Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T21:10:19.179Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An addition to Kurzban et al.'s model: Thoroughness of cost-benefit analyses depends on the executive tasks at hand

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2013

Sabrina D. Bruyneel  and
Siegfried Dewitte
Sabrina D. Bruyneel
Affiliation:
Research Center for Marketing and Consumer Science, KU Leuven (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven), 3000 Leuven, Belgium. [email protected]://www.econ.kuleuven.be/[email protected]://www.econ.kuleuven.be/siegfried.dewitte
Siegfried Dewitte
Affiliation:
Research Center for Marketing and Consumer Science, KU Leuven (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven), 3000 Leuven, Belgium. [email protected]://www.econ.kuleuven.be/[email protected]://www.econ.kuleuven.be/siegfried.dewitte
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Though Kurzban et al.'s model explains a considerable set of empirical findings, it cannot accommodate other results without relying on extra assumptions. We offer an addition to the model, and suggest that cost-benefit analyses themselves depend on executive function, and therefore can be biased. The adapted model allows for explaining depletion effects, as well as their reversals, documented in the literature.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 6 , December 2013 , pp. 681 - 682
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M. & Tice, D. M. (1998) Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74(5):1252–65. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252.Google Scholar
Dewitte, S., Bruyneel, S. D. & Geyskens, K. (2009) Self-regulating enhances self-regulation in subsequent consumer decisions involving similar response conflicts. Journal of Consumer Research 36(3):394–405.Google Scholar
Hagger, M. S., Wood, C., Stiff, C. & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2010a) Ego depletion and the strength model of self-control: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 136(4):495–525. doi:10.1037/a0019486.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hinson, J. M., Jameson, T. L. & Whitney, P. (2003) Impulsive decision making and working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 29:298–306.Google Scholar
Inzlicht, M. & Schmeichel, B. J. (2012) What is ego depletion? Toward a mechanistic revision of the resource model of self-control. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7(5):450–63. doi:10.1177/1745691612454134.Google Scholar
Lee, L., Amir, O. & Ariely, D. (2009) In search of homo economicus: Cognitive noise and the role of emotion in preference consistency. Journal of Consumer Research 36:173–87.Google Scholar
Muraven, M., Tice, D. M. & Baumeister, R. F. (1998) Self-control as a limited resource: Regulatory depletion patterns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74(3):774–89.Google Scholar
Schmeichel, B. J. (2007) Attention control, memory updating, and emotion regulation temporarily reduce the capacity for executive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 136:241–55.Google Scholar
Schmeichel, B. J., Vohs, K. D. & Baumeister, R. F. (2003) Intellectual performance and ego depletion: Role of the self in logical reasoning and other information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85:33–46.Google Scholar
Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N. & Belli, R. F. (1998) The role of ease of retrieval and attribution in memory judgments – Judging your memory as worse despite recalling more events. Psychological Science 9:124–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y., Fishbach, A. & Kruglanski, A. W. (2007) The dilution model: How additional goals undermine the perceived instrumentality of a shared path. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92:389–401.Google Scholar