Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:39:25.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Increasing resolution in the mechanisms of resolve

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2021

Adam Bulley Open the ORCID record for Adam Bulley [Opens in a new window]  and
Daniel L. Schacter
Adam Bulley
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, [email protected]; http://adambulley.org/[email protected]; https://scholar.harvard.edu/schacterlab/home The University of Sydney, School of Psychology and Brain and Mind Centre, Sydney, NSW2050, Australia
Daniel L. Schacter
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, [email protected]; http://adambulley.org/[email protected]; https://scholar.harvard.edu/schacterlab/home
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ainslie offers an encompassing and compelling account of willpower, although his big-picture view comes occasionally at the cost of low resolution. We comment on ambiguity in the metacognitive and prospective mechanisms of resolve implicated in recursive self-prediction. We hope to show both the necessity and promise of specifying testable cognitive mechanisms of willpower.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 44 , 2021 , e34
Check for updates
Creative Commons
The target article and response article are works of the U.S. Government and are not subject to copyright protection in the United States.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bakkour, A., Palombo, D. J., Zylberberg, A., Kang, Y. H., Reid, A., Verfaellie, M., … Shohamy, D. (2019). The hippocampus supports deliberation during value-based decisions. eLife, 8, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.46080.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benoit, R. G., & Schacter, D. L. (2015). Specifying the core network supporting episodic simulation and episodic memory by activation likelihood estimation. Neuropsychologia, 75, 450–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.06.034.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bulley, A., & Schacter, D. L. (2020). Deliberating trade-offs with the future. Nature Human Behaviour, 4, 238–247. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0834-9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Irish, M., & Vatansever, D. (2020). Rethinking the episodic-semantic distinction from a gradient perspective. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 32, 43–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.01.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwan, D., Craver, C. F., Green, L., Myerson, J., Boyer, P., & Rosenbaum, R. S. (2012). Future decision-making without episodic mental time travel. Hippocampus, 22(6), 1215–1219. https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.20981.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palombo, D. J., Keane, M. M., & Verfaellie, M. (2015). How do lesion studies elucidate the role of the hippocampus in intertemporal choice? Hippocampus, 25(4), 407–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schacter, D. L., Addis, D. R., & Buckner, R. L. (2007). Remembering the past to imagine the future: The prospective brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8(9), 657–661. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995600802554748.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schacter, D. L., Addis, D. R., & Szpunar, K. K. (2017). Escaping the past: Contributions of the hippocampus to future thinking and imagination. In Hannula, D. E. & Duff, M. C. (Eds.), The hippocampus from cells to systems: Structure, connectivity, and functional contributions to memory and flexible cognition (pp. 439–465). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50406-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suddendorf, T., & Corballis, M. C. (2007). The evolution of foresight: What is mental time travel, and is it unique to humans? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(3), 299–351. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X07001975.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Szpunar, K. K., Spreng, R. N., & Schacter, D. L. (2014). A taxonomy of prospection: Introducing an organizational framework for future-oriented cognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(52), 18414–18421. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1417144111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed