In their target article, Fitouchi et al. summarize an impressive amount of experimental and theoretical work to build their theory that human societies moralize apparently harmless pleasures (e.g., eating, drinking, music, dance), because people perceive that these behaviors undermine self-control and thereby indirectly harm cooperation. We generally agree with Fitouchi et al. that the moralization of harmless pleasures (puritanical morality) is a global phenomenon worth explaining. However, we disagree with the one-sided depiction of pleasure and research in support for people's lay beliefs in their article. Even though they acknowledge that their “account is agnostic as to whether puritanical norms are objectively effective in improving self-control […].” (target article, sect. 1.3, para. 3), they do very little to disclose the errors in “people's perceptions that they are” (target article, sect. 1.3, para. 3). What is missing is a critical examination of the lay belief that “if self-control supports cooperation, then pursuing harmless pleasures must undermine it.” Even though this belief sounds logical, it is not. It must be an oversimplification because, as we will argue in this commentary, the celebration of self-control does not necessarily imply the demonization of pleasure. It is important to address this logical fallacy, which forms the cornerstone of puritanical morality, because it suppresses the potential benefits experiencing pleasure can have for the individual (e.g., well-being) and society (e.g., social cohesion).
We will present two concrete challenges to puritanical morality. First, we will review empirical evidence suggesting that pursuing pleasure does not necessarily reflect a lack of self-control or does the experience of pleasure undermine it. Second, we argue based on empirical research and theorizing that socially shared pleasurable experiences foster rather than threaten social cohesion and cooperation across cultures.
Pursuing harmless pleasures does not necessarily reflect a lack of self-control, nor does it undermine it
One of the key observations of the target article is that “human societies morally condemn” (target article, short abstract) harmless pleasures, because they potentially undermine self-control, if they become habitual or excessive. Here, it is important to emphasize that not all pursuits of pleasure are signs of low self-control. Some are (failing to restrain an impulse) some are not (intentionally pursuing a hedonic goal). Brushing over this distinction conceals important differences that matter with regard to the claims of the target article. For instance, personality research shows that on the trait level self-control is not negatively but unrelated to people's hedonic capacity (i.e., capacity to experience pleasure; Bernecker & Becker, Reference Bernecker and Becker2021). This suggests that people who are good at self-control are not necessarily purists, but are just as likely to also enjoy harmless pleasures. Importantly, people who succeed in experiencing pleasure during hedonic activities (high hedonic capacity) report higher well-being, life satisfaction, and fewer symptoms of depression and anxiety (Bernecker & Becker, Reference Bernecker and Becker2021). People who find it difficult to experience pleasure (low hedonic capacity, anhedonia), on the contrary, have a higher risk of substance abuse (Becker & Bernecker, Reference Becker and Bernecker2020; Destoop, Morrens, Coppens, & Dom, Reference Destoop, Morrens, Coppens and Dom2019). That implies that regularly experiencing pleasure is an adaptive part of self-regulation and can even protect people from excessive overindulgence.
Further, there is an emerging literature suggesting that the experience of pleasure can support self-regulation and positive outcomes that Fitouchi et al., like many others, unrightfully attribute to the process of self-control (Bernecker, Job, & Hofmann, Reference Bernecker, Job and Hofmann2018; Gieseler, Loschelder, & Friese, Reference Gieseler, Loschelder, Friese, Sassenberg and Vliek2019). For example, research suggests that the experience of pleasure motivates people to persist in long-term goals, such as keeping a healthy diet or exercising regularly (Woolley & Fishbach, Reference Woolley and Fishbach2016, Reference Woolley and Fishbach2017). Further, work in the eating domain shows that increased food enjoyment (e.g., through mindfulness) is related to lower not higher calorie intake (Arch et al., Reference Arch, Brown, Goodman, Della Porta, Kiken and Tillman2016; Cornil & Chandon, Reference Cornil and Chandon2016). Moreover, research shows that work performance and study success are not only dependent on work or study-related activities, but also on the extent to which individuals make room for and enjoy their leisure activities (Binnewies, Sonnentag, & Mojza, Reference Binnewies, Sonnentag and Mojza2010; Jia, Hirt, & Nowak, Reference Jia, Hirt and Nowak2019).
To summarize, engaging in harmless pleasures does not necessarily signal low self-control, especially if done intentionally. Self-control and hedonic capacity rather reflect two independent and important parts of self-regulation. Further, the experience of pleasure is an important motivator that can promote long-term outcomes and even prevent overindulgence, both of which are oftentimes but unrightfully attributed to the use of self-control.
Sharing pleasurable experiences is a way of fostering cooperation in many cultures
The social effects of (individual or shared) pleasure are relatively less studied in psychology. Several lines of research or theorizing, however, suggest that engaging in victimless pleasures with others (e.g., eating, drinking, music, dance) is not only common across cultures, but also strongly linked to social cohesion. For example, engaging in socially shared rituals involving food and drink (including what we may consider excessive indulgence during holidays, e.g., Thanksgiving) increases social cohesion and strengthens social identity (Ratcliffe, Baxter, & Martin, Reference Ratcliffe, Baxter and Martin2019). A similar point has been made for music and dance, which when shared with others engender social cohesion through creating a “group body” and “group voice” (Brown, Reference Brown2021). It is, therefore, not surprising that the very measurement of cooperation includes the aspect of shared engagement in pleasurable behaviors (Lu & Argyle, Reference Lu and Argyle1991). This aligns with theorizing on popular culture which emphasizes the importance of collectively shared pleasure (e.g., pop music, football) for creating “a fundamental commitment to membership of a human collectivity” (Richards, Reference Richards2018, p. 7). To summarize, engaging in victimless pleasures together has a clear cooperative function.
Taken together, people's beliefs about the negative effects of engaging in harmless pleasures for self-control and cooperation (if they exist) are one-sided and incomplete. There is plenty of evidence calling these beliefs, and their allegedly evolutionary foundation, into question by suggesting that the (shared) experience of pleasure is adaptive for the individual (e.g., well-being, health) and society (e.g., social cohesion). It is important that researchers become aware and communicate these adaptive effects, because otherwise the unjustified moralization of harmless pleasures will persist. As a result, individuals and societies around the globe may miss out on the potential benefits of harmless pleasures.
In their target article, Fitouchi et al. summarize an impressive amount of experimental and theoretical work to build their theory that human societies moralize apparently harmless pleasures (e.g., eating, drinking, music, dance), because people perceive that these behaviors undermine self-control and thereby indirectly harm cooperation. We generally agree with Fitouchi et al. that the moralization of harmless pleasures (puritanical morality) is a global phenomenon worth explaining. However, we disagree with the one-sided depiction of pleasure and research in support for people's lay beliefs in their article. Even though they acknowledge that their “account is agnostic as to whether puritanical norms are objectively effective in improving self-control […].” (target article, sect. 1.3, para. 3), they do very little to disclose the errors in “people's perceptions that they are” (target article, sect. 1.3, para. 3). What is missing is a critical examination of the lay belief that “if self-control supports cooperation, then pursuing harmless pleasures must undermine it.” Even though this belief sounds logical, it is not. It must be an oversimplification because, as we will argue in this commentary, the celebration of self-control does not necessarily imply the demonization of pleasure. It is important to address this logical fallacy, which forms the cornerstone of puritanical morality, because it suppresses the potential benefits experiencing pleasure can have for the individual (e.g., well-being) and society (e.g., social cohesion).
We will present two concrete challenges to puritanical morality. First, we will review empirical evidence suggesting that pursuing pleasure does not necessarily reflect a lack of self-control or does the experience of pleasure undermine it. Second, we argue based on empirical research and theorizing that socially shared pleasurable experiences foster rather than threaten social cohesion and cooperation across cultures.
Pursuing harmless pleasures does not necessarily reflect a lack of self-control, nor does it undermine it
One of the key observations of the target article is that “human societies morally condemn” (target article, short abstract) harmless pleasures, because they potentially undermine self-control, if they become habitual or excessive. Here, it is important to emphasize that not all pursuits of pleasure are signs of low self-control. Some are (failing to restrain an impulse) some are not (intentionally pursuing a hedonic goal). Brushing over this distinction conceals important differences that matter with regard to the claims of the target article. For instance, personality research shows that on the trait level self-control is not negatively but unrelated to people's hedonic capacity (i.e., capacity to experience pleasure; Bernecker & Becker, Reference Bernecker and Becker2021). This suggests that people who are good at self-control are not necessarily purists, but are just as likely to also enjoy harmless pleasures. Importantly, people who succeed in experiencing pleasure during hedonic activities (high hedonic capacity) report higher well-being, life satisfaction, and fewer symptoms of depression and anxiety (Bernecker & Becker, Reference Bernecker and Becker2021). People who find it difficult to experience pleasure (low hedonic capacity, anhedonia), on the contrary, have a higher risk of substance abuse (Becker & Bernecker, Reference Becker and Bernecker2020; Destoop, Morrens, Coppens, & Dom, Reference Destoop, Morrens, Coppens and Dom2019). That implies that regularly experiencing pleasure is an adaptive part of self-regulation and can even protect people from excessive overindulgence.
Further, there is an emerging literature suggesting that the experience of pleasure can support self-regulation and positive outcomes that Fitouchi et al., like many others, unrightfully attribute to the process of self-control (Bernecker, Job, & Hofmann, Reference Bernecker, Job and Hofmann2018; Gieseler, Loschelder, & Friese, Reference Gieseler, Loschelder, Friese, Sassenberg and Vliek2019). For example, research suggests that the experience of pleasure motivates people to persist in long-term goals, such as keeping a healthy diet or exercising regularly (Woolley & Fishbach, Reference Woolley and Fishbach2016, Reference Woolley and Fishbach2017). Further, work in the eating domain shows that increased food enjoyment (e.g., through mindfulness) is related to lower not higher calorie intake (Arch et al., Reference Arch, Brown, Goodman, Della Porta, Kiken and Tillman2016; Cornil & Chandon, Reference Cornil and Chandon2016). Moreover, research shows that work performance and study success are not only dependent on work or study-related activities, but also on the extent to which individuals make room for and enjoy their leisure activities (Binnewies, Sonnentag, & Mojza, Reference Binnewies, Sonnentag and Mojza2010; Jia, Hirt, & Nowak, Reference Jia, Hirt and Nowak2019).
To summarize, engaging in harmless pleasures does not necessarily signal low self-control, especially if done intentionally. Self-control and hedonic capacity rather reflect two independent and important parts of self-regulation. Further, the experience of pleasure is an important motivator that can promote long-term outcomes and even prevent overindulgence, both of which are oftentimes but unrightfully attributed to the use of self-control.
Sharing pleasurable experiences is a way of fostering cooperation in many cultures
The social effects of (individual or shared) pleasure are relatively less studied in psychology. Several lines of research or theorizing, however, suggest that engaging in victimless pleasures with others (e.g., eating, drinking, music, dance) is not only common across cultures, but also strongly linked to social cohesion. For example, engaging in socially shared rituals involving food and drink (including what we may consider excessive indulgence during holidays, e.g., Thanksgiving) increases social cohesion and strengthens social identity (Ratcliffe, Baxter, & Martin, Reference Ratcliffe, Baxter and Martin2019). A similar point has been made for music and dance, which when shared with others engender social cohesion through creating a “group body” and “group voice” (Brown, Reference Brown2021). It is, therefore, not surprising that the very measurement of cooperation includes the aspect of shared engagement in pleasurable behaviors (Lu & Argyle, Reference Lu and Argyle1991). This aligns with theorizing on popular culture which emphasizes the importance of collectively shared pleasure (e.g., pop music, football) for creating “a fundamental commitment to membership of a human collectivity” (Richards, Reference Richards2018, p. 7). To summarize, engaging in victimless pleasures together has a clear cooperative function.
Taken together, people's beliefs about the negative effects of engaging in harmless pleasures for self-control and cooperation (if they exist) are one-sided and incomplete. There is plenty of evidence calling these beliefs, and their allegedly evolutionary foundation, into question by suggesting that the (shared) experience of pleasure is adaptive for the individual (e.g., well-being, health) and society (e.g., social cohesion). It is important that researchers become aware and communicate these adaptive effects, because otherwise the unjustified moralization of harmless pleasures will persist. As a result, individuals and societies around the globe may miss out on the potential benefits of harmless pleasures.
Financial support
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interest
None.