T. Cheung

Why are people with high self-control happier? The effect of trait self-control on happiness as mediated by regulatory focus

Background: While self-control has often been related to positive outcomes in life such as higher academic achievements and better health, recent insights reveal that people with high trait self-control (TSC) may even experience greater life satisfaction or happiness. Objective: The current study further scrutinizes this potential association between TSC and happiness, and examines how regulatory focus, defined as the way people frame and direct their goal pursuit strategies, plays a role in this relationship. Accordingly, the present study examines the mediating role of regulatory-focus (promotion and prevention focus) on the relationship between TSC and happiness. Method: Data was collected from 545 individuals (65.9% female, Mage = 27.52 years) regarding their TSC, regulatory focus, and happiness. Results: Mediation analyses demonstrate that TSC positively predicts happiness, while this effect was partially mediated by relatively more promotion focus and less prevention focus. Conclusion: Results suggest that people with higher TSC are happier possibly because they are: (1) more promotion-focused on acquiring positive gains thereby facilitating more approach-oriented behaviors, and (2) less prevention-focused on avoiding losses thereby reducing avoidance-oriented behaviors. These findings are relevant for topical scientific debates regarding the underlying mechanisms of self-control regarding initiatory and inhibitory behaviors.

Moralities in food and health research

Abstract Society has imposed strict rules about what constitutes a ‘good’ or a ‘bad’ food and ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ eating behaviour at least since antiquity. Today, the moral discourse of what we should and should not eat is perhaps stronger than ever, and it informs consumers, researchers and policy-makers about what we all should consume, research and regulate. We propose four types of moralities, underlying sets of moral assumptions, that orient the contemporary discourses of food and health: the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ nature of food items, the virtue of self-control and moderation, the management of body size and the actions of market agents. We demonstrate how these moralities influence consumer behaviour as well as transformative research of food and health and develop a critical discussion of the impact of the underlying morality in each domain. We conclude by providing a few guidelines for changes in research questions, designs and methodologies for future research and call for a general reflection on the consequences of the uncovered moralities in research on food and health towards an inclusive view of food well-being.

Under consumers' scrutiny - an investigation into consumers' attitudes and concerns about nudging in the realm of health behavior.

BackgroundNudging strategies have recently attracted attention from scholars and policy makers for their potential in influencing people’s behaviors on large scales. But is the fact that nudges do not forbid any choice-options or significantly alter people’s economic incentives sufficient to conclude that nudges should be implemented? While this is discussed amongst scholars from various disciplines the voices of consumers, the target-group of nudges, remain unheard. Since understanding their knowledge about nudging and their opinions on being nudged are crucial for the evaluation of the moral appropriateness of nudging, the current study examines consumers’ knowledge of and attitudes toward nudging in general and the realm of health behavior.MethodsIn this qualitative investigation in-depth semi-structured interviews with UK consumers were conducted to examine consumers’ attitudes to four domains of inquiry around which the scholarly discussions about nudging have revolved: consumers’ approval of nudging, consumers’ views on the origin of nudges, consumers’ perceived effectiveness of nudging, and consumers’ concerns about manipulative aspects of nudging.ResultsInterviews revealed that consumers are largely unfamiliar with the concept of nudging altogether. Once defined and explained to them most consumers approve of the concept, especially in the realm of health behavior, given particular conditions: 1. Nudges should be designed for benefiting individuals and society; 2. consumers comprehend the decision-making context and the reasoning behind the promotion of the targeted behavior. Interviews revealed very limited concerns with manipulative aspects of nudges.ConclusionsThese findings call for better information-management to ensure consumers knowledge of nudges and awareness of their current implementation. Under that condition the findings encourage the implementation of nudges benefitting individuals and society in domains that consumers comprehend, such as health behaviors. Further research is required to clarify consumers’ concerns and requirements for nudges in more complex domains such as financial decisions and retirement plans.

Put a limit on it: The protective effects of scarcity heuristics when self-control is low

Low self-control is a state in which consumers are assumed to be vulnerable to making impulsive choices that hurt long-term goals. Rather than increasing self-control, the current research exploits the tendency for heuristic-based thinking in low self-control by employing scarcity heuristics to promote better consumption choices. Results indicate that consumers low in self-control especially benefited and selected more healthy choices when marketed as “scarce” (Study 1), and that a demand (vs supply) scarcity heuristic was most effective in promoting utilitarian products (Study 2) suggests low self-control involves both an enhanced reward orientation and increased tendency to conform to descriptive norms.