provide an empirical basis for an initiative to begin to unify previously separate and distinct empirical
studies under a common theoretical framework. By providing evidence that motivated perceptual
processing can aid self-control conflicts, the studies can provide support for a broader cohesive thesis that
motivated perception serves functional self-regulatory purposes (explored in full in Cole, Balcetis, Alter, &
Trope, 2013).
SEEING IS FOR SELF-­‐CONTROL 20 Broader Strokes
In that vein, it is worth noting that this work represents only a small piece of the puzzle in my
broader goal of understanding the perceptual processes that contribute to effective self-regulation. The
successful pursuit of goals is a multi-determined process. Resisting temptations is just one struggle that
arises as people manage goals. People also face obstacles as they plan how they will pursue goals and as
they regulate effective action toward achieving them. Motivated perception may aid aspects of goal pursuit
in myriad different ways (Cole, Balcetis, Alter, & Trope, 2013). I foresee many fruitful avenues for my future
research exploring motivated perceptual processes during different aspects of goal pursuit. Understanding
how perception is involved in different aspects of self-regulation is important for developing comprehensive
models of the processes that enable people to effectively meet their goals.
In addition, aside from contributing to theory, understanding the ways motivated perception assists
in self-regulation has applied merit. It could ultimately lead to the development of intervention strategies for
people struggling with goal pursuit. If evidence is found that a particular perceptual bias may lead to goalpromoting outcomes, researchers could try to induce those perceptual biases in perceivers in order to incite
goal-relevant action. For example, training participants to attend to specific information in the environment
has been shown to help with emotion regulation goals (see Wadlinger & Isaacowitz, 2010 for a review of
such approaches). In one study, researchers trained telemarketers, who frequently experience social
rejection, to attend to a smiling face in an array of frowning faces (Dandenau, Baldwin, Baccus,
Sakellaropolou, & Pruessner, 2007). After just five days of training, the telemarketers reported feeling less
stress and more self-confident, had lower cortisol levels, received higher performance evaluations, and had
greater sales performance than their counterparts who had not received the training. Indeed, several of my
current and future projects aim to explore interventions that may help people make healthier decisions in
the face of self-regulatory challenges.
Visual perception may be one of the most powerful, and thus far underexplored, tools people have
to combat the obstacles that plague goal pursuit. If self-regulation researchers explore visual perception
with the same rigor as they have studied cognitive strategies for goal pursuit, they may uncover a whole
arsenal of tools to use to develop self-regulation interventions and initiatives. Armed with both cognitive and
perceptual strategies, people may be much more likely to overcome the potential pitfalls of goal pursuit.
SEEING IS FOR SELF-­‐CONTROL 21 References
Adams, R. B., Jr., Ambady, N., Nakayama, K., & Shimojo, S. (Eds.).(2010). The science of social vision.
New York: Oxford University Press
American Psychological Association. (2012). What Americans think of willpower: A survey of perception of
willpower & its role in achieving lifestyle and behavior-change goals. Retrieved on October 1, 2012
from http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/stress-willpower.pdf
Amodio, D. (2010). Coordinated roles of motivation and perception in the regulation of intergroup
responses: Frontal cortical asymmetry effects on the P2 Event-Related Potential and behavior.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2609-2617.
Ainslie, G. (1992). Picoeconomics: The strategic interaction of successive motivational states within the
person. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Balcetis, E., & Cole, S. (in press). Motivated distance perception serves action regulation. In Forgas, J. &
Harmon-Jones, E. (Eds). The Control Within: Motivation and its Regulation. New York, Psychology
Press.
Balcetis, E., & Cole, S. (2013). On misers, managers, and monsters: The social cognition of visual
perception. In Carlston, D. (Ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Social Cognition. (pp. 329-351). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2006). See what you want to see: Motivational influences on visual perception.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 612-625.
Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2010). Wishful seeing: More desired objects are seen as closer. Psychological
Science, 21, 147-152.
Balcetis, E., Dunning, D., Granot, Y. (2011). Subjective value determines initial dominance in binocular
rivalry. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 122-129.
Balcetis, E., & Lassiter, G.D. (2010). The social psychology of visual perception. New York: Psychology
Press.
Beck, J. (2012). Daily diet solutions. Beck Diet Solution. Retrieved from:
http://www.beckdietsolution.com/daily-diet-solutions/ on July 10, 2012
Bruner, J. S. (1957). On perceptual readiness. Psychological Review, 64, 123-152.
Bruner, J.S., & Goodman, C.C. (1947). Value and need as organizing factors in perception. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology,42, 33–44.
Bruner, J. S., & Postman, L. (1947a). Emotional selectivity in perception and reaction. Journal of
Personality, 16, 69-77.
Bruner, J. S., & Postman, L. (1947b). Tension and tension-release as organizing factors in perception.
Journal of Personality, 15, 300 - 308.
Cole, S., & Balcetis, E. (2013). Sources of resources: bioenenergetic and psychoenergetic resources
influence distance perception. Social Cognition
Cole, S., Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2013). Affective signals of threat produce perceived proximity.
Psychological Science, 24, 34-40.
Cole, S., Balcetis, E., & Zhang, S. (2013). Visual perception and regulatory conflict: Motivation and
physiology influence distance perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Cole, S., Balcetis, E., Alter, A., & Trope, Y. (2013). Seeing is for self-regulating: Motivated visual
processing in the service of goal pursuit. Unpublished manuscript.
Dunning, D., & Balcetis, E. (2013). Wishful seeing: How preferences shape visual perception. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 33-37.
Epley, N., & Whitchurch, E. (2008). Mirror, mirror on the wall: Enhancement in self-recognition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1159-1170
Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2005). When effortful thinking influences judgmental anchoring: Differential
SEEING IS FOR SELF-­‐CONTROL 22 effects of forewarning and incentives on self-generated and externally provided anchors. Journal of
Behavioral Decision Making, 18, 199-212.
Fishbach, A. & Converse, B. A. (2010). Walking the line between goals and temptations: Asymmetric
effects of counteractive control. In R. R. Hassin, K. Ochsner, and Y. Trope (Eds.). Self Control in
Society, Mind, and Brain, (pp. 289-407), Oxford University Press.
Fishbach, A., Friedman, R.S., & Kruglanski, A.W. (2003). Leading us not unto temptation: Momentary
allurements elicit overriding goal activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 296–
309.
Fishbach, A., & Shah, J. Y. (2006). Self control in action: Implicit dispositions toward goals and away from
temptations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 820-832.
Fishbach, A., & Trope, Y. (2007). Implicit and explicit counteractive self-control. In J. Y. Shah & W. Gardner
(Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 281–294). New York: Guilford.
Fishbach, A., Zhang, Y., & Trope, Y. (2010). Counteractive evaluation: Asymmetric shifts in the implicit
value of conflicting motivations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 29-38.
Fujita, K. (2011). On conceptualizing self-control as more than just the effortful inhibition of impulses.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 352-366.
Fujita, K., & Han, H. A. (2009). Moving beyond deliberative control of impulses: The effect of construal
levels on evaluative associations in self-control conflicts. Psychological Science, 20, 799 – 804.
Gorman, C. (2001). Why it’s so hard to quit smoking. Time Magazine. Retrieved from:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,149368,00.html on August 22, 2012.
Herman, C. P., & Mack, D. (1975). Restrained and unrestrained eating. Journal of Personality, 43, 647-660.
Herman, C. P., & Polivy, J. (1980). Restrained eating. In A. J. Stunkard (Ed.), Obesity (pp. 208-225).
Philadelphia: Saunders.
Hicks, T.V., & Leitenberg, H. (2001). Sexual fantasies about one’s partner versus someone else: Gender
differences in incidence and frequency. Journal of Sex Researrch, 38, 43-51.
Hofmann, W., Vohs, K.D., & Baumeister, R.F. (2012). What people desire, feel conflicted about, and try to
resist in everyday life. Psychological Science, 23, 582-588.
Johnson, D. J., & Rusbult, C. E. (1989). Resisting temptation: Devaluation of alternative partners as a
means of maintaining commitment in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57, 967-980.
Johnston V.S., & Franklin, M. (1993). Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Ethology and Sociobiology, 14,
183–99
Karremans, J.C., & Verwijmeren, T. (2008). Mimicking attractive opposite-sex others: The role of romantic
relationship status. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 939–950.
Kaul, C., Ratner, K.G., & Van Bavel, J. (2013). Dynamic representation of race: Processing goals shape
race decoding in the fusiform gyrus. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience.
Kober, H., Kross, E. F., Mischel, W., Hart, C. L., & Ochsner, K. N. (2010). Regulation of craving by
cognitive strategies in cigarette smokers. Drug and alcohol dependence, 106, 52-55.
Kuhl, J., & Beckmann, J. (1985). Action control from cognition to behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Loewenstein, G. (1996). Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 65, 272–292.
Lydon, J. E., Fitzsimons, G. M., & Naidoo, L. (2003). Devaluation versus enhancement of attractive
alternatives: A critical test using the calibration paradigm. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 29, 349-359.
Lydon, J. E., Meana, M., Sepinwall, D., Richards, N., & Mayman, S. (1999). The commitment calibration
hypothesis: When do people devalue attractive alternatives? Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 25, 152-161.
SEEING IS FOR SELF-­‐CONTROL 23 Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., & DeWall, C. N. (2007). Adaptive attentional attunement: Evidence for matingrelated perceptual bias. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 28–36.
Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., & Miller, S. L. (2009). The implicit cognition of relationship maintenance:
Inattention to attractive alternatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 174-179.
Mann, T., Tomiyama, A.J., Lew, A.M., Westling, E., Chatman, J., & Samuels, B. (2007). The
search for effective obesity treatments: Should Medicare fund diets? American Psychologist, 62,
220 – 233.
McClure, A.C., Tanski, S.E., & Sargent, J.D. (2012). Fast food ad recognition-recall and obesity in youth.
Pediatrics
Metcalfe, J., & Mischel,W. (1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of
willpower. Psychological Review, 106, 3–19.
Meyer, M.L., Berkman, E.T., Karremans, J.C., & Lieberman, M.D. (2011). Incidental regulation of attraction:
The neural basis of the derogation of attractive alternatives in romantic relationships. Cognition &
Emotion, 25, 490-505.
Miller, R. S. (1997). Inattentive and contented: Relationship commitment and attention to alternatives.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 758-766.
Mischel, W. (1974). Processes in delay of gratification. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 249–292). New York: Academic.
Mischel, W., & Baker, N. (1975). Cognitive transformations of reward objects through instructions. Journal
of Personality & Social Psychology, 31, 254–261.
Mischel, W., Ebbesen, E. B., & Zeiss, A.R. (1972). Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of
gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 204 - 218.
Moore, B., Mischel, W., & Zeiss, A. (1976). Comparative effects of the reward stimulus and its cognitive
representation in voluntary delay. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 419.
Moskowitz, G. B., Gollwitzer, P. M., Wasel, W., & Schaal, B. (1999). Preconscious control of stereotype
activation through chronic egalitarian goals. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 77, 167184
Myrseth, K. O., Fishbach, A. & Trope, Y. (2009). Counteractive self-control: When making
temptation available makes temptation less tempting. Psychological Science, 20, 159 – 163.
National Fatherhood Initiative. (2005). With this ring: A national survey on marriage in America. Retrieved
on March 20, 2013 from:http://www.smartmarriages.com/nms. pdf.
Patrick, V.M., & Hagtvedt, H. (2012). Empowered refusal motivates goal-directed behavior. Journal of
Consumer Research, 39, 371-381.
Perrett, D. (2010). In your face: The new science of human attraction. London: Palgrave McMillan.
Proffitt, D. R. (2006). Embodied perception and the economy of action. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 1, 110–122.
Riccio, M., Cole, S., & Balcetis, E. (2013). Seeing the expected, the desired, and the feared: Influences on
perceptual interpretation and directed attention. Social and Personality Psychology Compass.
Schmid, K., Marx, D., & Samal, A. (2008). Computation of a face attractiveness index based
on neoclassical canons, symmetry, and golden ratios. Pattern Recognition, 41, 2710-2717.
Stunkard, A. J., & Messick, S. (1985). The Three Factor Eating Questionnaire to measure dietary restraint,
disinhibition, and hunger. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 29, 71–83.
Swami, V., & Furnham, A. (2008). The psychology of physical attraction. London: Routledge.
Trope, Y., & Fishbach, A. (2000). Counteractive self-control in overcoming temptation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 493–506.
Wansink, B., Painter, J.E., & Lee, Y.K. (2006). The office candy dish: Proximity’s influence on estimated
and actual consumption. International Journal of Obesity, 30, 871-875.
SEEING IS FOR SELF-­‐CONTROL 24 Wadlinger, H.A., & Issacowitz, D. M. (2010). Fixing our focus: Training attention to regulate emotion.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 75-102.
Williams, A. (2008). New year? New you? Nice try. New York Times. Retrieved on March 15, 2013 from
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/01/fashion/01change. html?pagewanted =1&_r= 2&em.
Zhang, Y., Huang, S., & Broniarczyk, S. M. (2010). Counteractive construal in consumer goal pursuit.
Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 129-137.