Categorization, Measurement, and Effortlessness of Daily Self-Control Strategies

Categorization, Measurement, and Effortlessness of Daily Self-Control Strategies | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Categorization, Measurement, and Effortlessness of Daily Self-Control Strategies Danni Wang, Jia Xu, Run-Sheng Pan, Zhi-Jin Hou, Yan Li This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7147774/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 6 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Recent research on self-control has shifted in focus from the effortful inhibition of desire to the broader process and more effortless mechanisms of self-control. With this trend, self-control strategies have received increasing attention from researchers.However, the categorization and measurement of self-control strategies remains inadequate for balancing theoretical and ecological validity, especially for the Chinese context; thus, a valid conceptual basis and a deeper understanding of the inherent properties of self-control strategies are lacking for further exploration of the effects of, and interventions for, different strategy types. Methods The present research established a taxonomy of self-control strategies by collecting and coding people’s daily experiences (Study 1) and assessed the psychometric properties of both this classification framework and its corresponding measurement tool across three independent samples (Study 2). Considering the strategy intervention, the study also preliminarily compared the degree of effortlessness among different strategies in an attempt to clarify whether the degree of effortlessness was equal for individuals with different levels of self-control (Study 3). Results Results established a four-category taxonomy of self-control strategies , synthesizing two foundational models (the P-I model and the process model of self-control) while generating novel strategy classes. A psychometrically robust Self-Control Strategies Questionnaire (SCSQ) was developed. The effortlessness across categories diverged from theoretical predictions, primarily modulated by executants' self-control function. Discussion Contrasting this structure with extant theories and measures clarified inter-model relationships and proposed three mechanistic dimensions underpinning strategy categorization. Further discussions include: (a) propounding the anticipatory mechanism of interventive strategies—previously overlooked; (b) reinterpreting the effortlessness of the strategies; (c) demonstrating SCSQ’s practical utility; and (d) delineating future research trajectories. Conclusions Daily self-control strategies can be categorized into four types (Interventive, Temptation-Oriented, Goal-Oriented Preventive, and Interpersonal Preventive strategies), representing three key dimensions: (a) the preventive-interventive dichotomy (as proposed in the P-I model); (b) the goal-temptation dichotomy (central to traditional self-control theories); and (c) the intrapersonal-interpersonal dichotomy (reflecting current frontiers in self-control research). Contrary to theoretical hypotheses, preventive strategies were not more effortless than the interventive strategies. The effortlessness of a strategy is not inherent but modulated by the strategy user's self-control capacity. self-control strategies questionnaire effortless self-control strategy effortlessness Chinese university students Figures Figure 1 Introduction Self-control is a vital aspect of human functioning associated with outcomes in various life domains, including physical health, healthy behaviors, emotional problems, academic and work performance, interpersonal relationships, immoral and criminal behaviors, and well-being [1-4]. It refers to the ability to inhibit immediate desires or impulses to pursue long-term goals in self-control dilemmas (i.e., situations containing conflicts between immediate urges and long-term goals) [5-7]. Researchers have been exploring the mechanisms underlying self-control for several decades. Early research focused on the ability to apply executive function, volitional resources, or willpower to inhibit desire, using laboratory experiments to simulate spontaneous self-control processes. However, recent research has indicated that such mechanisms cannot explain how people maintain good self-control in daily life [8-10]; thus, interventions based on such mechanisms cannot produce acceptable effects [11]. Consequently, recent research has shifted from focusing on the effortful inhibition of desire in the moment [6] to a broader process of self-control and more diverse self-control mechanisms, such as strategies related to self-control conflict identification [12,13], situation selection [14], distraction [14,15], and cognitive change [16]. However, the relevant constructs still need to be classified clearly via disciplined approaches. In addition, techniques for investigating people’s daily experiences have become increasingly popular in this field [17,18] and have highlighted the need for progress in the measurement of individuals’ self-control processes in daily life. Therefore, the first aim of the present research was to clarify the categorization structure of self-control strategies and develop a relevant measurement that can assist in further empirical studies on the mechanisms of and interventions for daily self-control function. Underlying the shift in research focus is the rationale that effortful mechanisms are too resource-consuming to support continuous self-control in daily life, being better suited for explaining self-control failure rather than success [19], whereas the broader process of self-control, which includes effortless mechanisms [13,20], is expected to better interpret self-control success [19]. However, although how those with good self-control cope with temptations or pursue their goals is reasonable to investigate when searching for ways to improve self-control, the premise that the mechanisms that people with good self-control use to maintain function can work in the same manner as those with poorer self-control functions needs to be verified. Therefore, we need to determine whether the effortless mechanisms that benefit those with good self-control are similarly effortless for others. Thus, the second aim of the present research was to investigate whether different strategies have varying degrees of effortlessness and whether the experience of that effortlessness remains consistent across people with different levels of self-control. Classifications and Measurements for Self-Control Strategies Two theories classify self-control strategies by theorizing on the components and phases of the self-control process [13,20]. The process model of self-control [20] differentiates between situational and intrapsychic strategies on the basis of a cyclic four-phase (situation, attention, appraisal, and response) model of tempting impulse development. The situational strategies include situation modification and selection, which the theory describes as occurring in situation phases. The intrapsychic strategies include attentional deployment, cognitive change, and response modulation, which occur during the attention, appraisal, and response phases, respectively. The preventive-interventive model (P-I model) of self-control [13] distinguishes between preventive strategies (i.e., the means by which people may proactively affect the downstream self-control process after a desire arises) and interventive strategies (i.e., the ad hoc control of desire) on the basis of a model with seven self-control components: preventive strategies, desire, conflict, motivation, volition, opportunity constraint, and behavior enactment. The P-I model describes self-control failure as behavior toward unwanted desires and proposes that self-control failure occurs when people have problematic desires that conflict with long-term goals and fail to identify the conflict (self-monitoring failure due to short-sightedness), as well as lack the motivation (motivational self-control failure) or volition (volitional self-control failure) to resist the problematic desire. Thus, the P-I model recommends the use of preventive strategies because, on the basis of its descriptions of the components of the self-control process, people could benefit from intervention self-control by avoiding tempting stimuli (controlling desire), installing goal reminders (identifying conflict), making commitments (securing motivation), training willpower (securing volition), and limiting available behavioral options (constraining the possibility to pursue temptation). Although the theoretical constructs of self-control strategies appear structured, their measurements are still lacking. Researchers have mostly used self-designed items [21,22] or selected or adapted relevant items from well-validated measurements [17,23] to assess certain types of self-control strategies. To the best of our knowledge, prior to the development of two self-control strategy scales (SCSSs) [24,25], no psychometrically sound measurements were available to evaluate the use of self-control strategies. Katzir et al. developed a hypothesized categorization structure for self-control strategies through a literature review and ultimately produced a scale with 38 items and eight self-control strategies divided into three categories: anticipatory control (situation selection, reward, punishment, and precommitment), the downregulation of temptation (distraction, cognitive change, and acceptance), and behavioral inhibition [24]. Milosevic et al. developed their initial scale items by directly applying the process model of self-control, resulting in a 34-item scale encompassing six self-control strategies, five of which were theoretically derived from the process model (situation selection, situation modification, attentional deployment, cognitive change, and response modulation) and one additional strategy, situation-people, which emerged empirically from the data [25]. Considerations of the Validity of Classifying Self-Control Strategies Although enlightening progress has been made in theories relevant to self-control strategies, empirical evidence is still lacking. Along with the emphasis on ecological validity in recent empirical studies, the lack of empirical testing of the theoretical classification structure or exploration of self-control behaviors occurring in daily life has created limitations in understanding and interpreting self-control phenomena. Existing categorizations of self-control strategies have been based on theoretical considerations of those strategies’ characteristics rather than on phenomenological and practical considerations of people’s preferences for these strategies [13,20]. Although the development of SCSSs [24,25] has significantly promoted the evaluation of self-control strategy usage, its items were derived from self-control theories rather than observations of individuals’ experiences. Therefore, whether people use all the strategies mentioned in the theories in daily life and whether other strategies never mentioned in the literature exist remain unknown. Therefore, a bottom-up approach is important for investigating people’s daily use of self-control strategies. The omission of bottom-up approaches not only impacts ecological validity but also raises questions regarding the extent to which current categorical frameworks adequately represent the underlying mechanisms governing strategic behavior. More evidence is also needed that demonstrates whether the daily use of self-control strategies spontaneously forms the categorization depicted by the theoretical types. In other words, investigation is needed into whether someone who prefers a certain strategy within a theoretical or hypothesized category would also prefer other strategies within the same category. Categorization based only on logical and theoretical conceptualization may not necessarily reflect the occurrence patterns of self-control strategies in daily life. However, the spontaneous occurrence of these strategies reflects their behavioral mechanisms. The self-control strategies that people select indicate their style of self-control behavior, with clear preferences over other strategies. Once these styles are placed into certain categories of behavioral patterns, such categorization reflects the essential causes underlying the relevant behaviors. We emphasize the behavioral mechanisms underlying the strategy categories because the research or interventions related to the effects of a certain category of self-control strategies should be based on the premise that the strategies constituting a category share the same or at least a similar occurrence mechanism. If self-control strategies are categorized in a manner that cannot reflect spontaneous behavioral patterns, the associations between strategy categories and relevant predictors/outcomes would be confusing, as people who prefer the same strategy category may have different levels of predictors and performance outcomes. Moreover, interventions related to certain strategy categories may be arduous or ineffective. Therefore, self-control strategies need to be categorized on the basis of data describing people’s preferences for strategies in daily life, as well as statistical techniques revealing individuals’ behavioral patterns. Effortlessness of Self-Control Strategies On the basis of the recent trend of investigating self-control mechanisms other than effortful inhibition, researchers have paid more attention to effortless and effective mechanisms used to support stable, good self-control in daily life. Such mechanisms could be called effortless self-control [17,19,26] or described as the “upstream process of self-control” [13]. Both the process model of self-control and the P-I model describe the effortlessness of different types of self-control strategies, although such descriptions may be indefinite. The process model of self-control [20] posits that impulses become stronger over time; thus, situational strategies, namely, exerting control in the early phases of impulse development, would be easier and more effective. According to this notion, the effectiveness of situational self-control strategies is determined by their effortlessness, which can be defined as the need for less willpower to achieve self-control success while facing weaker impulses. Similarly, the P-I model [13] argues that interventive self-control (which occurs when temptation is present) gives room for self-control failure because successful self-control in the presence of temptation requires both sufficient motivational and volitional resources, both of which are effortful and energy-consuming. In contrast, preventive strategies enacted before temptation could effectively promote self-control by restricting the opportunities and conditions for pursuing desire and making the downstream process of self-control easier. In summary, the effortfulness of the self-control process causes its failure, in which the intensity of impulses and temptations [20], the difficulty of building self-control motivation, and the consumption of volitional resources [13] all contribute to this outcome. In contrast, the effortlessness of self-control strategies increases the likelihood of self-control success. Notably, the word “effortlessness” appears to describe the differentiation between the mechanism of volitional inhibition and other mechanisms rather than people’s perceptions of difficulty/effortfulness when applying these mechanisms or their depletion afterward. Thus, little empirical evidence is available to conclusively prove whether the “effortless self-control” process is truly effortless. However, this issue is vital for practical work in the field because a truly effortless mechanism will be especially user friendly for people who have weak self-control functions (or lack self-control resources) in helping them improve their self-control abilities. Present Research The present research aims to (a) categorize self-control strategies on the basis of people’s actual experiences and analyze their behavioral correlations and patterns and (b) conduct a preliminary investigation of the effortlessness of these strategies. To achieve these aims, three studies were designed. In Study 1, we used a qualitative research approach to investigate the self-control strategies people use in their daily lives and developed the preliminary version of the Self-Control Strategies Questionnaire (SCSQ). We also considered the relationships between the strategies extracted from individuals’ experiences and the strategy types mentioned in the theories, elucidating the relationships between the two main theories on self-control strategies and facilitating our understanding of the self-control process. In Study 2, three independent samples were used to explore, optimize, and confirm the categorization structure of these strategies via exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. In addition, the psychometric properties of the SCSQ were tested. In Study 3, the effortlessness of each strategy category was measured and compared to determine whether effortless strategies could be beneficial for people who lack self-control resources and have difficulty applying effortful self-control mechanisms. The present research was conducted with Chinese university students (including undergraduate and graduate students). Self-control is a highly desirable yet challenging skill for university students to gain and maintain, and one challenge Chinese students face is rooted in China’s educational system. The National College Entrance Examination, known as “Gaokao,” is a significant watershed that differentiates between two kinds of lifestyles. During high school, students mostly operate under external control through all-day supervision from teachers, parents, and extracurricular organizations, with the sole goal of obtaining higher Gaokao scores and entering better universities. The excessive intervention from the outside world then immediately shifts to a self-driven mode of studying, during which students have no opportunity to become acclimated to the transition from “being controlled” to “controlling themselves.” The sudden increase in freedom and control over one’s own life, both mentally and economically, can substantially change a student’s mindset and behavioral patterns. Thus, university students will experience a sudden increase in temptations, creating risk factors for academic delay, deviant behaviors, and addictive behaviors such as alcoholism, mobile phone addiction, impulsive shopping, and unprotected sex; university students with good self-control are more likely to resist temptations and impulses and focus on their long-term goals instead of engaging in problematic behaviors [27,28]. Therefore, the self-control ability, processes, and performance of university students in China require further exploration. Study 1 Method Participants and Procedure University students were recruited through WeChat and QQ, two widely used Chinese social media platforms, and WJX’s participant recruitment service (www.wjx.cn). The participants were invited to complete an online questionnaire on the WJX survey platform to describe at least two self-control experiences. The researchers cleaned and coded the data during the data collection process to ensure data saturation. Only questionnaires completed by full-time university students that contained valid information about the participants’ self-control experiences were retained. A complete self-control experience was required to include a self-reported self-control strategy, corresponding goals, and relevant temptation(s). The criteria for invalid information were as follows: (1) the experience described did not present a situation of self-control (e.g., describing the goal without temptations, describing a way to overcome some difficulties that did not involve temptation, meaningless words); (2) the described successful experience of self-control was completely due to external factors (e.g., intervention from others, success resulting from realistic limitations) and did not involve individuals’ spontaneous strategic actions or internal processes; and (3) the text description was vague and incomprehensible. Invalid information was not included in the subsequent analysis. A total of 280 people submitted the questionnaires, 97 of which were valid (47 men and 50 women). The average age of the valid participants was 22.15 years (range: 18–40 years; standard deviation [ SD ] = 3.66 years). The participants provided 202 self-control experiences, including 51 failure experiences, 135 success experiences, and 16 with no stated outcomes. Among these, 43 did not have self-control strategies, of which all failed. A total of 159 descriptions of self-control strategies were obtained from these reported experiences. Questionnaire Individuals’ self-control experiences were collected via an open-ended online questionnaire. The questionnaire guidance was adapted from that used in previous research on classifying goals and temptations [29]. The questionnaire first provides definitions of self-control, goals, impulses, and temptations. Then, the participants were asked to describe two experiences of self-control success or failure, with specific instructions provided such as “Please make sure that each description contains the following information: (1) What did you intend to do or achieve?(goals) (2) What things/thoughts interfered with your pursuit of this goal? (tempts/impulses) (3) How did you cope with it?(self-control strategy, actual behavior)”. An example was then provided to help the participants better understand the questions. Coding Procedure Conventional content analysis [30] and a procedure for reaching a consensus [31] were applied to analyze the textual data. Two researchers independently coded the text and reached a consensus on the codes and definitions of self-control strategies through multiple discussions. The coders first read the text repeatedly and then highlighted the keywords related to self-control strategies. Then, codes were derived from these local-language keywords by extracting the units of action for coping with temptation without overdescribing the details (e.g., various types of temptation). In this coding process, some strategy descriptions could be assigned to more than one code. For example, the text “(the goal is to study, the temptation is to play with my mobile phone) ... give my mobile phone to my mom and dad...” was coded as “eliminate temptation in advance” and “seek supervision from others.” Next, each code and its corresponding keywords were repeatedly read and compared to clarify the connotation and denotation of the codes. In this process, some codes were combined due to overlapping denotation (e.g., “eliminate temptation in advance” and “avoid the situation with temptations” were combined into “avoid or eliminate temptations in advance”), overgeneralized codes were reworded to narrow their scope (e.g., “habit formation” was revised to “fixed time lag”), and the code descriptions were formed. Next, the two coders discussed the code labels and descriptions to reach a consensus, ensuring that all the codes had clear descriptions and discriminability. Finally, the code labels and descriptions were polished to make them more suitable as questionnaire items in the second round of discussion. A consensus was reached on the items (26 items) constituting the initial version of the Self-Control Strategy Questionnaire (SCSQ). We did not extract subcategories or categories from the codes, as is done in most content analysis studies, because, in our design, we used factor analysis to reveal the categorization structure of the strategies. Results and Discussion Table 1 reports the codes, examples, and items (with polished codes and descriptions). A total of 26 strategy types were extracted. Although we did not extract subcategories or categories on the basis of the codes, we preliminarily compared the strategies found from the classification in the process model [20] and P-I model [13] to determine whether the theoretical classifications could cover the strategies people applied in their daily lives. We found that all strategy types were identified in the data. Moreover, this comparison allowed us to develop a better understanding of the relationship between the two theories. We found that most of the strategies could be simultaneously categorized under a specific type from each of the two theories. Thus, the classifications of the two theories are independent of each other. Furthermore, the process model is circular, meaning that each situation–attention–appraisal–response process is iterative in the self-control process, whereas the P-I model is linear, describing a process from when a desire arises to the outcomes of self-control. Therefore, we determined that the four phases proposed by the process model could be nested in the P-I model’s dichotomy of the self-control process (preventive and intervention phases). The P-I model distinguishes five types of preventive strategies on the basis of the proposed components of the self-control process; however, it does not identify different types of interventive strategies. By interpreting the text about interventive strategies, we concluded that the situation–attention–appraisal–response model provides a framework by which to classify the strategies that individuals use after temptation emerges. Study 2 In this study, we used three independent samples to explore (Sample 1), optimize (Sample 2), and verify (Sample 3) the categorization structure of self-control strategies and construct validity of the SCSQ. In addition, internal consistency reliability, criterion-related validity, and incremental validity were tested for the SCSQ (using Sample 1). Preventive coping, daily self-control function, goal progress, and self-control outcomes (success and failure) were applied as validity criteria. If the theoretical classification is supported, preventative strategies should reflect the process of preventively assessing and taking action against temptation and self-control conflicts. Preventive coping (i.e., the effort an individual makes to address potential events to minimize the severity of the impact before negative events occur) [32] involves a psychological process similar to that of preventive actions. Therefore, preventive coping was hypothesized to have a significant positive correlation with preventive self-control strategies, which should be stronger than the correlation between preventive coping and interventive strategies. In addition, both preventive and interventive strategies should be generally conducive to self-control. Therefore, daily self-control function, goal progress, and self-control success are hypothesized to have significant positive correlations with both preventive and interventive strategies, whereas self-control failure is hypothesized to have significant negative correlations with both strategy types. In terms of incremental validity, we considered self-control strategy application as one mechanism of daily self-control function distinct from beneficial habits. Beneficial habits have been found to be associated with good self-control performance [33,34], and both beneficial habits and self-control strategies are regarded as mechanisms that differ from effortful inhibition. Therefore, we hypothesized that when beneficial habits are under control, self-control strategies will have a significant partial correlation with daily self-control. Method Participants Sample 1 . Participants were recruited through WeChat. Surveys were distributed and completed via the online survey platform WJX (www.wjx.cn). Among the initial 613 samples, 393 valid responses (73.54% female) were obtained. Invalid responses (i.e., nonuniversity student responses, overly short response times, and regular response patterns) were excluded. The final sample consisted of 104 men (26.46%) and 289 women (73.54%), including 280 undergraduate students (71.25%) and 113 graduate students (28.75%), with an average age of 21.9 years (range: 16–35 years, SD = 2.59). Samples 2 and 3 . With support from university staff, 2203 students were recruited from six universities in China. After excluding participants who had significantly shorter response times, regular response patterns (e.g., 1111 or 1234), or who failed to respond correctly to two validity test items (e.g., “I completed this questionnaire carefully”), a sample of 1621 valid responses was retained. The participants were 618 men (38.13%) and 1003 (61.87%) women, among whom the numbers of freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors were 647 (41.58%), 499 (30.78%), 311 (19.19%), and 124 (7.65%), respectively. Thirteen participants did not report their class year. The mean age of the participants was 19.92 years (range: 16–25 years, SD = 1.41). After obtaining the raw data, we split the sample at random into Samples 2 and 3. Sample 2 comprised 811 participants, including 310 men (38.22%) and 510 women (61.78%). The numbers of freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors were 341 (42.05%), 247 (30.46%), 155 (19.1%), and 61 (7.52%), respectively; seven participants (0.86%) did not report their class year. The mean age of Sample 2 was 19.93 years (range: 17–25 years, SD = 1.46). Sample 3 comprised 810 participants, including 308 men (38.02%) and 502 women (61.98%). The numbers of freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors were 333 (41.11%), 252 (31.11%), 156 (19.26%), and 63 (7.78%), respectively; 6 participants (0.76%) did not report their class year. The mean age of the participants in sample three was 19.89 years (range: 16–25 years, SD = 1.52). Measurements The focus of the questionnaire differed across participant sample groups. The survey for Sample 1 focused on individuals’ general use of self-control behaviors. The participants in this sample completed a questionnaire consisting of the SCSQ, the Brief Self-Control Scale (BSCS), preventive coping, and beneficial habits. The questionnaires for Samples 2 and 3 focused on individuals’ goal-pursuit processes and outcomes. The participants in these groups completed the SCSQ, BSCS, and a set of questionnaires investigating goal content, appraisal, and progress and self-control success and failure. However, only the SCSQ and BSCS measured in both samples and the goal progress, self-control success, and self-control failure measured in Sample 3 were used in the present study. Self-Control Strategy Frequency. The initial version of the SCSQ developed in Study 1 was applied to assess the daily use frequency of 26 self-control strategies (see Table 1 for items). Responses were rated on a 5-point scale (1 = never, 5 = always). Self-Control Function. The Chinese version of the BSCS [35], which was developed from the 36-item original version and the 13-item brief version [4], was used to measure participants’ daily self-control function. The participants were asked to respond to 11 items on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not me at all; 5 = exactly me). Higher total scores indicate stronger self-control ability on this single-factor scale. The brief and original scales have highly correlated scores (r = 0.91 for the Chinese version) [35] and share similar psychometric properties. In this study, the Cronbach’s alphas were .79, .75, and .77 for the three samples, respectively. Preventive Coping. The preventive coping subscale of the Future-Oriented Coping Scale [36], which measures individual disposition toward preventive coping, was used in this study. The subscale contains eight items (e.g., “I prefer to save some money in case of need rather than spend it all”), rated via a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not me at all; 5 = exactly me), with higher scores indicating a stronger disposition toward preventive coping. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha was .76. Beneficial Habits. Five items were designed to measure habit strength within five beneficial behavioral domains (dietary patterns, work-rest routines, physical exercise, learning/working, and consumption behavior), anchored in Verplanken and Orbell's conceptualization of habits as “learned sequences of acts that have become automatic responses to specific cues, and are functional in obtaining certain goals or end-states” [37]. This conceptualization aligns with the semantic essence of the Chinese term “习惯” (xíguàn, habit), authoritatively defined in the Cihai Dictionary as “a behavioral pattern consolidated through repetition or practice, developing into automatic behavioral demands.”[38] Since “习惯” is a high-frequency lexical item in daily discourse with minimal semantic ambiguity, it was directly incorporated into the item phrasing (see Appendix A for the Chinese and English versions of the items). The participants were asked to respond on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not me at all; 5 = exactly me), with higher scores indicating stronger habit strength. To ensure consistent and accurate comprehension by participants, the wording of the items was pretested and iteratively refined through cognitive interviews with 20 university students. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha was .69. Goal Progress. Participants’ progress toward their current goals was clarified via two items adapted from Emmons’ study [39]: “How satisfied are you with your progress toward this goal thus far?” and “To what extent have you met your target standards up to now?” Answers were provided on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 5 = very much), with higher scores indicating better goal progress. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha was .62. Self-Control Success. Two items adapted from Wenzel et al.'s survey [40] were used to measure participants’ degree of self-control success: “How successful have you been in resisting temptation or impulsiveness in implementing the above goals?” and “How much do you stick to a goal when its implementation/progress is hindered or disrupted by temptations or impulses?” Answers were provided with a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all; 5 = very much). In this study, Cronbach’s alpha was .69. Self-Control Failure. Three items were designed on the basis of the P-I model’s definition of the three types of self-control failure [13]. The items “I did not realize that I was pursuing temptation until I found that I had already failed to control myself,” “I felt unmotivated to resist temptations and impulses and gave up self-control easily,” and “I truly wanted to control myself and resist temptations and impulses, but I could not” were used to measure self-monitoring, motivational self-control, and volitional self-control failure, respectively. The participants were asked to report how often these situations occurred on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never, 5 = always). In this study, Cronbach’s alpha was .87. Results Classification of Self-Control Strategies An EFA was conducted to explore the structure of the self-control strategy. The correlation coefficients between the items and total scores ranged from .38 to .60, indicating that most of the items had good internal consistency. Bartlett’s spherical test was significant, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value was .87, and the measure of sampling adequacy (MSA) of all the items was greater than .80. These results indicate that the correlations between the items were sufficient for EFA. Factors were extracted after the original questionnaire was rotated into 26 items via the PROMAX method. As a result, seven factors with characteristic roots greater than 1.0 were extracted, which explained 55.34% of the total variance. After items with factor loadings less than .40 or with cross-loadings were removed, a four-factor construct with 20 items was retained. These four factors accounted for 47.10% of the total variance. All the items had commonality scores higher than .39 except for two items (alternative satisfying and goal reminding, with commonality scores lower than 0.3). The context of these two items is important; therefore, they were retained. All item loadings were greater than .43 (Table 2). On the basis of the item content, the first factor contained four strategies, including one intervention strategy and three preventive strategies, all of which were related to resisting temptation. The second factor included seven goal-related preventive strategies. The third factor comprised six interventive strategies. The fourth factor comprises three preventive self-control strategies that rely on interpersonal interaction. These four factors were named temptation-oriented strategies, goal-oriented preventive strategies, interventive strategies, and interpersonal preventive strategies, respectively. Categorization Optimization and Structure Validity For Sample 2, we tested the construct obtained from Study 1 (4 factors, 20 items) via CFA in Mplus. The results revealed an acceptable model fit ( χ 2 = 385.076, df = 164, RMSEA = 0.052, CFI = 0.897, TLI = 0.881, SRMR = 0.051). Modification indices indicated that the substitute satisfaction item cross-loaded on three factors and that there should be a correlation path between the residuals of Items 6 and 7. Considering that the content of those items focused on reward and punishment and had content characteristics similar to those of other items, it was reasonable to add a correlation between their residuals. Therefore, we deleted the substitute satisfaction item and tested the fit of the four-factor, 19-item model. The goodness-of-fit was improved ( χ 2 = 289.075, df = 146, RMSEA = 0.045, CFI = 0.929, TLI = 0.916, SRMR = 0.042), and the improvement was significant compared with that of the previous model (Δ χ 2 = 96.001, df = 18, p < 0.001). We then added the residual correlations between Items 6 and 7. The goodness-of-fit was further improved ( χ 2 = 264.913, df = 145, RMSEA = 0.041, CFI = 0.940, TLI = 0.929, SRMR = 0.041), and the improvement was still significant (Δχ 2 = 24.162, df= 1, p < 0.001). Finally, we tested the four-factor 19-item model with Sample 3, and the results revealed a good model fit ( χ 2 = 254.841, df = 145, RMSEA = 0.044, CFI = 0.918, TLI = 0.903, SRMR = 0.046), confirming that the four-factor 19-item model is suitable for use and has good structural validity (see Appendix B for the final version of the SCSQ). Criterion-Related Validity A correlation analysis was conducted between the categories of self-control strategies and variables that were theoretically expected to be closely related (Table 3). All four categories were significantly correlated with preventive coping, whereas interpersonal preventive strategies had a lower correlation with preventive coping than the other three categories did. Thus, the hypotheses were partially supported. In addition, the temptation-oriented, goal-oriented, and intervention strategy categories were all positively correlated with daily self-control function (BSCS), goal progress, and self-control success and negatively correlated with self-control failure. These results support the hypotheses. In contrast, the interpersonal preventive strategy category had nonsignificant correlations with these variables, which led to the rejection of the relevant hypotheses. Incremental Validity As the interpersonal-related preventive strategy did not correlate with the BSCS or beneficial habits, we tested only the incremental validity of the other three self-control strategies. After controlling for beneficial habits, the coefficients of the partial correlations between temptation-oriented preventive, goal-oriented preventive, and interventive strategies and the BSCS were 0.10 ( p = 0.044), 0.21 ( p < 0.001), and 0.27 ( p < 0.001), respectively. These results indicate that the three types of self-control strategies have good incremental validity over beneficial habits for predicting self-control . Discussion This study identified four categories of self-control strategies: temptation-oriented strategies, goal-oriented preventive strategies, interventive strategies, and interpersonal preventive strategies. The final version of the SCSQ (see Appendix B), which demonstrated good psychometric properties, was also obtained. Comparing the Identified Categorization with Theoretical Classifications The categorization found in the present study was more consistent (albeit not completely) with the P-I model than with the process model. Compared with the classification in the process model, the Chinese university students in this study rarely reported using attentional deployment strategies, and relevant items were deleted from the EFA. The cognitive change and response modulation strategies transcended single-category classification. The situation modification and selection strategies fall into the same category but this category also include a strategy for response modulation (eliminating existing temptations). These results indicate that the behavioral patterns in the self-control strategies of Chinese university students were inconsistent with the process model’s classification. A possible explanation is that the process model contains spontaneous internal components of the self-control process, whereas the SCSQ focuses more on strategic or planned external actions. Compared with the P-I model, the interventive strategies described in the model were found to make up a unique category in the SCSQ; however, the preventive strategies were divided into three subtypes characterized by stimuli/temptation control (temptation-oriented strategies), goal management (goal-oriented preventive strategies), and interpersonal processes (interpersonal preventive strategies). We adopted the concepts of preventive and interventive strategies proposed by the P-I model to name the identified strategy categories to better understand the characteristics of each category. The distinction between temptation-oriented and goal-oriented strategies reflects the dual-process framework within self-control theories. Self-control is a process involving conflicting choices between long-term goals and short-term temptations, and successful self-control requires individuals to approach their goals while avoiding temptation. Both the positive–negative feedback process proposed by cybernetics [5] and the cool–hot systems proposed by the dual-mode theories of self-regulation [41] suggest that the behaviors of reaching goals versus avoiding temptation are based on different psychological mechanisms. Interpersonal preventive strategies have never been presented as a unique strategy category in extant theories. Unlike the other strategies, this category relies on the participation of other people. This can take diverse forms, including supervision, companionship, and social evaluation pressure. Compared with other strategies, interpersonal strategies have unique characteristics. In a narrow sense, self-control means that an individual is both the subject and the object of the control behavior, which forms a closed system of functioning. However, interpersonal preventive strategies break the boundaries of this closed system and include others' behaviors and evaluations in interpersonal interactions in the self-control process. Thus, the choices, triggers, and results of interpersonal preventive strategies are likely to differ from those of other self-control strategies. Comparing the identified categories with the SCSS structure Compared with the SCSS [24], the degree of abstraction of the items on the SCSQ differed. This could be because of differences in the measurement development procedures. The initial items of the SCSS were designed on the basis of a theoretical structure and concepts, whereas those of the SCSQ were extracted from individuals’ descriptions of their personal self-control experiences. Therefore, on the SCSS, several items with similar expressions were applied to repeatedly measure each strategy (i.e., repeated measurement), and nine strategies were included (situation selection, stimulus control, punishment, reward, precommitment, distraction, cognitive change, acceptance, and behavioral inhibition). In contrast, each item on the SCSQ describes one type of strategy-related behavior. To contain the variety of strategies extracted from the qualitative study and keep the questionnaire short and brief, the SCSQ may sacrifice the accuracy of repeated measurements for behaviors. However, the SCSQ comprises more diverse and detailed behaviors and extracts factors that describe self-control mechanisms rather than strategy types. For example, the cognitive change strategy on the SCSS was described as imagining consequences, constructing meanings, and making positive expectations on the SCSQ, and the behavioral inhibition on the SCSS was described as suppressing impulses, putting off indulgences, eliminating existing temptations, and encouraging oneself on the SCSQ. In addition, the SCSS includes items describing difficulties or performance of self-control (e.g., “When I desire something that is not good for me, I have difficulty resisting it”), whereas the items of the SCSQ comprise mere descriptions of certain behaviors for which participants are asked to report how frequently they display them in their daily lives. Therefore, the two measurements may play different roles in research on self-control strategies, and the relationship between them should be further investigated in future research. Characteristics of the self-control strategies Both preventive and interventive strategies can rely on experiential anticipation. We found that preventive and interventive strategies had similar positive correlations with preventive coping, which partially rejected the hypothesis. Accordingly, we clarified that implementation was not the starting point of one strategy. Instead, an interventive strategy implemented after a temptation appears can be planned before. Individuals can learn which strategies are more effective for them from their daily experiences. For individuals who prefer interventive strategies, the triggering conditions and operational processes of these strategies may have already been stored in their memory before they encountered self-control conflicts. They can anticipate future self-control conflicts, prepare themselves by activating strategy schemas, and remain continuously sensitive to strategy triggers. In this case, the tendency to anticipate future self-control conflicts is associated with not only more preventive strategies but also interventive strategies. Therefore, while a classification based on implementation timing is valid, it does not imply a fundamental distinction between preventive and interventive strategies in their reliance on experience-based anticipatory mechanisms. Interpersonal preventive strategies were found to be weakly positively correlated with preventive coping and not correlated with self-control function or self-control successes and failures, suggesting that this type of strategy might be associated with both promoting self-control function and lacking self-control resources. Fitzsimons and Finkel proposed a self-regulatory outsourcing effect that could help in understanding interpersonal preventive strategies [42]. They reported that when individuals realize that they can receive help or support from others when pursuing a goal, they reduce their efforts toward achieving it. They also proposed that the outsourcing effect was more prominent in individuals who had insufficient self-regulatory resources. Conversely, others’ involvement and support can be used to save self-control resources. In summary, interpersonal preventive strategies may be preferred by individuals with limited self-control resources or who want to conserve resources to achieve self-control. However, future research should be conducted to further investigate the effectiveness of this type of strategy with respect to different goals and people with varying degrees of self-control. Study 3 Gillebaart and de Ridder proposed that individuals with good self-control prefer effortless self-control strategies in daily life, including the avoidance of self-control conflicts through habitual behavior and the efficient downregulation of conflicts [19]. The models of self-control strategies were similarly focused on mechanisms that differ from those of effortful inhibition. They emphasized that good self-control should not necessarily rely on effortful inhibition or volitional resources, as most researchers have focused on in this field. However, for practical considerations, research questions should examine not only the strategies that individuals with good self-control use in their daily lives but also whether and how people with weak self-control can learn to use these strategies and whether these strategies are experienced as effortlessly and effectively by people with different levels of self-control. Therefore, this study was guided by the question of whether an effortless self-control strategy exists for individuals with weak self-control. If strategies or self-control mechanisms other than effortful inhibition are indeed more effortless than the traditionally emphasized mechanisms that rely on volitional resources are, they would have a great impact on people who lack volitional resources. Therefore, we measured and compared the effortlessness of four self-control strategy categories by differentiating among individuals’ degrees of self-control, providing prima facie results for this question. Method This study used the same sample as Sample 3 in Study 2. The participants were asked to report the difficulties they experienced when using each strategy on the SCSQ in their daily lives, rated on a 5-point scale (1 = not difficult at all, 5 = extremely difficult). The word “difficulty” was described in the scale instruction as “the degree to which you need to make volitional or mental efforts in the process of implementing the strategy.” The average scores for the four strategy categories were calculated. In this study, the Cronbach’s alphas were .72, .78, .86, and .71 for the four subscales, respectively. A mixed-design ANOVA was applied, with the self-control function transformed into a dichotomous independent variable, self-control categories as another independent variable, and effortlessness scores as the dependent variable. A standardized score of zero was used as the cutoff value to divide the high- and low-level self-control groups. The low-level group included 420 participants, coded 0 , and the high-level group included 390 participants, coded 1. Results Mauchly’s test of sphericity revealed that the within-group variables (strategy categories) did not conform to sphericity; therefore, the Greenhouse–Geisser correction was used. The four strategy categories significantly differed in terms of effortlessness ( F (2.79) = 7.25, p < .001, η 2 = .009). The implementation difficulties (Figure 1) ranked from high to low were the temptation-oriented, goal-oriented preventive, interpersonal preventive, and interventive strategies. A Bonferonni post hoc test revealed no significant difference between temptation-oriented and goal-oriented preventive strategies (Δ M = 0.03, p = .097), goal-oriented preventive and interpersonal preventive strategies (Δ M = 0.04, p = .086), or interpersonal preventive and interventive strategies (Δ M = 0.03, p = .298). The effortlessness scores (i.e., lower implementation difficulties) of the temptation-oriented (Δ M = 0.10, p < .001) and goal-oriented preventive strategies (Δ M = 0.07, p = .002) were significantly lower than those of the interventive strategy (i.e., the interventive strategy was easier to implement). The effortlessness of the temptation-oriented strategy was significantly lower than that of the interpersonal preventive strategy (Δ M = 0.07, p = .005). The self-control function had a significant effect on strategy effortlessness, with a large effect size ( F (1) = 87.49, p < .001, η 2 = .098). Strategies were more difficult for those with low-level self-control functions than for those with high-level self-control functions. The interaction effect was not significant ( F (2.79) = 0.52, p = .655, η 2 = .001), indicating that the differences in effortlessness among strategy categories were not influenced by individual self-control functions. Discussion The findings of Study 3 suggest that the effortlessness of self-control strategies is largely influenced by the strategy executants’ self-control function. People with lower self-control tend to perceive more mental difficulties in using all types of strategies, including those that are theoretically regarded as noninhibitive strategies. In addition, we found that intervention strategies were more effortless than preventive strategies for individuals with both high and low self-control, which contradicts the theoretical views on effortless self-control. These results can be interpreted in two ways. First, the effortlessness of a strategy may be derived from the automation of behaviors [43,44] rather than certain behavioral procedures. Accordingly, effortlessness is not an inherent feature of a strategy but an outcome of strategy implementation relative to the executors’ characteristics. For people with low self-control functions, the effortless strategies used by individuals who are successful at implementing self-control are effortful and difficult to implement because they have not yet automized them. Second, some noninhibitive strategies may be as resource-consuming as inhibitive strategies. Preventive or situational strategies are considered effortless because they are implemented when impulses or temptations have not yet manifested or are still weak. Thus, individuals do not need to recruit many volitional resources to maintain self-control. However, the planning and triggering of these strategies may consume other, or even the same, types of mental resources, such as learning from past experiences, anticipating possible future self-control dilemmas, determining how to restrict oneself from pursuing temptations in anticipated self-control dilemmas, and initiating such strategic preventive behaviors (e.g., throwing away junk food before craving it) at the moment. In this view, people with higher self-control functions may perceive less difficulty in implementing these strategies because they have more mental resources for self-control, as proposed by the strength model [45]. Moreover, we regard these two possibilities as being compatible. General Discussion The use of self-control strategies is not a completely new concept in the field. We consider such strategies to be the behavioral reflection of the inner mechanisms of one’s self-control process. From this perspective, the categorization of self-control strategies should be based on different inner mechanisms that can be used to explain individual differences rather than on apparent characteristics of behaviors. In this research, we categorized self-control strategies using a design combining bottom-up and top-down approaches to ensure that the results were highly comparable to the actual phenomenon of Chinese university students’ self-control and, simultaneously, comprehensible and communicable with respect to existing theories. As a result, we identified four categories of self-control strategies: temptation-oriented strategies, goal-oriented preventive strategies, interventive strategies, and interpersonal preventive strategies. In addition, we developed the SCSQ and tested its psychometric properties. Theoretical Implications Apart from the theoretical thinking expounded in the discussion sections above, including the relationship between the two extant models of self-control strategies, the latent preventive characteristic of the interventive strategies, and the peculiarity of the interpersonal preventive strategies and their possible mechanism, we would also like to discuss the dimensions underlying the categorization of self-control strategies. Three relatively independent dimensions were indicated on the basis of the identified categories. The first dimension is consistent with the P-I model’s preventive-interventive dichotomy. This dimension focuses on the behavioral aspects within the self-control process, as it distinguishes between strategy implementation that occurs before or after temptation appears. The second dimension is consistent with the dual-system models of self-regulation [41,46,47], which distinguish between the rational goal-approach and experimental temptation-approach subprocesses. The third dimension distinguishes between strategies on the basis of the intrapersonal–interpersonal dichotomy, echoing a new trend in the self-control field regarding the interpersonal process of self-control (e.g., transactive goal dynamics) [42]. The three dimensions are independent of each other because any strategy can be defined by them concurrently. In addition, since the categorization identified in the present study reflects the self-control mechanisms and internal causes of individual differences in self-control performance, the dimensions will help in understanding these mechanisms and explaining individual differences in a deeper and clearer way. Future Application of the SCSQ The SCSQ can be used in both research and practice. The SCSQ’s structure and other psychometric properties were tested in the present study, which demonstrated that the wording of the items could be understood coherently and that the categorization of relevant strategies was evidence-based and scientific. The SCSQ can be used in research that focuses on understanding the process of self-control or exploring methods to improve people’s self-control function. For example, researchers could investigate the effects of these strategies on self-control performance and explore situations in which certain types of strategies are most effective. In addition, SCSQ has considerable potential for practical applications. More than one participant provided feedback that they were inspired by the questionnaire because some strategies were completely new to them, and they wanted to try using them on a regular basis. Although it has not been tested in actual use, we consider that the SCSQ could be applied in psychological counseling, career guidance, and mental health courses for self-evaluating strategy usage, learning new strategies, and structurally discussing and making detailed action plans for strategic self-control for specific goals. Moreover, empirical research based on the SCSQ could be conducive to its practical application. For example, if a certain category of strategies is found to be more effective for a certain type of goal than others are, more explicit practical suggestions could be provided. Limitations and Future Research This study has several limitations that should be noted. First, the retrospective reporting design may have led to a systematic bias in evaluating strategy effortlessness. According to construal level theory [48,49], temporal distance influences how individuals represent events in their minds and further changes their evaluations of the events. When temporal distance increases, individuals tend to represent events with more abstract and rational features (high construal level) and fewer concrete and sensory details (low construal level). The feeling of effortlessness in the strategy implementation process is a detailed sensory feature of these strategies. The large temporal distance caused by retrospective reporting may have resulted in deficiencies in the representation of such features. Therefore, future research could investigate the strategy’s effortlessness through research designs that include instant evaluation techniques, such as daily diary studies and experience sampling methods. Second, because the present data were collected before the publication of the SCSS [24], we could not investigate the relationship between the SCSS and SCSQ. It would be interesting to examine whether the SCSS could validly depict the strategy use patterns of Chinese students (for which a revised Chinese version of the SCSS should be created) and compare the applicability of the two measurements in research and practice. Finally, although not reported in this article, we have already verified the structure of the SCSQ in the working population. To date, both college students and the working population appear to use similar self-control strategies in general and demonstrate configurational homogeneity in strategy categorization. However, further evidence is needed to illustrate the application scope of the SCSQ, including among people of different age groups and with different cultural backgrounds. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate: The ethical conduct of this research aligned with the guidelines of the Code of Ethics for Clinical and Counseling Psychology, applicable national regulatory requirements, and the principles set forth in the Declaration of Helsinki. The study design was approved by the ethics review board of Beijing Normal University (IRB No. 202009020034) on Sep. 2 nd , 2020. Informed consent to participate was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Consent for publication: Informed consent to publish was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript for publication. Availability of data and materials: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the correspondence author upon reasonable request. Competing interests: The authors have no competing interests to declare. Funding: This work was funded by the Social Science Foundation of Fujian Province (project approval no. FJ2023C017). Authors' contributions: D.W. and Z-J. H. conceived and designed the study. D.W., J. X., and R-S. P. collected and analyzed the data and wrote the main manuscript text. D. W. prepared all the tables and figures. D.W.and Z-J. H. reviewed and revised the manuscript. D.W. and Y. L. polished the language and formatting. Acknowledgements: We would like to provide our appreciation to all the respondents in this study. References Duckworth AL, Seligman MEP. Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychol Sci. 2005;16:939–44. Keller C, Hartmann C, Siegrist M. The association between dispositional self-control and longitudinal changes in eating behaviors, diet quality, and BMI. Psychol Health. 2016;31(11):1311–27. Will CA, Ehrlinger J, Alquist JL, Conlon KE, Baumeister RF, Schatschneider C, et al. High trait self-control predicts positive health behaviors and success in weight loss. J Health Psychol. 2011;16:750–9. Tangney JP, Baumeister RF, Boone AL. High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. J Pers. 2004;72:271–324. Carver CS, Scheier MF. Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for personality-social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychol Bull. 1982;92:111–35. Fujita K. On Conceptualizing Self-Control as More Than the Effortful Inhibition of Impulses. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2011;15(4):352–66. Vohs KD, Baumeister RF. Understanding self-regulation: An introduction. In: Baumeister RF, Vohs KD, editors. Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory, and Application. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2004. pp. 3–10. Dewall CN, Baumeister RF, Stillman TF, Gailliot MT. Violence restrained: effects of self-regulation and its depletion on aggression. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2007;43(1):62–76. Imhoff R, Schmidt AF, Gerstenberg F. Exploring the interplay of trait self-control and ego depletion: Empirical evidence for ironic effects. Eur J Pers. 2014;28(5):413–24. Saunders B, Milyavskaya M, Etz A, Randles D, Inzlicht M. Reported self-control is not meaningfully associated with inhibition-related executive function: A Bayesian analysis. Collabra: Psychol. 2018;4(1):39. Friese M, Frankenbach J, Job V, Loschelder DD. Does Self-Control Training Improve Self-Control? A Meta-Analysis. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2017;12(6):1077–99. de Ridder D, Kroese F, Gillebaart M. Whatever happened to self-control? A proposal for integrating notions from trait self-control studies into state self-control research. Motiv Sci. 2018;4(1):39–49. Hofmann W, Kotabe H. A general model of preventive and interventive self-control. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2012;6(10):707–22. Magen E, Gross JJ. Getting our act together: Toward a general model of self-control. In: Hassin R, Ochsner H, Trope Y, editors. Self control in society, mind, and brain. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010. pp. 335–53. Friese M, Bargas-Avila J, Hofmann W, Wiers RW. Here’s looking at you, bud: Alcohol-related memory structures predict eye movements for social drinkers with low executive control. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2010;1:143–51. Myrseth KOR, Fishbach A, Self-Control. A Function of Knowing When and How to Exercise Restraint. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2009;18:247–52. Williamson LZ, Wilkowski BM. Nipping temptation in the bud: Examining strategic self-control in daily life. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2020;46:961–75. Wenzel M, Kubiak T, Conner TS. Self-control in daily life: How affect may boost or sabotage efforts at self-control. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2016;7:195–203. Gillebaart M, de Ridder DTD. Effortless self-control: A novel perspective on response conflict strategies in trait self-control. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2015;9:88–99. Duckworth AL, Gendler TS, Gross JJ. Situational strategies for self-control. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2016;11(1):35–55. Webb TL, Lindquist KA, Jones K, Avishai A, Sheeran P. Situation selection is a particularly effective emotion regulation strategy for people who need help regulating their emotions. Cogn Emot. 2017;32:231–48. Troll ES, Venz L, Weitzenegger F, Loschelder DD. Working from home during the covid-19 crisis: How self-control strategies elucidate employees' job performance. Appl Psychol. 2021;71:853–80. Nielsen KS, Gwozdz W, De Ridder D. Unraveling the relationship between trait self-control and subjective well-being: The mediating role of four self-control strategies. Front Psychol. 2019;10:706. Katzir M, Baldwin M, Werner KM, Hofmann W. Moving beyond inhibition: Capturing a broader scope of the self-control construct with the Self-Control Strategy Scale (SCSS). J Pers Assess. 2021;103(6):762–76. Milosevic M, Converse PD, Moon NA, Fedele D, Mcferran MW, Al-Qallawi S. The process model of self-control: Developing a measure of self‐control strategies. Appl Psychol-Int Rev. 2025. 10.1111/apps.12566 . Ainslie G. Willpower with and without effort. Behav Brain Sci. 2021;44:1–57. Cai K. The causes and control of university students’ deviant behavior. J Southwest Univ Nationalities. 2002;23(5):248–50. Zhang C, Zhai L, Wang C. Mediating effect of self-control on the relationship between mobile phone dependence and academic procrastination in college students. China J Health Psychol. 2017;25:145–8. Veilleux JC, Hill MA, Skinner KD, Pollert GA, Spero KD, Baker DE. Self-control failure scenarios in daily life: Developing a taxonomy of goals and temptations. Motiv Emot. 2018;42:653–70. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88. Wang D, Tian L, Hou ZJ, Zhou JP, Zhao A, Zhang H. The development of an interpersonal stressors scale: Identifying self-imposed and other-imposed interpersonal stressors. Psychol Rep. 2021;124:2417–42. Hu Y, Gan Y. Future-oriented coping and job hunting among college students. Psychol Rec. 2011;61:253–68. de Ridder D, Lensvelt-Mulders G, Finkenauer C, Stok M, Baumeister RF. Taking stock of self-control: A meta-analysis of how trait self-control relates to a wide range of behaviors. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2012;16:76–99. Galla BM, Duckworth AL. More than resisting temptation: Beneficial habits mediate the relationship between self-control and positive life outcomes. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2015;109:508–25. Unger A, Bi C, Xiao Y, Ybarra O. The revising of the Tangney Self-Control Scale for Chinese students. PsyCh J. 2016;5:101–16. Gan Y, Yang M, Zhou Y, Zhang Y. The two-factor structure of future-oriented coping and its mediating role in student engagement. Pers Individ Differ. 2007;43(4):851–63. Verplanken B, Orbell S. Reflections on past behavior: A self-report index of habit strength. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2003;33:1313–30. Online Cihai Dictionary. https://www.cihai.com.cn Emmons RA. Personal strivings: An approach to personality and subjective well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;5:1058–68. Wenzel M, Kubiak T, Conner TS. Self-control in daily life: How affect may boost or sabotage efforts at self-control. Soc Psychol Pers Sci. 2016;7:195–203. Metcalfe J, Mischel W. A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychol Rev. 1999;106:3–19. Fitzsimons GM, Finkel EJ, Vandellen MR. Transactive goal dynamics. Psychol Rev. 2015;122(4):648–73. Fishbach A, Friedman RS, Kruglanski AW. Leading us not unto temptation: Momentary allurements elicit overriding goal activation. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;84:296–309. Hofmann W, Friese M, Schmeichel BJ, Baddeley AD. Working memory and self-regulation. In: Vohs KD, Baumeister RF, editors. The Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory, and Applications. Volume 2. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2011. pp. 204–26. Baumeister RF, Bratslavsky E, Muraven M, Tice DM. Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;74(5):1252–65. Epstein S. Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. Am Psychol. 1994;49:709–24. Strack F, Deutsch R. Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2004;8:220–47. Trope Y, Liberman N. Temporal construal and time-dependent changes in preference. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000;79:876–89. Trope Y, Liberman N. Construal Level Theory. In: Van Lange PAM, Kruglanski AW, Higgins ET, editors. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2012. pp. 118–35. Tables Table 1 Codes of self-control strategies and the SCSQ items Code Description Frequency Item Avoiding or eliminating temptations in advance Avoid situations present with temptations, choose situations without temptations, or eliminate temptations from the situations before distractions are made. 24 Temptation avoidance: Avoid tempting situations in advance or refuse, remove, or isolate temptations. Setting goal reminder Set a goal reminder in advance to promote the identification of goal-desire conflict. 7 Setting goal reminder: Use external objects to remind yourself to do what should be done. Progress recording Periodically record and review progress toward the goal. 2 Progress management: Record and regularly review progress toward goals. Making goal commitment Increase the motivation and probability of goal implementation by informing others of the goals. 4 Goal commitment: Tell people about your goals. Optimizing task structure or context Make the goal easier to execute and more motivating by task decomposition, planning, criteria clarification, method/process clarification, etc. 5 Task optimizing: Make the goal-related behaviors more fun, accessible, or motivating. Fixing time slot Promote self-control by fixing the time slot for goal implementation. 3 Fixing time: Choose a fixed time every day/week/month to do things related to the goal. Setting up a punishment system Set up punishment rules in advance in response to self-control failure, with an attempt to increase the motivation of doing the target behavior or resisting temptations. 3 Setting up a punishment system: Set up a punishment system in advance for violating goals or plans. Setting up a reward system Set up a reward system in advance to increase the motivation to do the target behavior. 6 Setting up a reward system: Set up a reward system in advance for resisting temptations or completing plans. Restricting temptations Not to eliminate temptations, but to pre-set the frequency, time duration, and intensity of temptation-pursuing behaviors, with an effect of goal promotion. 9 Restricting temptation: Restrict the frequency, time duration, and intensity of indulgent behaviors. Willpower training Enhance the daily training of willpower. 1 Willpower training: Exercise self-control in daily life. Resource reserving Increase the willpower to resist temptation by putting adequate energy and time into reservation. 4 Resource reserving: Reserve adequate time/energy to do what should be done. Creating the opportunity to pursue the goals Make the target behavior easier to achieve through the selection or adjustment of physical, societal, and/or somatic environment (which does not aim at the temptation itself). 6 Creating opportunity: Make the goal-related behavior more likely to be done by adjusting the environment or your state without changing the target tasks. Limiting the chances of chasing after temptations Limit the chances or possibilities of pursuing temptations under certain circumstances through the selection or adjustment of physical, societal, and/or somatic environment (not by eliminating the temptations directly). 19 Restricting opportunity: Prelimit the chance or possibility of engaging in indulgent behaviors. Seeking supervision Invite other people to monitor goal-related behaviors. 8 Seeking supervision: Invite others to supervise you. Finding partners to limit the behaviors of pursuing temptations Limit the possibility of engaging in unwanted behaviors by promising to pursue goals together with other people. 3 Finding partner: Find partners with the same goals as yours and pursue the goals together. Isolating or eliminating the temptations Isolate or eliminate the temptation after it arises, with an attempt to weaken or remove the distraction in certain contexts (Not by directly controlling the behavior of pursuing temptation). 3 Eliminating temptation: When temptation arises, remove or stay away from it. Distracting oneself from temptations Distract oneself from the present temptation by doing other things. 3 Distraction: Distract attention from present temptations. Shifting attention to ignore the pain Shift attention away from the painful experience when wanting to stop in the process of implementing target behaviors. 1 Ignoring discomfort: Distract attention from the discomfort caused by the goal-related behavior. Assuming positive outcomes In the face of temptations, imagine what would happen (positive outcomes) if one persists in the goals. 5 Positive expectations: Envision positive outcomes of resisting temptation and sticking to the goals when it is difficult to persist in the goals. Assuming negative outcomes In the face of temptations, imagine what would happen (negative outcome) if one pursues satisfaction from temptation and does not implement the goals. 9 Imagining consequences: Imagine the negative consequences of not being able to resist the temptation when it is difficult to persist in the goals. Making sense In the face of temptation, estimate the value of the goals, and construct the meaning behind the target behavior. 6 Constructing meaning: When it is difficult to persist, find reasons for the goal-related behaviors. Self-encouraging In the face of temptation, increase the motivation to resist temptation through positive cognition from self-dialogue or self-affirmation. 5 Self-encouragement: Encourage yourself when it is difficult to persist in the goals. Repressing urges Ask oneself to directly suppress the impulses to chase after temptation. 16 Suppressing impulses: When certain desires or thoughts that hinder the goals appear, directly ask yourself to suppress them. Putting off indulgence/ Grandma’s Law In the face of temptation, postpone the responding actions, which can be accompanied by a self-commitment of “target behavior first, temptation later.” 7 Postpone indulgence: When you want to pursue temptations, ask yourself to do it later. Substitute satisfaction In the face of temptation, choose the things or actions that have smaller conflicts with the goals. 6 Substitute satisfaction: Satisfy the desire in a way that is less in conflict with the goals. Adjusting goal criteria Lower the criteria to make the goals easier and more motivating, thus making self-control more likely to succeed. 2 Goal adjustments: When it is difficult to persist in the goals, make the goals easier to execute or more motivating. Table 2 Factor loading for exploratory factor analysis of the SCSQ SCSQ Items Factors 1 2 3 4 Factor 1: Temptation-Oriented Strategies Temptation avoidance .86 − .20 − .05 .16 Eliminating temptation .70 − .05 .10 .12 Restricting opportunity .63 .13 .00 .06 Restricting temptation .59 .21 − .04 − .12 Factor 2: Goal-Oriented Preventive Strategies Task optimizing − .18 .70 .02 .08 Setting up a reward system − .23 .66 .14 .16 Setting up a punishment system .24 .60 − .16 − .04 Progress management .15 .59 − .05 − .10 Fixing time .25 .53 − .03 − .16 Setting goal reminder .06 .45 − .05 .15 Substitute satisfaction − .03 .44 .18 .01 Factor 3: Interventive Strategies Imagining consequences − .04 − .12 .77 − .04 Constructing meaning − .08 .03 .70 − .05 Positive expectations − .02 .09 .64 .12 Self-encouragement .07 .08 .52 .09 Suppressing impulses .32 .04 .44 − .13 Postpone indulgence .34 − .04 .43 − .09 Factor 4: Interpersonal Preventive Strategies Seeking supervision .14 .04 − .08 .82 Finding partner − .06 .01 .01 .80 Goal Commitment .14 .04 .05 .63 Note: Complete item wordings are omitted for brevity and can be seen in Table 1 Table 3 Criteria-related validity of the SCSQ Strategy Type Preventive Coping Self-Control Function Goal Progress Self-Control Success Self-Control Failure TS .35 *** .26 ** .12 *** .12 ** − .09 * GPS .32 *** .32 *** .23 *** .21 *** − .18 *** IS .38 *** .37 *** .11 *** .15 *** -0.03 IPS .11 * .00 0.06 0.06 -0.02 Note : * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. TS = Temptation-oriented strategies; GPS = Goal-oriented preventive strategies; IPS = Interpersonal preventive strategies; IS = Interventive strategies Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Appendixes.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviewers agreed at journal 08 Sep, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 05 Sep, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 28 Aug, 2025 Editor invited by journal 05 Aug, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 31 Jul, 2025 First submitted to journal 31 Jul, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7147774","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":513018969,"identity":"56ddeb42-7f6f-4d0d-bb49-70116a74d104","order_by":0,"name":"Danni Wang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Jimei University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Danni","middleName":"","lastName":"Wang","suffix":""},{"id":513018970,"identity":"a2bdc9ff-3e45-4a0c-b19b-75cb76624ebe","order_by":1,"name":"Jia Xu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Beijing Normal University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jia","middleName":"","lastName":"Xu","suffix":""},{"id":513018971,"identity":"d07f22f8-1532-4f5d-af1f-20711a489df3","order_by":2,"name":"Run-Sheng Pan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Beijing Normal University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Run-Sheng","middleName":"","lastName":"Pan","suffix":""},{"id":513018972,"identity":"37da59bd-8b53-4466-917c-1e0bb850e5ab","order_by":3,"name":"Zhi-Jin Hou","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Beijing Normal University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Zhi-Jin","middleName":"","lastName":"Hou","suffix":""},{"id":513018973,"identity":"5bf495d0-0e55-466b-8911-2bac09d73160","order_by":4,"name":"Yan Li","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Jimei University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yan","middleName":"","lastName":"Li","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-17 10:08:22","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7147774/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7147774/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":91160308,"identity":"31abd83c-efc0-4c97-86f2-a723692dd578","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-12 09:00:21","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":192780,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eEffortlessness in four self-control strategy categories compared between two groups with different levels of trait self-control\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNotes\u003c/em\u003e: TS = Temptation-oriented strategies; GPS = Goal-oriented preventive strategies; IPS = Interpersonal preventive strategies; IS = Interventive strategies; TSC = Trait self-control\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7147774/v1/a0378a669a88669d3b4ed415.jpeg"},{"id":91161217,"identity":"1bba1124-2546-4468-944f-8313b53c3043","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-12 09:16:22","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1011615,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7147774/v1/640e4379-4416-4b9d-a553-11d505aa05cc.pdf"},{"id":91160619,"identity":"654354d1-c146-4be5-a656-94bd29ae2029","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-12 09:08:21","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":18910,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Appendixes.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7147774/v1/f74a6ef4d33e413506bf1868.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Categorization, Measurement, and Effortlessness of Daily Self-Control Strategies","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eSelf-control is\u0026nbsp;a vital aspect of human functioning associated with outcomes in various life domains, including physical health, healthy behaviors, emotional problems, academic and work performance, interpersonal relationships, immoral and criminal behaviors, and well-being [1-4]. It refers to the ability to inhibit immediate desires or impulses to pursue long-term goals in self-control dilemmas (i.e., situations containing conflicts between immediate urges and long-term goals) [5-7]. Researchers have been exploring the mechanisms underlying self-control for several decades. Early research focused on the ability to apply executive function, volitional resources, or willpower to inhibit desire, using laboratory experiments to simulate spontaneous self-control processes. However, recent research has indicated that such mechanisms cannot explain how people maintain good self-control in daily life [8-10]; thus, interventions based on such mechanisms cannot produce acceptable effects [11].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsequently, recent research has shifted from focusing on the effortful inhibition of desire in the moment [6] to a broader process of self-control and more diverse self-control mechanisms, such as strategies related to self-control conflict identification [12,13], situation selection [14], distraction [14,15], and cognitive change [16]. However, the relevant constructs still need to be classified clearly via disciplined approaches. In addition, techniques for investigating people\u0026rsquo;s daily experiences have become increasingly popular in this field [17,18] and have highlighted the need for progress in the measurement of individuals\u0026rsquo; self-control processes in daily life. Therefore, the first aim of the present research was to clarify the categorization structure of self-control strategies and develop a relevant measurement that can assist in further empirical studies on the mechanisms of and interventions for daily self-control function.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUnderlying the shift in research focus is the rationale that effortful mechanisms are too resource-consuming to support continuous self-control in daily life, being better suited for explaining self-control failure rather than success [19], whereas the broader process of self-control, which includes effortless mechanisms [13,20], is expected to better interpret self-control success [19]. However, although how those with good self-control cope with temptations or pursue their goals is reasonable to investigate when searching for ways to improve self-control, the premise that the mechanisms that people with good self-control use to maintain function can work in the same manner as those with poorer self-control functions needs to be verified. Therefore, we need to determine whether the effortless mechanisms that benefit those with good self-control are similarly effortless for others. Thus, the second aim of the present research was to investigate whether different strategies have varying degrees of effortlessness and whether the experience of that effortlessness remains consistent across people with different levels of self-control.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp id=\"_Toc124549809\"\u003eClassifications and Measurements for Self-Control Strategies\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTwo theories classify self-control strategies by theorizing on the components and phases of the self-control process [13,20]. The process model of self-control [20] differentiates between situational and intrapsychic strategies on the basis of a cyclic four-phase (situation, attention, appraisal, and response) model of tempting impulse development. The situational strategies include situation modification and selection, which the theory describes as occurring in situation phases. The intrapsychic strategies include attentional deployment, cognitive change, and response modulation, which occur during the attention, appraisal, and response phases, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe preventive-interventive model (P-I model) of self-control [13] distinguishes between preventive strategies (i.e., the means by which people may proactively affect the downstream self-control process after a desire arises) and interventive strategies (i.e., the ad hoc control of desire) on the basis of a model with seven self-control components: preventive strategies, desire, conflict, motivation, volition, opportunity constraint, and behavior enactment. The P-I model describes self-control failure as behavior toward unwanted desires and proposes that self-control failure occurs when people have problematic desires that conflict with long-term goals and fail to identify the conflict (self-monitoring failure due to short-sightedness), as well as lack the motivation (motivational self-control failure) or volition (volitional self-control failure) to resist the problematic desire. Thus, the P-I model recommends the use of preventive strategies because, on the basis of its descriptions of the components of the self-control process, people could benefit from intervention self-control by avoiding tempting stimuli (controlling desire), installing goal reminders (identifying conflict), making commitments (securing motivation), training willpower (securing volition), and limiting available behavioral options (constraining the possibility to pursue temptation).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough the theoretical constructs of self-control strategies appear structured, their measurements are still lacking. Researchers have mostly used self-designed items [21,22] or selected or adapted relevant items from well-validated measurements [17,23] to assess certain types of self-control strategies. To the best of our knowledge, prior to the development of two self-control strategy scales (SCSSs) [24,25], no psychometrically sound measurements were available to evaluate the use of self-control strategies. Katzir et al. developed a hypothesized categorization structure for self-control strategies through a literature review and ultimately produced a scale with 38 items and eight self-control strategies divided into three categories: anticipatory control (situation selection, reward, punishment, and precommitment), the downregulation of temptation (distraction, cognitive change, and acceptance), and behavioral inhibition [24]. Milosevic et al. developed their initial scale items by directly applying the process model of self-control, resulting in a 34-item scale encompassing six self-control strategies, five of which were theoretically derived from the process model (situation selection, situation modification, attentional deployment, cognitive change, and response modulation) and one additional strategy, situation-people, which emerged empirically from the data [25].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp id=\"_Toc124549810\"\u003eConsiderations of the Validity of Classifying Self-Control Strategies\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough enlightening progress has been made in theories relevant to self-control strategies, empirical evidence is still lacking. Along with the emphasis on ecological validity in recent empirical studies, the lack of empirical testing of the theoretical classification structure or exploration of self-control behaviors occurring in daily life has created limitations in understanding and interpreting self-control phenomena. Existing categorizations of self-control strategies have been based on theoretical considerations of those strategies\u0026rsquo; characteristics rather than on phenomenological and practical considerations of people\u0026rsquo;s preferences for these strategies [13,20]. Although the development of SCSSs [24,25] has significantly promoted the evaluation of self-control strategy usage, its items were derived from self-control theories rather than observations of individuals\u0026rsquo; experiences. Therefore, whether people use all the strategies mentioned in the theories in daily life and whether other strategies never mentioned in the literature exist remain unknown. Therefore, a bottom-up approach is important for investigating people\u0026rsquo;s daily use of self-control strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe omission of bottom-up approaches not only impacts ecological validity but also raises questions regarding the extent to which current categorical frameworks adequately represent the underlying mechanisms governing strategic behavior. More evidence is also needed that demonstrates whether the daily use of self-control strategies spontaneously forms the categorization depicted by the theoretical types. In other words, investigation is needed into whether someone who prefers a certain strategy within a theoretical or hypothesized category would also prefer other strategies within the same category. Categorization based only on logical and theoretical conceptualization may not necessarily reflect the occurrence patterns of self-control strategies in daily life. However, the spontaneous occurrence of these strategies reflects their behavioral mechanisms. The self-control strategies that people select indicate their style of self-control behavior, with clear preferences over other strategies. Once these styles are placed into certain categories of behavioral patterns, such categorization reflects the essential causes underlying the relevant behaviors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe emphasize the behavioral mechanisms underlying the strategy categories because the research or interventions related to the effects of a certain category of self-control strategies should be based on the premise that the strategies constituting a category share the same or at least a similar occurrence mechanism. If self-control strategies are categorized in a manner that cannot reflect spontaneous behavioral patterns, the associations between strategy categories and relevant predictors/outcomes would be confusing, as people who prefer the same strategy category may have different levels of predictors and performance outcomes. Moreover, interventions related to certain strategy categories may be arduous or ineffective. Therefore, self-control strategies need to be categorized on the basis of data describing people\u0026rsquo;s preferences for strategies in daily life, as well as statistical techniques revealing individuals\u0026rsquo; behavioral patterns.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp id=\"_Toc124549811\"\u003eEffortlessness of Self-Control Strategies\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOn the basis of the recent trend of investigating self-control mechanisms other than effortful inhibition, researchers have paid more attention to effortless and effective mechanisms used to support stable, good self-control in daily life. Such mechanisms could be called effortless self-control [17,19,26] \u0026nbsp; or described as the \u0026ldquo;upstream process of self-control\u0026rdquo; [13].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth the process model of self-control and the P-I model describe the effortlessness of different types of self-control strategies, although such descriptions may be indefinite. The process model of self-control [20] posits that impulses become stronger over time; thus, situational strategies, namely, exerting control in the early phases of impulse development, would be easier and more effective. According to this notion, the effectiveness of situational self-control strategies is determined by their effortlessness, which can be defined as the need for less willpower to achieve self-control success while facing weaker impulses. Similarly, the P-I model [13] argues that interventive self-control (which occurs when temptation is present) gives room for self-control failure because successful self-control in the presence of temptation requires both sufficient motivational and volitional resources, both of which are effortful and energy-consuming. In contrast, preventive strategies enacted before temptation could effectively promote self-control by restricting the opportunities and conditions for pursuing desire and making the downstream process of self-control easier. In summary, the effortfulness of the self-control process causes its failure, in which the intensity of impulses and temptations [20], the difficulty of building self-control motivation, and the consumption of volitional resources [13] all contribute to this outcome. In contrast, the effortlessness of self-control strategies increases the likelihood of self-control success.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNotably, the word \u0026ldquo;effortlessness\u0026rdquo; appears to describe the differentiation between the mechanism of volitional inhibition and other mechanisms rather than people\u0026rsquo;s perceptions of difficulty/effortfulness when applying these mechanisms or their depletion afterward. Thus, little empirical evidence is available to conclusively prove whether the \u0026ldquo;effortless self-control\u0026rdquo; process is truly effortless. However, this issue is vital for practical work in the field because a truly effortless mechanism will be especially user friendly for people who have weak self-control functions (or lack self-control resources) in helping them improve their self-control abilities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp id=\"_Toc124549812\"\u003ePresent Research\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe present research aims to (a) categorize self-control strategies on the basis of people\u0026rsquo;s actual experiences and analyze their behavioral correlations and patterns and (b) conduct a preliminary investigation of the effortlessness of these strategies. To achieve these aims, three studies were designed. In Study 1, we used a qualitative research approach to investigate the self-control strategies people use in their daily lives and developed the preliminary version of the Self-Control Strategies Questionnaire (SCSQ). We also considered the relationships between the strategies extracted from individuals\u0026rsquo; experiences and the strategy types mentioned in the theories, elucidating the relationships between the two main theories on self-control strategies and facilitating our understanding of the self-control process. In Study 2, three independent samples were used to explore, optimize, and confirm the categorization structure of these strategies via exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. In addition, the psychometric properties of the SCSQ were tested. In Study 3, the effortlessness of each strategy category was measured and compared to determine whether effortless strategies could be beneficial for people who lack self-control resources and have difficulty applying effortful self-control mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe present research was conducted with Chinese university students (including undergraduate and graduate students). Self-control is a highly desirable yet challenging skill for university students to gain and maintain, and one challenge Chinese students face is rooted in China\u0026rsquo;s educational system. The National College Entrance Examination, known as \u0026ldquo;Gaokao,\u0026rdquo; is a significant watershed that differentiates between two kinds of lifestyles. During high school, students mostly operate under external control through all-day supervision from teachers, parents, and extracurricular organizations, with the sole goal of obtaining higher Gaokao scores and entering better universities. The excessive intervention from the outside world then immediately shifts to a self-driven mode of studying, during which students have no opportunity to become acclimated to the transition from \u0026ldquo;being controlled\u0026rdquo; to \u0026ldquo;controlling themselves.\u0026rdquo; The sudden increase in freedom and control over one\u0026rsquo;s own life, both mentally and economically, can substantially change a student\u0026rsquo;s mindset and behavioral patterns. Thus, university students will experience a sudden increase in temptations, creating risk factors for academic delay, deviant behaviors, and addictive behaviors such as alcoholism, mobile phone addiction, impulsive shopping, and unprotected sex; university students with good self-control are more likely to resist temptations and impulses and focus on their long-term goals instead of engaging in problematic behaviors [27,28]. Therefore, the self-control ability, processes, and performance of university students in China require further exploration.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Study 1","content":"\u003cp\u003eMethod\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp id=\"_Toc124549815\"\u003eParticipants and Procedure\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUniversity students were recruited through WeChat and QQ, two widely used Chinese social media platforms, and WJX\u0026rsquo;s participant recruitment service (www.wjx.cn). The participants were invited to complete an online questionnaire on the WJX survey platform to describe at least two self-control experiences. The researchers cleaned and coded the data during the data collection process to ensure data saturation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOnly questionnaires completed by full-time university students that contained valid information about the participants\u0026rsquo; self-control experiences were retained. A complete self-control experience was required to include a self-reported self-control strategy, corresponding goals, and relevant temptation(s). The criteria for invalid information were as follows: (1) the experience described did not present a situation of self-control (e.g., describing the goal without temptations, describing a way to overcome some difficulties that did not involve temptation, meaningless words); (2) the described successful experience of self-control was completely due to external factors (e.g., intervention from others, success resulting from realistic limitations) and did not involve individuals\u0026rsquo; spontaneous strategic actions or internal processes; and (3) the text description was vague and incomprehensible. Invalid information was not included in the subsequent analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA total of 280 people submitted the questionnaires, 97 of which were valid (47 men and 50 women). The average age of the valid participants was 22.15 years (range: 18\u0026ndash;40 years; standard deviation [\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e] = 3.66 years). The participants provided 202 self-control experiences, including 51 failure experiences, 135 success experiences, and 16 with no stated outcomes. Among these, 43 did not have self-control strategies, of which all failed. A total of 159 descriptions of self-control strategies were obtained from these reported experiences.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp id=\"_Toc124549816\"\u003eQuestionnaire\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndividuals\u0026rsquo; self-control experiences were collected via an open-ended online questionnaire. The questionnaire guidance was adapted from that used in previous research on classifying goals and temptations [29]. The questionnaire first provides definitions of self-control, goals, impulses, and temptations. Then, the participants were asked to describe two experiences of self-control success or failure, with specific instructions provided such as \u0026ldquo;Please make sure that each description contains the following information: (1) What did you intend to do or achieve?(goals) (2) What things/thoughts interfered with your pursuit of this goal? (tempts/impulses) (3) How did you cope with it?(self-control strategy, actual behavior)\u0026rdquo;. An example was then provided to help the participants better understand the questions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp id=\"_Toc124549817\"\u003eCoding Procedure\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConventional content analysis [30] and a procedure for reaching a consensus [31] were applied to analyze the textual data. Two researchers independently coded the text and reached a consensus on the codes and definitions of self-control strategies through multiple discussions. The coders first read the text repeatedly and then highlighted the keywords related to self-control strategies. Then, codes were derived from these local-language keywords by extracting the units of action for coping with temptation without overdescribing the details (e.g., various types of temptation). In this coding process, some strategy descriptions could be assigned to more than one code. For example, the text \u0026ldquo;(the goal is to study, the temptation is to play with my mobile phone) ... give my mobile phone to my mom and dad...\u0026rdquo; was coded as \u0026ldquo;eliminate temptation in advance\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;seek supervision from others.\u0026rdquo; Next, each code and its corresponding keywords were repeatedly read and compared to clarify the connotation and denotation of the codes. In this process, some codes were combined due to overlapping denotation (e.g., \u0026ldquo;eliminate temptation in advance\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;avoid the situation with temptations\u0026rdquo; were combined into \u0026ldquo;avoid or eliminate temptations in advance\u0026rdquo;), overgeneralized codes were reworded to narrow their scope (e.g., \u0026ldquo;habit formation\u0026rdquo; was revised to \u0026ldquo;fixed time lag\u0026rdquo;), and the code descriptions were formed. Next, the two coders discussed the code labels and descriptions to reach a consensus, ensuring that all the codes had clear descriptions and discriminability. Finally, the code labels and descriptions were polished to make them more suitable as questionnaire items in the second round of discussion. A consensus was reached on the items (26 items) constituting the initial version of the Self-Control Strategy Questionnaire (SCSQ). We did not extract subcategories or categories from the codes, as is done in most content analysis studies, because, in our design, we used factor analysis to reveal the categorization structure of the strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp id=\"_Toc124549818\"\u003eResults and Discussion\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 1 reports the codes, examples, and items (with polished codes and descriptions). A total of 26 strategy types were extracted.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough we did not extract subcategories or categories on the basis of the codes, we preliminarily compared the strategies found from the classification in the process model [20] and P-I model [13] to determine whether the theoretical classifications could cover the strategies people applied in their daily lives. We found that all strategy types were identified in the data.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoreover, this comparison allowed us to develop a better understanding of the relationship between the two theories. We found that most of the strategies could be simultaneously categorized under a specific type from each of the two theories. Thus, the classifications of the two theories are independent of each other. Furthermore, the process model is circular, meaning that each situation\u0026ndash;attention\u0026ndash;appraisal\u0026ndash;response process is iterative in the self-control process, whereas the P-I model is linear, describing a process from when a desire arises to the outcomes of self-control. Therefore, we determined that the four phases proposed by the process model could be nested in the P-I model\u0026rsquo;s dichotomy of the self-control process (preventive and intervention phases). The P-I model distinguishes five types of preventive strategies on the basis of the proposed components of the self-control process; however, it does not identify different types of interventive strategies. By interpreting the text about interventive strategies, we concluded that the situation\u0026ndash;attention\u0026ndash;appraisal\u0026ndash;response model provides a framework by which to classify the strategies that individuals use after temptation emerges.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Study 2","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn this study, we used three independent samples to explore (Sample 1), optimize (Sample 2), and verify (Sample 3) the categorization structure of self-control strategies and construct validity of the SCSQ. In addition, internal consistency reliability, criterion-related validity, and incremental validity were tested for the SCSQ (using Sample 1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreventive coping, daily self-control function, goal progress, and self-control outcomes (success and failure) were applied as validity criteria. If the theoretical classification is supported, preventative strategies should reflect the process of preventively assessing and taking action against temptation and self-control conflicts. Preventive coping (i.e., the effort an individual makes to address potential events to minimize the severity of the impact before negative events occur) [32] involves a psychological process similar to that of preventive actions. Therefore, preventive coping was hypothesized to have a significant positive correlation with preventive self-control strategies, which should be stronger than the correlation between preventive coping and interventive strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, both preventive and interventive strategies should be generally conducive to self-control. Therefore, daily self-control function, goal progress, and self-control success are hypothesized to have significant positive correlations with both preventive and interventive strategies, whereas self-control failure is hypothesized to have significant negative correlations with both strategy types.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn terms of incremental validity, we considered self-control strategy application as one mechanism of daily self-control function distinct from beneficial habits. Beneficial habits have been found to be associated with good self-control performance [33,34], and both beneficial habits and self-control strategies are regarded as mechanisms that differ from effortful inhibition. Therefore, we hypothesized that when beneficial habits are under control, self-control strategies will have a significant partial correlation with daily self-control.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp id=\"_Toc124549820\"\u003eMethod\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp id=\"_Toc124549821\"\u003eParticipants\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSample 1\u003c/strong\u003e. Participants were recruited through WeChat. Surveys were distributed and completed via the online survey platform WJX (www.wjx.cn). Among the initial 613 samples, 393 valid responses (73.54% female) were obtained. Invalid responses (i.e., nonuniversity student responses, overly short response times, and regular response patterns) were excluded. The final sample consisted of 104 men (26.46%) and 289 women (73.54%), including 280 undergraduate students (71.25%) and 113 graduate students (28.75%), with an average age of 21.9 years (range: 16\u0026ndash;35 years, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 2.59).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSamples 2 and 3\u003c/strong\u003e. With support from university staff, 2203 students were recruited from six universities in China. After excluding participants who had significantly shorter response times, regular response patterns (e.g., 1111 or 1234), or who failed to respond correctly to two validity test items (e.g., \u0026ldquo;I completed this questionnaire carefully\u0026rdquo;), a sample of 1621 valid responses was retained. The participants were 618 men (38.13%) and 1003 (61.87%) women, among whom the numbers of freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors were 647 (41.58%), 499 (30.78%), 311 (19.19%), and 124 (7.65%), respectively. Thirteen participants did not report their class year. The mean age of the participants was 19.92 years (range: 16\u0026ndash;25 years,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;SD\u003c/em\u003e = 1.41).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter obtaining the raw data, we split the sample at random into Samples 2 and 3. Sample 2 comprised 811 participants, including 310 men (38.22%) and 510 women (61.78%). The numbers of freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors were 341 (42.05%), 247 (30.46%), 155 (19.1%), and 61 (7.52%), respectively; seven participants (0.86%) did not report their class year. The mean age of Sample 2 was 19.93 years (range: 17\u0026ndash;25 years,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;SD\u003c/em\u003e = 1.46).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSample 3 comprised 810 participants, including 308 men (38.02%) and 502 women (61.98%). The numbers of freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors were 333 (41.11%), 252 (31.11%), 156 (19.26%), and 63 (7.78%), respectively; 6 participants (0.76%) did not report their class year. The mean age of the participants in sample three was 19.89 years (range: 16\u0026ndash;25 years,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;SD\u003c/em\u003e = 1.52).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp id=\"_Toc124549822\"\u003eMeasurements\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe focus of the questionnaire differed across participant sample groups. The survey for Sample 1 focused on individuals\u0026rsquo; general use of self-control behaviors. The participants in this sample completed a questionnaire consisting of the SCSQ, the Brief Self-Control Scale (BSCS), preventive coping, and beneficial habits. The questionnaires for Samples 2 and 3 focused on individuals\u0026rsquo; goal-pursuit processes and outcomes. The participants in these groups completed the SCSQ, BSCS, and a set of questionnaires investigating goal content, appraisal, and progress and self-control success and failure. However, only the SCSQ and BSCS measured in both samples and the goal progress, self-control success, and self-control failure measured in Sample 3 were used in the present study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSelf-Control Strategy Frequency.\u0026nbsp;The initial version of the SCSQ developed in Study 1 was applied to assess the daily use frequency of 26 self-control strategies (see Table 1 for items). Responses were rated on a 5-point scale (1 = never, 5 = always).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSelf-Control Function.\u0026nbsp;The Chinese version of the BSCS [35], which was developed from the 36-item original version and the 13-item brief version [4], was used to measure participants\u0026rsquo; daily self-control function. The participants were asked to respond to 11 items on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not me at all; 5 = exactly me). Higher total scores indicate stronger self-control ability on this single-factor scale. The brief and original scales have highly correlated scores (r = 0.91 for the Chinese version) [35] and share similar psychometric properties. In this study, the Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alphas were .79, .75, and .77 for the three samples, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreventive Coping. The preventive coping subscale of the Future-Oriented Coping Scale [36], which measures individual disposition toward preventive coping, was used in this study. The subscale contains eight items (e.g., \u0026ldquo;I prefer to save some money in case of need rather than spend it all\u0026rdquo;), rated via a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not me at all; 5 = exactly me), with higher scores indicating a stronger disposition toward preventive coping. In this study, Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha was .76.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBeneficial Habits.\u0026nbsp;Five items were designed to measure habit strength within five beneficial behavioral domains (dietary patterns, work-rest routines, physical exercise, learning/working, and consumption behavior), anchored in Verplanken and Orbell\u0026apos;s conceptualization of habits as \u0026ldquo;learned sequences of acts that have become automatic responses to specific cues, and are functional in obtaining certain goals or end-states\u0026rdquo; [37]. This conceptualization aligns with the semantic essence of the Chinese term \u0026ldquo;习惯\u0026rdquo; (x\u0026iacute;gu\u0026agrave;n, habit), authoritatively defined in the Cihai Dictionary as \u0026ldquo;a behavioral pattern consolidated through repetition or practice, developing into automatic behavioral demands.\u0026rdquo;[38] Since \u0026ldquo;习惯\u0026rdquo; is a high-frequency lexical item in daily discourse with minimal semantic ambiguity, it was directly incorporated into the item phrasing (see Appendix A for the Chinese and English versions of the items). The participants were asked to respond on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not me at all; 5 = exactly me), with higher scores indicating stronger habit strength. To ensure consistent and accurate comprehension by participants, the wording of the items was pretested and iteratively refined through cognitive interviews with 20 university students. In this study, Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha was .69.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGoal Progress. Participants\u0026rsquo; progress toward their current goals was clarified via two items adapted from Emmons\u0026rsquo; study [39]: \u0026ldquo;How satisfied are you with your progress toward this goal thus far?\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;To what extent have you met your target standards up to now?\u0026rdquo; Answers were provided on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not \u0026nbsp;at all, 5 = very much), with higher scores indicating better goal progress. In this study, Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha was .62.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSelf-Control Success.\u0026nbsp;Two items adapted from Wenzel et al.\u0026apos;s survey [40] were used to measure participants\u0026rsquo; degree of self-control success: \u0026ldquo;How successful have you been in resisting temptation or impulsiveness in implementing the above goals?\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;How much do you stick to a goal when its implementation/progress is hindered or disrupted by temptations or impulses?\u0026rdquo; Answers were provided with a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all; 5 = very much). In this study, Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha was .69.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSelf-Control Failure. Three items were designed on the basis of the P-I model\u0026rsquo;s definition of the three types of self-control failure [13]. The items \u0026ldquo;I did not realize that I was pursuing temptation until I found that I had already failed to control myself,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;I felt unmotivated to resist temptations and impulses and gave up self-control easily,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;I truly wanted to control myself and resist temptations and impulses, but I could not\u0026rdquo; were used to measure self-monitoring, motivational self-control, and volitional self-control failure, respectively. The participants were asked to report how often these situations occurred on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never, 5 = always). In this study, Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha was .87.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResults\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp id=\"_Toc124549824\"\u003eClassification of Self-Control Strategies\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn EFA was conducted to explore the structure of the self-control strategy. The correlation coefficients between the items and total scores ranged from .38 to .60, indicating that most of the items had good internal consistency. Bartlett\u0026rsquo;s spherical test was significant, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value was .87, and the measure of sampling adequacy (MSA) of all the items was greater than .80. These results indicate that the correlations between the items were sufficient for EFA.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFactors were extracted after the original questionnaire was rotated into 26 items via the PROMAX method. As a result, seven factors with characteristic roots greater than 1.0 were extracted, which explained 55.34% of the total variance. After items with factor loadings less than .40 or with cross-loadings were removed, a four-factor construct with 20 items was retained. These four factors accounted for 47.10% of the total variance. All the items had commonality scores higher than .39 except for two items (alternative satisfying and goal reminding, with commonality scores lower than 0.3). The context of these two items is important; therefore, they were retained. All item loadings were greater than .43 (Table 2).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOn the basis of the item content, the first factor contained four strategies, including one intervention strategy and three preventive strategies, all of which were related to resisting temptation. The second factor included seven goal-related preventive strategies. The third factor comprised six interventive strategies. The fourth factor comprises three preventive self-control strategies that rely on interpersonal interaction. These four factors were named temptation-oriented strategies, goal-oriented preventive strategies, interventive strategies, and interpersonal preventive strategies, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan id=\"_Toc124549825\"\u003eCategorization Optimization and Structure Validity\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor Sample 2, we tested the construct obtained from Study 1 (4 factors, 20 items) via CFA in Mplus. The results revealed an acceptable model fit (\u003cem\u003e\u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e= 385.076, \u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e = 164, RMSEA = 0.052, CFI = 0.897, TLI = 0.881, SRMR = 0.051). Modification indices indicated that the \u003cem\u003esubstitute satisfaction\u003c/em\u003e item cross-loaded on three factors and that there should be a correlation path between the residuals of Items 6 and 7. Considering that the content of those items focused on reward and punishment and had content characteristics similar to those of other items, it was reasonable to add a correlation between their residuals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTherefore, we deleted the \u003cem\u003esubstitute satisfaction\u003c/em\u003e item and tested the fit of the four-factor, 19-item model. The goodness-of-fit was improved (\u003cem\u003e\u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e= 289.075, \u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e = 146, RMSEA = 0.045, CFI = 0.929, TLI = 0.916, SRMR = 0.042), and the improvement was significant compared with that of the previous model (\u0026Delta;\u003cem\u003e\u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e= 96.001, \u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e = 18, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001). We then added the residual correlations between Items 6 and 7. The goodness-of-fit was further improved (\u003cem\u003e\u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e= 264.913, df = 145, RMSEA = 0.041, CFI = 0.940, TLI = 0.929, SRMR = 0.041), and the improvement was still significant (\u0026Delta;\u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e= 24.162, df= 1, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001). Finally, we tested the four-factor 19-item model with Sample 3, and the results revealed a good model fit (\u003cem\u003e\u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e= 254.841, \u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e = 145, RMSEA = 0.044, CFI = 0.918, TLI = 0.903, SRMR = 0.046), confirming that the four-factor 19-item model is suitable for use and has good structural validity (see Appendix B for the final version of the SCSQ).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp id=\"_Toc124549826\"\u003eCriterion-Related Validity\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA correlation analysis was conducted between the categories of self-control strategies and variables that were theoretically expected to be closely related (Table 3). All four categories were significantly correlated with preventive coping, whereas interpersonal preventive strategies had a lower correlation with preventive coping than the other three categories did. Thus, the hypotheses were partially supported.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, the temptation-oriented, goal-oriented, and intervention strategy categories were all positively correlated with daily self-control function (BSCS), goal progress, and self-control success and negatively correlated with self-control failure. These results support the hypotheses. In contrast, the interpersonal preventive strategy category had nonsignificant correlations with these variables, which led to the rejection of the relevant hypotheses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp id=\"_Toc124549827\"\u003eIncremental Validity\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs the interpersonal-related preventive strategy did not correlate with the BSCS or beneficial habits, we tested only the incremental validity of the other three self-control strategies. After controlling for beneficial habits, the coefficients of the partial correlations between temptation-oriented preventive, goal-oriented preventive, and interventive strategies and the BSCS were 0.10 (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.044), 0.21 (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001), and 0.27 (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001), respectively. These results indicate that the three types of self-control strategies have good incremental validity over beneficial habits for predicting self-control\u003cstrong\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDiscussion\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study identified four categories of self-control strategies: temptation-oriented strategies, goal-oriented preventive strategies, interventive strategies, and interpersonal preventive strategies. The final version of the SCSQ (see Appendix B), which demonstrated good psychometric properties, was also obtained.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eComparing the Identified Categorization with Theoretical Classifications\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe categorization found in the present study was more consistent (albeit not completely) with the P-I model than with the process model. Compared with the classification in the process model, the Chinese university students in this study rarely reported using attentional deployment strategies, and relevant items were deleted from the EFA. The cognitive change and response modulation strategies transcended single-category classification. The situation modification and selection strategies fall into the same category but this category also include a strategy for response modulation (eliminating existing temptations). These results indicate that the behavioral patterns in the self-control strategies of Chinese university students were inconsistent with the process model\u0026rsquo;s classification. A possible explanation is that the process model contains spontaneous internal components of the self-control process, whereas the SCSQ focuses more on strategic or planned external actions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCompared with the P-I model, the interventive strategies described in the model were found to make up a unique category in the SCSQ; however, the preventive strategies were divided into three subtypes characterized by stimuli/temptation control (temptation-oriented strategies), goal management (goal-oriented preventive strategies), and interpersonal processes (interpersonal preventive strategies). We adopted the concepts of preventive and interventive strategies proposed by the P-I model to name the identified strategy categories to better understand the characteristics of each category.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe distinction between temptation-oriented and goal-oriented strategies reflects the dual-process framework within self-control theories. Self-control is a process involving conflicting choices between long-term goals and short-term temptations, and successful self-control requires individuals to approach their goals while avoiding temptation. Both the positive\u0026ndash;negative feedback process proposed by cybernetics [5] and the cool\u0026ndash;hot systems proposed by the dual-mode theories of self-regulation [41] suggest that the behaviors of reaching goals versus avoiding temptation are based on different psychological mechanisms.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterpersonal preventive strategies have never been presented as a unique strategy category in extant theories. Unlike the other strategies, this category relies on the participation of other people. This can take diverse forms, including supervision, companionship, and social evaluation pressure. Compared with other strategies, interpersonal strategies have unique characteristics. In a narrow sense, self-control means that an individual is both the subject and the object of the control behavior, which forms a closed system of functioning. However, interpersonal preventive strategies break the boundaries of this closed system and include others\u0026apos; behaviors and evaluations in interpersonal interactions in the self-control process. Thus, the choices, triggers, and results of interpersonal preventive strategies are likely to differ from those of other self-control strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eComparing the identified categories with the SCSS structure\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCompared with the SCSS [24], the degree of abstraction of the items on the SCSQ differed. This could be because of differences in the measurement development procedures. The initial items of the SCSS were designed on the basis of a theoretical structure and concepts, whereas those of the SCSQ were extracted from individuals\u0026rsquo; descriptions of their personal self-control experiences. Therefore, on the SCSS, several items with similar expressions were applied to repeatedly measure each strategy (i.e., repeated measurement), and nine strategies were included (situation selection, stimulus control, punishment, reward, precommitment, distraction, cognitive change, acceptance, and behavioral inhibition). In contrast, each item on the SCSQ describes one type of strategy-related behavior. To contain the variety of strategies extracted from the qualitative study and keep the questionnaire short and brief, the SCSQ may sacrifice the accuracy of repeated measurements for behaviors. However, the SCSQ comprises more diverse and detailed behaviors and extracts factors that describe self-control mechanisms rather than strategy types. For example, the cognitive change strategy on the SCSS was described as imagining consequences, constructing meanings, and making positive expectations on the SCSQ, and the behavioral inhibition on the SCSS was described as suppressing impulses, putting off indulgences, eliminating existing temptations, and encouraging oneself on the SCSQ. In addition, the SCSS includes items describing difficulties or performance of self-control (e.g., \u0026ldquo;When I desire something that is not good for me, I have difficulty resisting it\u0026rdquo;), whereas the items of the SCSQ comprise mere descriptions of certain behaviors for which participants are asked to report how frequently they display them in their daily lives. Therefore, the two measurements may play different roles in research on self-control strategies, and the relationship between them should be further investigated in future research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCharacteristics of the self-control strategies\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth preventive and interventive strategies can rely on experiential anticipation. We found that preventive and interventive strategies had similar positive correlations with preventive coping, which partially rejected the hypothesis. Accordingly, we clarified that implementation was not the starting point of one strategy. Instead, an interventive strategy implemented after a temptation appears can be planned before. Individuals can learn which strategies are more effective for them from their daily experiences. For individuals who prefer interventive strategies, the triggering conditions and operational processes of these strategies may have already been stored in their memory before they encountered self-control conflicts. They can anticipate future self-control conflicts, prepare themselves by activating strategy schemas, and remain continuously sensitive to strategy triggers. In this case, the tendency to anticipate future self-control conflicts is associated with not only more preventive strategies but also interventive strategies. Therefore, while a classification based on implementation timing is valid, it does not imply a fundamental distinction between preventive and interventive strategies in their reliance on experience-based anticipatory mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterpersonal preventive strategies were found to be weakly positively correlated with preventive coping and not correlated with self-control function or self-control successes and failures, suggesting that this type of strategy might be associated with both promoting self-control function and lacking self-control resources. Fitzsimons and Finkel proposed a self-regulatory outsourcing effect that could help in understanding interpersonal preventive strategies [42]. They reported that when individuals realize that they can receive help or support from others when pursuing a goal, they reduce their efforts toward achieving it. They also proposed that the outsourcing effect was more prominent in individuals who had insufficient self-regulatory resources. Conversely, others\u0026rsquo; involvement and support can be used to save self-control resources. In summary, interpersonal preventive strategies may be preferred by individuals with limited self-control resources or who want to conserve resources to achieve self-control. However, future research should be conducted to further investigate the effectiveness of this type of strategy with respect to different goals and people with varying degrees of self-control.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Study 3","content":"\u003cp\u003eGillebaart and de Ridder proposed that individuals with good self-control prefer effortless self-control strategies in daily life, including the avoidance of self-control conflicts through habitual behavior and the efficient downregulation of conflicts [19]. The models of self-control strategies were similarly focused on mechanisms that differ from those of effortful inhibition. They emphasized that good self-control should not necessarily rely on effortful inhibition or volitional resources, as most researchers have focused on in this field. However, for practical considerations, research questions should examine not only the strategies that individuals with good self-control use in their daily lives but also whether and how people with weak self-control can learn to use these strategies and whether these strategies are experienced as effortlessly and effectively by people with different levels of self-control.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTherefore, this study was guided by the question of whether an effortless self-control strategy exists for individuals with weak self-control. If strategies or self-control mechanisms other than effortful inhibition are indeed more effortless than the traditionally emphasized mechanisms that rely on volitional resources are, they would have a great impact on people who lack volitional resources. Therefore, we measured and compared the effortlessness of four self-control strategy categories by differentiating among individuals\u0026rsquo; degrees of self-control, providing prima facie results for this question.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMethod\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study used the same sample as Sample 3 in Study 2. The participants were asked to report the difficulties they experienced when using each strategy on the SCSQ in their daily lives, rated on a 5-point scale (1 = not difficult at all, 5 = extremely difficult). The word \u0026ldquo;difficulty\u0026rdquo; was described in the scale instruction as \u0026ldquo;the degree to which you need to make volitional or mental efforts in the process of implementing the strategy.\u0026rdquo; The average scores for the four strategy categories were calculated. In this study, the Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alphas were .72, .78, .86, and .71 for the four subscales, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA mixed-design ANOVA was applied, with the self-control function transformed into a dichotomous independent variable, self-control categories as another independent variable, and effortlessness scores as the dependent variable. A standardized score of zero was used as the cutoff value to divide the high- and low-level self-control groups. The low-level group included 420 participants, coded 0 , and the high-level group included 390 participants, coded 1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp id=\"_Toc124549831\"\u003eResults\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMauchly\u0026rsquo;s test of sphericity revealed that the within-group variables (strategy categories) did not conform to sphericity; therefore, the Greenhouse\u0026ndash;Geisser correction was used. The four strategy categories significantly differed in terms of effortlessness (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2.79) = 7.25, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001, \u0026eta;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = .009). The implementation difficulties (Figure 1) ranked from high to low were the temptation-oriented, goal-oriented preventive, interpersonal preventive, and interventive strategies. A Bonferonni post hoc test revealed no significant difference between temptation-oriented and goal-oriented preventive strategies (\u0026Delta;\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 0.03, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .097), goal-oriented preventive and interpersonal preventive strategies (\u0026Delta;\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 0.04, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .086), or interpersonal preventive and interventive strategies (\u0026Delta;\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 0.03, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .298). The effortlessness scores (i.e., lower implementation difficulties) of the temptation-oriented (\u0026Delta;\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 0.10, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .001) and goal-oriented preventive strategies (\u0026Delta;\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 0.07, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .002) were significantly lower than those of the interventive strategy (i.e., the interventive strategy was easier to implement). The effortlessness of the temptation-oriented strategy was significantly lower than that of the interpersonal preventive strategy (\u0026Delta;\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 0.07, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .005). The self-control function had a significant effect on strategy effortlessness, with a large effect size (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1) = 87.49, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001, \u0026eta;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = .098). Strategies were more difficult for those with low-level self-control functions than for those with high-level self-control functions. The interaction effect was not significant (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2.79) = 0.52, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .655, \u0026eta;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = .001), indicating that the differences in effortlessness among strategy categories were not influenced by individual self-control functions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp id=\"_Toc124549832\"\u003eDiscussion\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings of Study 3 suggest that the effortlessness of self-control strategies is largely influenced by the strategy executants\u0026rsquo; self-control function. People with lower self-control tend to perceive more mental difficulties in using all types of strategies, including those that are theoretically regarded as noninhibitive strategies. In addition, we found that intervention strategies were more effortless than preventive strategies for individuals with both high and low self-control, which contradicts the theoretical views on effortless self-control.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese results can be interpreted in two ways. First, the effortlessness of a strategy may be derived from the automation of behaviors [43,44] rather than certain behavioral procedures. Accordingly, effortlessness is not an inherent feature of a strategy but an outcome of strategy implementation relative to the executors\u0026rsquo; characteristics. For people with low self-control functions, the effortless strategies used by individuals who are successful at implementing self-control are effortful and difficult to implement because they have not yet automized them.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, some noninhibitive strategies may be as resource-consuming as inhibitive strategies. Preventive or situational strategies are considered effortless because they are implemented when impulses or temptations have not yet manifested or are still weak. Thus, individuals do not need to recruit many volitional resources to maintain self-control. However, the planning and triggering of these strategies may consume other, or even the same, types of mental resources, such as learning from past experiences, anticipating possible future self-control dilemmas, determining how to restrict oneself from pursuing temptations in anticipated self-control dilemmas, and initiating such strategic preventive behaviors (e.g., throwing away junk food before craving it) at the moment. In this view, people with higher self-control functions may perceive less difficulty in implementing these strategies because they have more mental resources for self-control, as proposed by the strength model [45]. Moreover, we regard these two possibilities as being compatible.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"General Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe use of self-control strategies is not a completely new concept in the field. We consider such strategies to be the behavioral reflection of the inner mechanisms of one\u0026rsquo;s self-control process. From this perspective, the categorization of self-control strategies should be based on different inner mechanisms that can be used to explain individual differences rather than on apparent characteristics of behaviors. In this research, we categorized self-control strategies using a design combining bottom-up and top-down approaches to ensure that the results were highly comparable to the actual phenomenon of Chinese university students\u0026rsquo; self-control and, simultaneously, comprehensible and communicable with respect to existing theories. As a result, we identified four categories of self-control strategies: temptation-oriented strategies, goal-oriented preventive strategies, interventive strategies, and interpersonal preventive strategies. In addition, we developed the SCSQ and tested its psychometric properties.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTheoretical Implications\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eApart from the theoretical thinking expounded in the discussion sections above, including the relationship between the two extant models of self-control strategies, the latent preventive characteristic of the interventive strategies, and the peculiarity of the interpersonal preventive strategies and their possible mechanism, we would also like to discuss the dimensions underlying the categorization of self-control strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThree relatively independent dimensions were indicated on the basis of the identified categories. The first dimension is consistent with the P-I model\u0026rsquo;s preventive-interventive dichotomy. This dimension focuses on the behavioral aspects within the self-control process, as it distinguishes between strategy implementation that occurs before or after temptation appears. The second dimension is consistent with the dual-system models of self-regulation [41,46,47], which distinguish between the rational goal-approach and experimental temptation-approach subprocesses. The third dimension distinguishes between strategies on the basis of the intrapersonal\u0026ndash;interpersonal dichotomy, echoing a new trend in the self-control field regarding the interpersonal process of self-control (e.g., transactive goal dynamics) [42]. The three dimensions are independent of each other because any strategy can be defined by them concurrently. In addition, since the categorization identified in the present study reflects the self-control mechanisms and internal causes of individual differences in self-control performance, the dimensions will help in understanding these mechanisms and explaining individual differences in a deeper and clearer way.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFuture Application of the SCSQ\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe SCSQ can be used in both research and practice. The SCSQ\u0026rsquo;s structure and other psychometric properties were tested in the present study, which demonstrated that the wording of the items could be understood coherently and that the categorization of relevant strategies was evidence-based and scientific. The SCSQ can be used in research that focuses on understanding the process of self-control or exploring methods to improve people\u0026rsquo;s self-control function. For example, researchers could investigate the effects of these strategies on self-control performance and explore situations in which certain types of strategies are most effective.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, SCSQ has considerable potential for practical applications. More than one participant provided feedback that they were inspired by the questionnaire because some strategies were completely new to them, and they wanted to try using them on a regular basis. Although it has not been tested in actual use, we consider that the SCSQ could be applied in psychological counseling, career guidance, and mental health courses for self-evaluating strategy usage, learning new strategies, and structurally discussing and making detailed action plans for strategic self-control for specific goals. Moreover, empirical research based on the SCSQ could be conducive to its practical application. For example, if a certain category of strategies is found to be more effective for a certain type of goal than others are, more explicit practical suggestions could be provided.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLimitations and Future Research\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study has several limitations that should be noted. First, the retrospective reporting design may have led to a systematic bias in evaluating strategy effortlessness. According to construal level theory [48,49], temporal distance influences how individuals represent events in their minds and further changes their evaluations of the events. When temporal distance increases, individuals tend to represent events with more abstract and rational features (high construal level) and fewer concrete and sensory details (low construal level). The feeling of effortlessness in the strategy implementation process is a detailed sensory feature of these strategies. The large temporal distance caused by retrospective reporting may have resulted in deficiencies in the representation of such features. Therefore, future research could investigate the strategy\u0026rsquo;s effortlessness through research designs that include instant evaluation techniques, such as daily diary studies and experience sampling methods.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, because the present data were collected before the publication of the SCSS [24], we could not investigate the relationship between the SCSS and SCSQ. It would be interesting to examine whether the SCSS could validly depict the strategy use patterns of Chinese students (for which a revised Chinese version of the SCSS should be created) and compare the applicability of the two measurements in research and practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, although not reported in this article, we have already verified the structure of the SCSQ in the working population. To date, both college students and the working population appear to use similar self-control strategies in general and demonstrate configurational homogeneity in strategy categorization. However, further evidence is needed to illustrate the application scope of the SCSQ, including among people of different age groups and with different cultural backgrounds.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate:\u0026nbsp;The ethical conduct of this research aligned with the guidelines of the Code of Ethics for Clinical and Counseling Psychology, applicable national regulatory requirements, and the principles set forth in the Declaration of Helsinki. The study design was approved by the ethics review board of Beijing Normal University (IRB No. 202009020034) on Sep. 2\u003csup\u003end\u003c/sup\u003e, 2020. Informed consent to participate was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsent for publication: Informed consent to publish was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript for publication.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAvailability of data and materials:\u0026nbsp;The data that support the findings of this study are available from the correspondence author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCompeting interests: The authors have no competing interests to declare.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFunding: This work was funded by the Social Science Foundation of Fujian Province (project approval no. FJ2023C017).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAuthors\u0026apos; contributions: D.W. and Z-J. H. conceived and designed the study. D.W., J. X., and R-S. P. collected and analyzed the data and wrote the main manuscript text. D. W. prepared all the tables and figures. D.W.and Z-J. H. reviewed and revised the manuscript. D.W. and Y. L. polished the language and formatting.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcknowledgements: We would like to provide our appreciation to all the respondents in this study.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDuckworth AL, Seligman MEP. Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychol Sci. 2005;16:939\u0026ndash;44.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKeller C, Hartmann C, Siegrist M. The association between dispositional self-control and longitudinal changes in eating behaviors, diet quality, and BMI. Psychol Health. 2016;31(11):1311\u0026ndash;27.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWill CA, Ehrlinger J, Alquist JL, Conlon KE, Baumeister RF, Schatschneider C, et al. High trait self-control predicts positive health behaviors and success in weight loss. J Health Psychol. 2011;16:750\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTangney JP, Baumeister RF, Boone AL. High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. J Pers. 2004;72:271\u0026ndash;324.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarver CS, Scheier MF. Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for personality-social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychol Bull. 1982;92:111\u0026ndash;35.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFujita K. On Conceptualizing Self-Control as More Than the Effortful Inhibition of Impulses. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2011;15(4):352\u0026ndash;66.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVohs KD, Baumeister RF. Understanding self-regulation: An introduction. In: Baumeister RF, Vohs KD, editors. Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory, and Application. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2004. pp. 3\u0026ndash;10.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDewall CN, Baumeister RF, Stillman TF, Gailliot MT. Violence restrained: effects of self-regulation and its depletion on aggression. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2007;43(1):62\u0026ndash;76.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eImhoff R, Schmidt AF, Gerstenberg F. Exploring the interplay of trait self-control and ego depletion: Empirical evidence for ironic effects. Eur J Pers. 2014;28(5):413\u0026ndash;24.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSaunders B, Milyavskaya M, Etz A, Randles D, Inzlicht M. Reported self-control is not meaningfully associated with inhibition-related executive function: A Bayesian analysis. Collabra: Psychol. 2018;4(1):39.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFriese M, Frankenbach J, Job V, Loschelder DD. Does Self-Control Training Improve Self-Control? A Meta-Analysis. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2017;12(6):1077\u0026ndash;99.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ede Ridder D, Kroese F, Gillebaart M. Whatever happened to self-control? A proposal for integrating notions from trait self-control studies into state self-control research. Motiv Sci. 2018;4(1):39\u0026ndash;49.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHofmann W, Kotabe H. A general model of preventive and interventive self-control. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2012;6(10):707\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMagen E, Gross JJ. Getting our act together: Toward a general model of self-control. In: Hassin R, Ochsner H, Trope Y, editors. Self control in society, mind, and brain. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010. pp. 335\u0026ndash;53.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFriese M, Bargas-Avila J, Hofmann W, Wiers RW. Here\u0026rsquo;s looking at you, bud: Alcohol-related memory structures predict eye movements for social drinkers with low executive control. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2010;1:143\u0026ndash;51.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMyrseth KOR, Fishbach A, Self-Control. A Function of Knowing When and How to Exercise Restraint. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2009;18:247\u0026ndash;52.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilliamson LZ, Wilkowski BM. Nipping temptation in the bud: Examining strategic self-control in daily life. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2020;46:961\u0026ndash;75.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWenzel M, Kubiak T, Conner TS. Self-control in daily life: How affect may boost or sabotage efforts at self-control. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2016;7:195\u0026ndash;203.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGillebaart M, de Ridder DTD. Effortless self-control: A novel perspective on response conflict strategies in trait self-control. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2015;9:88\u0026ndash;99.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDuckworth AL, Gendler TS, Gross JJ. Situational strategies for self-control. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2016;11(1):35\u0026ndash;55.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWebb TL, Lindquist KA, Jones K, Avishai A, Sheeran P. Situation selection is a particularly effective emotion regulation strategy for people who need help regulating their emotions. Cogn Emot. 2017;32:231\u0026ndash;48.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTroll ES, Venz L, Weitzenegger F, Loschelder DD. Working from home during the covid-19 crisis: How self-control strategies elucidate employees' job performance. Appl Psychol. 2021;71:853\u0026ndash;80.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNielsen KS, Gwozdz W, De Ridder D. Unraveling the relationship between trait self-control and subjective well-being: The mediating role of four self-control strategies. Front Psychol. 2019;10:706.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKatzir M, Baldwin M, Werner KM, Hofmann W. Moving beyond inhibition: Capturing a broader scope of the self-control construct with the Self-Control Strategy Scale (SCSS). J Pers Assess. 2021;103(6):762\u0026ndash;76.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMilosevic M, Converse PD, Moon NA, Fedele D, Mcferran MW, Al-Qallawi S. The process model of self-control: Developing a measure of self‐control strategies. Appl Psychol-Int Rev. 2025. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1111/apps.12566\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/apps.12566\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAinslie G. Willpower with and without effort. Behav Brain Sci. 2021;44:1\u0026ndash;57.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCai K. The causes and control of university students\u0026rsquo; deviant behavior. J Southwest Univ Nationalities. 2002;23(5):248\u0026ndash;50.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang C, Zhai L, Wang C. Mediating effect of self-control on the relationship between mobile phone dependence and academic procrastination in college students. China J Health Psychol. 2017;25:145\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVeilleux JC, Hill MA, Skinner KD, Pollert GA, Spero KD, Baker DE. Self-control failure scenarios in daily life: Developing a taxonomy of goals and temptations. Motiv Emot. 2018;42:653\u0026ndash;70.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277\u0026ndash;88.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang D, Tian L, Hou ZJ, Zhou JP, Zhao A, Zhang H. The development of an interpersonal stressors scale: Identifying self-imposed and other-imposed interpersonal stressors. Psychol Rep. 2021;124:2417\u0026ndash;42.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHu Y, Gan Y. Future-oriented coping and job hunting among college students. Psychol Rec. 2011;61:253\u0026ndash;68.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ede Ridder D, Lensvelt-Mulders G, Finkenauer C, Stok M, Baumeister RF. Taking stock of self-control: A meta-analysis of how trait self-control relates to a wide range of behaviors. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2012;16:76\u0026ndash;99.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGalla BM, Duckworth AL. More than resisting temptation: Beneficial habits mediate the relationship between self-control and positive life outcomes. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2015;109:508\u0026ndash;25.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnger A, Bi C, Xiao Y, Ybarra O. The revising of the Tangney Self-Control Scale for Chinese students. PsyCh J. 2016;5:101\u0026ndash;16.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGan Y, Yang M, Zhou Y, Zhang Y. The two-factor structure of future-oriented coping and its mediating role in student engagement. Pers Individ Differ. 2007;43(4):851\u0026ndash;63.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVerplanken B, Orbell S. Reflections on past behavior: A self-report index of habit strength. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2003;33:1313\u0026ndash;30.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOnline Cihai Dictionary. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.cihai.com.cn\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.cihai.com.cn\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEmmons RA. Personal strivings: An approach to personality and subjective well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;5:1058\u0026ndash;68.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWenzel M, Kubiak T, Conner TS. Self-control in daily life: How affect may boost or sabotage efforts at self-control. Soc Psychol Pers Sci. 2016;7:195\u0026ndash;203.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMetcalfe J, Mischel W. A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychol Rev. 1999;106:3\u0026ndash;19.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFitzsimons GM, Finkel EJ, Vandellen MR. Transactive goal dynamics. Psychol Rev. 2015;122(4):648\u0026ndash;73.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFishbach A, Friedman RS, Kruglanski AW. Leading us not unto temptation: Momentary allurements elicit overriding goal activation. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;84:296\u0026ndash;309.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHofmann W, Friese M, Schmeichel BJ, Baddeley AD. Working memory and self-regulation. In: Vohs KD, Baumeister RF, editors. The Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory, and Applications. Volume 2. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2011. pp. 204\u0026ndash;26.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaumeister RF, Bratslavsky E, Muraven M, Tice DM. Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;74(5):1252\u0026ndash;65.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEpstein S. Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. Am Psychol. 1994;49:709\u0026ndash;24.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStrack F, Deutsch R. Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2004;8:220\u0026ndash;47.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTrope Y, Liberman N. Temporal construal and time-dependent changes in preference. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000;79:876\u0026ndash;89.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTrope Y, Liberman N. Construal Level Theory. In: Van Lange PAM, Kruglanski AW, Higgins ET, editors. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2012. pp. 118\u0026ndash;35.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCodes of self-control strategies and the SCSQ items\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCode\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDescription\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eItem\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAvoiding or eliminating temptations in advance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAvoid situations present with temptations, choose situations without temptations, or eliminate temptations from the situations before distractions are made.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTemptation avoidance: Avoid tempting situations in advance or refuse, remove, or isolate temptations.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSetting goal reminder\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSet a goal reminder in advance to promote the identification of goal-desire conflict.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSetting goal reminder: Use external objects to remind yourself to do what should be done.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProgress recording\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePeriodically record and review progress toward the goal.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProgress management: Record and regularly review progress toward goals.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaking goal commitment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncrease the motivation and probability of goal implementation by informing others of the goals.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGoal commitment: Tell people about your goals.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOptimizing task structure or context\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMake the goal easier to execute and more motivating by task decomposition, planning, criteria clarification, method/process clarification, etc.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTask optimizing: Make the goal-related behaviors more fun, accessible, or motivating.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFixing time slot\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePromote self-control by fixing the time slot for goal implementation.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFixing time: Choose a fixed time every day/week/month to do things related to the goal.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSetting up a punishment system\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSet up punishment rules in advance in response to self-control failure, with an attempt to increase the motivation of doing the target behavior or resisting temptations.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSetting up a punishment system: Set up a punishment system in advance for violating goals or plans.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSetting up a reward system\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSet up a reward system in advance to increase the motivation to do the target behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSetting up a reward system: Set up a reward system in advance for resisting temptations or completing plans.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRestricting temptations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNot to eliminate temptations, but to pre-set the frequency, time duration, and intensity of temptation-pursuing behaviors, with an effect of goal promotion.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRestricting temptation: Restrict the frequency, time duration, and intensity of indulgent behaviors.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWillpower training\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnhance the daily training of willpower.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWillpower training: Exercise self-control in daily life.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResource reserving\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncrease the willpower to resist temptation by putting adequate energy and time into reservation.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResource reserving: Reserve adequate time/energy to do what should be done.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCreating the opportunity to pursue the goals\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMake the target behavior easier to achieve through the selection or adjustment of physical, societal, and/or somatic environment (which does not aim at the temptation itself).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCreating opportunity: Make the goal-related behavior more likely to be done by adjusting the environment or your state without changing the target tasks.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLimiting the chances of chasing after temptations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLimit the chances or possibilities of pursuing temptations under certain circumstances through the selection or adjustment of physical, societal, and/or somatic environment (not by eliminating the temptations directly).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRestricting opportunity: Prelimit the chance or possibility of engaging in indulgent behaviors.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSeeking supervision\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvite other people to monitor goal-related behaviors.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSeeking supervision: Invite others to supervise you.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFinding partners to limit the behaviors of pursuing temptations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLimit the possibility of engaging in unwanted behaviors by promising to pursue goals together with other people.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFinding partner: Find partners with the same goals as yours and pursue the goals together.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIsolating or eliminating the temptations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIsolate or eliminate the temptation after it arises, with an attempt to weaken or remove the distraction in certain contexts (Not by directly controlling the behavior of pursuing temptation).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEliminating temptation: When temptation arises, remove or stay away from it.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDistracting oneself from temptations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDistract oneself from the present temptation by doing other things.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDistraction: Distract attention from present temptations.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eShifting attention to ignore the pain\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eShift attention away from the painful experience when wanting to stop in the process of implementing target behaviors.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIgnoring discomfort: Distract attention from the discomfort caused by the goal-related behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAssuming positive outcomes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn the face of temptations, imagine what would happen (positive outcomes) if one persists in the goals.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePositive expectations: Envision positive outcomes of resisting temptation and sticking to the goals when it is difficult to persist in the goals.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAssuming negative outcomes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn the face of temptations, imagine what would happen (negative outcome) if one pursues satisfaction from temptation and does not implement the goals.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImagining consequences: Imagine the negative consequences of not being able to resist the temptation when it is difficult to persist in the goals.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaking sense\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn the face of temptation, estimate the value of the goals, and construct the meaning behind the target behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstructing meaning: When it is difficult to persist, find reasons for the goal-related behaviors.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-encouraging\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn the face of temptation, increase the motivation to resist temptation through positive cognition from self-dialogue or self-affirmation.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-encouragement: Encourage yourself when it is difficult to persist in the goals.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRepressing urges\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAsk oneself to directly suppress the impulses to chase after temptation.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSuppressing impulses: When certain desires or thoughts that hinder the goals appear, directly ask yourself to suppress them.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePutting off indulgence/\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGrandma\u0026rsquo;s Law\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn the face of temptation, postpone the responding actions, which can be accompanied by a self-commitment of \u0026ldquo;target behavior first, temptation later.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePostpone indulgence: When you want to pursue temptations, ask yourself to do it later.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSubstitute satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn the face of temptation, choose the things or actions that have smaller conflicts with the goals.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSubstitute satisfaction: Satisfy the desire in a way that is less in conflict with the goals.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdjusting goal criteria\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLower the criteria to make the goals easier and more motivating, thus making self-control more likely to succeed.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGoal adjustments: When it is difficult to persist in the goals, make the goals easier to execute or more motivating.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFactor loading for exploratory factor analysis of the SCSQ\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSCSQ Items\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFactors\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFactor 1: Temptation-Oriented Strategies\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTemptation avoidance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.86\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEliminating temptation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.70\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRestricting opportunity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.63\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRestricting temptation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.59\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFactor 2: Goal-Oriented Preventive Strategies\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTask optimizing\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.70\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSetting up a reward system\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.66\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSetting up a punishment system\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.60\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProgress management\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.59\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFixing time\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.53\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSetting goal reminder\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.45\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSubstitute satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.44\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFactor 3: Interventive Strategies\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImagining consequences\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.77\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstructing meaning\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.70\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePositive expectations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.64\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-encouragement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.52\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSuppressing impulses\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.44\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePostpone indulgence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.43\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFactor 4: Interpersonal Preventive Strategies\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSeeking supervision\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.82\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFinding partner\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.80\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGoal Commitment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.63\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote:\u003c/em\u003e Complete item wordings are omitted for brevity and can be seen in Table 1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCriteria-related validity of the SCSQ\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStrategy Type\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePreventive Coping\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-Control Function\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGoal Progress\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-Control Success\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-Control Failure\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.35\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.26\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.12\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.12\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.09\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGPS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.32\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.32\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.23\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.21\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.18\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.38\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.37\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.11\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.15\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIPS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.11\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003ctfoot\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e: \u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e*\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05;\u003c/em\u003e \u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e**\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01;\u003c/em\u003e \u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e***\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003eTS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Temptation-oriented strategies; GPS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Goal-oriented preventive strategies; IPS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Interpersonal preventive strategies; IS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Interventive strategies\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tfoot\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"self-control strategies questionnaire, effortless self-control, strategy effortlessness, Chinese university students","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7147774/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7147774/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBackground\u003c/strong\u003eRecent research on self-control has shifted in focus from the effortful inhibition of desire to the broader process and more effortless mechanisms of self-control. With this trend, self-control strategies have received increasing attention from researchers.However, the categorization and measurement of self-control strategies remains inadequate for balancing theoretical and ecological validity, especially for the Chinese context; thus, a valid conceptual basis and a deeper understanding of the inherent properties of self-control strategies are lacking for further exploration of the effects of, and interventions for, different strategy types.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods\u003c/strong\u003e The present research established a taxonomy of \u0026nbsp;self-control strategies by collecting and coding people’s daily experiences (Study 1) and assessed the psychometric properties of both this classification framework and its corresponding measurement tool across three independent samples (Study 2). Considering the strategy intervention, the study also preliminarily compared the degree of effortlessness among different strategies in an attempt to clarify whether the degree of effortlessness was equal for individuals with different levels of self-control (Study 3).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults\u003c/strong\u003e Results established a four-category taxonomy of self-control strategies , synthesizing two foundational models (the P-I model and the process model of self-control) while generating novel strategy classes. A psychometrically robust Self-Control Strategies Questionnaire (SCSQ) was developed. The effortlessness across categories diverged from theoretical predictions, primarily modulated by executants' self-control function.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDiscussion\u003c/strong\u003e Contrasting this structure with extant theories and measures clarified inter-model relationships and proposed three mechanistic dimensions underpinning strategy categorization. Further discussions include: (a) propounding the anticipatory mechanism of interventive strategies—previously overlooked; (b) reinterpreting the effortlessness of the strategies; (c) demonstrating SCSQ’s practical utility; and (d) delineating future research trajectories.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusions\u003c/strong\u003e Daily self-control strategies can be categorized into four types (Interventive, Temptation-Oriented, Goal-Oriented Preventive, and Interpersonal Preventive strategies), representing three key dimensions: (a) the preventive-interventive dichotomy (as proposed in the P-I model); (b) the goal-temptation dichotomy (central to traditional self-control theories); and (c) the intrapersonal-interpersonal dichotomy (reflecting current frontiers in self-control research). Contrary to theoretical hypotheses, preventive strategies were not more effortless than the interventive strategies. The effortlessness of a strategy is not inherent but modulated by the strategy user's self-control capacity.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Categorization, Measurement, and Effortlessness of Daily Self-Control Strategies","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-09-12 09:00:16","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7147774/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"273997025551624724267661787376048828067","date":"2025-09-08T08:56:42+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-09-05T08:23:47+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-08-28T06:17:52+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-08-05T08:09:05+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-07-31T09:04:40+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Psychology","date":"2025-07-31T08:31:43+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"7e798400-c781-4444-9dcb-6abb4bc2340b","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 12th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-09-12T09:00:17+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-09-12 09:00:16","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7147774","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7147774","identity":"rs-7147774","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}