Talk:Ego depletion

Untitled

Deleted link of Ego depletion and Alcoholism, a link to a paper that must be bought isnt much of a help when looking for information, isnt it? Added as well a new link towards another paper, this one with free access and about the same topic. This research, by the way is far more important than this little entry reflects. Work should be done in the future to expand it ,or to include it in the self control article.

                                            201.249.127.179 (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Ansu

Many of the articles labeled as sources are insufficient, and we should provide a strong counter example for the claim of ego-depletion.

I believe the article should be revised because of detailed reading and analysis of the sources, and all sources have the same scientific flaw, and the lack of backing by reputable people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.67.157 (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It is important to understand why people still think ego depletion is a plausible theory. It is likened to stating that humans dont have the ability to regulate behavior, an incorrect statement, and does not make sense, and no sources have strong counter-arguments.

(In the future please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ ). Ego-depletion does not state that humans don't have the ability to regulate behaviour, it states that self-control is a limited resource. Ego-depletion is a well-established finding within social psychology; if you have sources criticising the theory then please post them, but personal/philosophical objections aren't sufficient (WP:V). justinfr (talk/contribs) 18:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The references chosen seem fairly arbitrary, and the last one on social exclusion is irrelevant. To me this smacks of self promotion. In addition, the prominence given to the restorative effects of positive affect (essentially a single paper) is OTT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.224.139.2 (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Missing elements

Please, if someone enters the stuff, do not make it onto a literature review type, and do not let the article degrade into a long a unreadable list of endless details. I have no idea how this is possible, but its important. Jazi Zilber (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Core elements

1) the glucose theory Galliot et all papers showing glucose connection via: reduction of glucose after depletion (later contested by Kruzban) COntrolling for glucose levels eliminates depletion drinking sugar eliminated depletion but not drinking artificially sweetened drink.

Kurzban offered that drinking glucose counteracts depletion by the effect of sugar in the mouth. He cited studies that mouthwashing with sugar increases self control and motivaiton. Later, a depletion study by .... showed that mouthwashing with sugar counteracted depletion as much as drinking sugared drinks. Same paper also failed to show sugar reduction after depletion. Jazi Zilber (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

1.1) Depletion is related to HRV (heart rate variability). so that being depleted reduces HRV, and baseline HRV predicts the level of self control later shown. Segestrom and Nes solberg. They suggest that HRV can be used as index for self regulatory strenght.

1.2) Time perception. Vohs et all 2003 show that being depletion causes a changing perception of time (when you start getting depleted time goes slowly). They have shown the level of depletion to be fully mediated by subjective time perception. No follow up studies are known.

2) That rest replenishes self control power. Study by.... that ten minute rest. Or even 3 minutes special relaxation counteracts depletion.

Jazi Zilber (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

3) Autonomy counteracts depletion, but it is not known to which extent it works (there were no third and fourth tasks tests on autonomy. there were two studies on autonomy. THe first one was by Deci and ..... which purported to show that the depleting of choices is due to feeling of being controlled. they show that when a choice is offered in a non controlling way, there is no evidence for deletion. Again they have not tested multiple choices. This experiment, uses autonomy as a change in the very nature of the choice task. The other experiments by Muraven and I think SHmueli use autonomy as an out-of-the-task parameter. Where just giving the task in an autonomy supportive way reduces? or eliminates? depletion. The authors suggest that feeling autonomous creates energy that reduces the depletion, but the possibility that autonomy makes the doing of the task less depleting is also possible. Jazi Zilber (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

4) Implementation Intentions counteract depletion. that is if one forms Intentions that way, the veyr same task will not cause depletion, in one task, (one task that would have caused depletion otherwise). We do not know what happens with several tasks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YechezkelZilber (talk • contribs) 11:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

effects of depletion, and what causes depletion

logical thoughts cause depletion, and become harder when depleted unclear social interactions (the lit. uses a different term, I think paper is by Vohs? and Finkel?) causes depletion, and is harder to handle when depleted. Jazi Zilber (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Depletion affects: helping behavior. lying (ariely et all). changing how much traits affect behavior.

Depletion also caused by reading on self control effort (Bargh) Depletion caused by making choices Depletion caused by attitude change. I faintly remember that depleted are less able to change attitudes.

Social exclusion reduces self control (but probably by reducing the will to self regulate, rather by reducing ability) Jazi Zilber (talk) 10:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

THe effects of exercise

Multiple studies were done on the possibility that exercising self control will improve self control ability. Exercises used were holding a hand grip as long as possible twice a day. paying a ttention to posture. and other exercises. Jazi Zilber (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Good suggestions for structure. MartinPoulter (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

<showhide> drafts.... <hide>Delete original research Additionally, the multiple ways in which ego depletion effects can be made to disappear (i.e. beleifs, autonomy support, etc.) while usually relicating the main effect, has led some to feel weird about the effect.

On the other side, Most of these works have used just a second task to test depletion, implying a moderate level of depletion, which seems to be sensitive to parameters. When using a third task paradigm, It is usually the case that depletion is not ameliorated by the parameter. (autonomy, beliefs, more?? Additionally, multiple Text which will be hidden</hide> </showhide>

Key experimental evidence should include reproducibility controversy

Why split the two parts of the article on the experimental evidence? The latest analysis has shown no evidence of ego depletion. I think the reader would like to know that up front. 73.227.77.118 (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Imprecise. Most scholars familiar with the literature deem it under investigation rather than disproved (the recent replicaiotn effort was not completely pre approved by original authors, and is controversial rather than clear cut. Many deem it to be proof that some protocols do not work rather that nothing works. Jazi Zilber (talk)

I could see it either way, although I tend to agree with the IP user that the RRR is a key piece of experimental evidence. It's not the only piece of evidence, but it is a key piece of evidence. I'm not sure how to jive that with the current section on the replication issue, maybe put that up earlier near the "key evidence" section? As for Jazi's comment, my observation is that probably how one looks at this evidence depends upon where one is on the larger replication crisis. Although I suppose it's true that "many" consider the RRR to be imprecise as a piece of evidence, the "vibe" I get from psychologists is that many more consider ego depletion, as a theory, to at very least be in a bit of serious trouble. StoneProphet11 (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

factoring in age

It would be valuable to include whether or not this concept is intended to apply specifically to adult psychology. Based on what's in the article, it doesn't seem to factor in any childhood/developmental dimension, and if that's the case it would be worth making that clear. If not, it would be very interesting to read about how the concept might unfold in a developmental context. --TyrS 20:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Almost all the Ego Depletion literature uses adults for experiments. There are many studies about kids with different conceptualizations. I am sure some folks have tried to connect. But to my knowledge there isn't much of this talked about etc.

Thus, the article represents the current ego depletion literature, that generally isn't interested much in development and kids. Jazi Zilber (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

If you come across papers that connect ego depletion to kids and development, you are very welcome to add them to the article :) Jazi Zilber (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

"Spoon Theory" should not redirect here

If you search "spoon theory", then it redirects here, to ego depletion. I think this is highly misleading and even incorrect. The only parallel between spoon theory (which is a metaphor, not a theory) and ego depletion (which is a hypothesis, not a metaphor) is that both involve a limited resource. In spoon theory, it is limited spoons. In ego depletion, it is limited willpower or self control.

The spoons in spoon theory are not a metaphor for willpower or self control. The spoons are a metaphor for energy, endurance, physical ability, or something similar. Once you have run out of spoons, you definitely cannot achieve your goal, and sheer force of will cannot overcome a lack of spoons. I will also note that spoon theory is ill-defined.

This article does not mention spoon theory at all, and honestly it doesn't seem related in my view. Searching "spoon theory" should not redirect here, it should say "this page does not exist" or it should mention the essay that coined the term. Fluoborate (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The two things are fairly separate and spoon theory seems to be notable enough to appear on Wikipedia. If "spoon theory" should redirect to here, there at least needs to be a section on this page for "spoon theory."

Gbear605 (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I am persuaded. The metaphor is so clumsy its referent eluded me. — Xiong熊talk* 03:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Replicating ego depletion

http://www.radiolab.org/story/stereothreat/ has (up to about minute 29) Daniel Engber's insight on writing and not-publishing some unsuccessful replications of the cookie ego depletion experiment. Diceypoo (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Cunningham and Baumeister paper

The Cunningham, MR; Baumeister, RF 2015 paper is given a great deal of prominence in a way that makes it appear as if critics and supporters of ego-depletion are somewhat equally represented. This may have been the case in 2015 but it is really not the case, I think, after the more recent Hagger 2016 23 lab replication study which offers extremely powerful evidence against the existence of an ego depletion effect - from the authors of the meta-analysis that Cunningham and Baumister rely on. I added a not so eloquent (please improve if possible!) account of this in a later sentence. N0thingbetter (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Not to argue that the section is in anyway organized.....

There are TWO distinctive questions:

• Meta-analysis
• Replications

The meta analysis section seems representative to me (Baumeister says that the Carter meta analysis is horribly done, others disagree. Everyone can hand wave, but that's it for now)

The replication section is incomplete. It fails to mention the later replication done by Vohs 2018. (do you have a reference for it? last time I heard it was a conference presentation. But it is worth mentioning that this was done and the protocol differences)

Also, the section might optimally be divided into replication, and meta analyses Jazi Zilber (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)