ZZ Ok Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004) .

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/345115519
High self-control predicts good adjustment, less

pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success
Chapter · January 2018

DOI: 10.4324/9781315175775-5
CITATIONS READS
122 208
3 authors, including:
June P Tangney Roy F. Baumeister

George Mason University The University of Queensland
132 PUBLICATIONS 21,727 CITATIONS 100 PUBLICATIONS 4,858 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Shame-Related Responses to Threatened Masculinity View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Roy F. Baumeister on 20 May 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

High Self-Control Predicts Good Adjustment,
Less Pathology, Better Grades, and
Interpersonal Success
June P. Tangney
George Mason University
Roy F. Baumeister
Case Western Reserve University
Angie Luzio Boone
George Mason University
ABSTRACT What good is self-control? We incorporated a new measure

of individual differences in self-control into two large investigations of a
broad spectrum of behaviors. The new scale showed good internal
consistency and retest reliability. Higher scores on self-control correlated
with a higher grade point average, better adjustment (fewer reports of
psychopathology, higher self-esteem), less binge eating and alcohol abuse,
better relationships and interpersonal skills, secure attachment, and more
optimal emotional responses. Tests for curvilinearity failed to indicate any
drawbacks of so-called overcontrol, and the positive effects remained after
controlling for social desirability. Low self-control is thus a significant risk
factor for a broad range of personal and interpersonal problems.
June P. Tangney and Angie Luzio Boone, Department of Psychology George Mason
University; Roy F. Baumeister, Department of Psychology, Case Western Reserve
University.
This research was supported by a research grant from the John Templeton
Foundation and by research grant #MH-57039 from the National Institutes of Health.
We thank Ronda Dearing for assistance with data analysis.
Address correspondence to June P. Tangney, Dept. of Psychology, George Mason
University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax VA, 22030-4444.
Journal of Personality 72:2, April 2004.

Blackwell Publishing 2004
272 Tangney et al.
The human capacity to exert self-control is arguably one of the most

powerful and beneficial adaptations of the human psyche. People are
happiest and healthiest when there is an optimal fit between self and
environment, and this fit can be substantially improved by altering
the self to fit the world (Rothbaum, Weisz, & Snyder, 1982). Indeed,
the self’s capacity to inhibit its antisocial impulses and conform to
the demands of group life has been proposed to be the hallmark of
civilized life (Freud, 1930). Even today, the vast majority of social
and personal problems seem on theoretical grounds to involve a
substantial component of deficient self-control (see Baumeister,
Heatherton, & Tice, 1994). These observations provide multiple
bases for deriving the broad hypothesis that a high personal capacity
for self-control should be powerfully adaptive and should enable
individuals to live happier, healthier lives.
Anecdotal impressions and assorted research findings suggest that
substantial individual differences exist in people’s capacity for self-
control. Some people are much better able than others to manage
their lives, hold their tempers, keep their diets, fulfill their promises,
stop after a couple of drinks, save money, persevere at work, keep
secrets, and so forth. These differences seemingly ought to be
associated with greater success and well-being in life. One goal of the
present investigation was to provide some direct evidence that
individual differences in self-control would effectively predict
positive outcomes across a variety of life domains.
Measurement of Self-Control
In order to investigate the possible benefits of self-control, it is
necessary to have a good trait measure of this construct. Existing
measures are few and old. In fact, the relative dearth of published
evidence on the benefits of self-control among adults may indicate
that researchers have not been satisfied or successful using the
existing scales. Recent advances in self-control theory (see Carver
& Scheier, 1981, 1998; also Baumeister et al., 1994; Muraven
& Baumeister, 2000) suggest the need for developing new scales
as opposed to relying on very old measures. For example,
Baumeister et al. (1994) identified four major domains of self-
control—controlling thoughts, emotions, impulses, and perfor-
mance—which would be important to include in an overall index
of self-control. Hence, a second aim of the present investigation was
Benefits of Self-Control 273
to develop an up-to-date scale for measuring individual differences

in self-control.
There have been some efforts to develop ways of measuring
individual differences in self-control, but these did not seem suitable
for our purposes. We review them briefly here, however, because
some investigators may find them useful or appropriate in specific
research contexts.
The Self-Control Behavior Inventory (Fagen, Long, & Stevens,
1975) is essentially a checklist for observational ratings of behavior.
Behavior observation has several advantages over self-report
measures, but it is considerably more difficult to use, inasmuch as
it requires trained observers and a substantial, representative sample
of behavior to observe.
The Self-Control Questionnaire was put forward by Brandon,
Oescher, and Loftin (1990) as a trait scale of self-control. Brandon
et al.’s emphasis was on the self-control of health behaviors, and we
had some concerns about the breadth of items. Most notably, 25%
of the items on the Self-Control Questionnaire refer specifically to
eating patterns. This disproportionate emphasis on eating raises the
danger of inflating gender differences in trait self-control, because
eating is one of the few spheres of self-control where pronounced
gender differences exist. It may be an excellent measure for measuring
self-control with respect to health, but it was never intended as a
broad based measure of self-control.
The Self-Control Schedule, developed by Rosenbaum (1980), is
intended specifically for use with clinical samples and focuses on the
usage of strategies such as self-distraction and cognitive reframing to
solve particular behavioral problems. It has received favorable
reports regarding its validity (e.g., Richards, 1985) and has unde-
niable value for relevant investigations targeted at exploring the uses
of such strategies among people with clinical problems. But, again,
we concluded that it was not appropriate to use as a trait measure of
dispositional self-control across broad spheres of normal behavior.
Some authors have used a self-control subscale from Gough’s
(1987) California Personality Inventory (CPI). There is reason to
question whether this subscale is appropriately named: Although
some items on it do seem a priori relevant to self-control, others do
not. Some seem quite irrelevant to the concept of self-control
construct (e.g., ‘‘I would like to wear expensive clothes;’’ ‘‘I would
like to be an actor on the stage or in the movies;’’ ‘‘I have had very
274 Tangney et al.
peculiar and strange experiences’’). Some address interpersonal

issues that are not directly indicative of self-control (e.g., ‘‘My home
life was always happy;’’ ‘‘My way of doing things is apt to be
misunderstood by others’’). Others seem to focus in particular on a
narcissistic style of self-admiration (e.g., ‘‘I would like to be the
center of attention;’’ ‘‘A person needs to ‘show off’ a little now and
then’’). Others ask about impulses rather than about control over
them (e.g., ‘‘Sometimes I feel like smashing things;’’ ‘‘Sometimes I
feel as if I must injure either myself or someone else’’).
The heterogeneity of items on the CPI Self-Control (Sc) scale may
well reflect the complex process by which the scale evolved.
Following the development of the CPI So (Socialization) and Re
(Responsibility) subscales, Gough, McClosky, and Meehl (1952)
concluded that So and Re did not really capture ‘‘the kind of joyful,
ebullient abandonment of restraint that one sees at certain times
such as attendance at a carnival’’ (CPI Administrator’s Guide,
p. 45). Thus, they set about developing a scale to assess
‘‘impetuosity, high spirits, caprice, and a taste for deviltry’’ (CPI
Administrator’s Guide, p. 45)—clearly one pattern of behavior that
may be atypical of self-control in general. The conceptual
heterogeneity, along with the seeming lack of face validity of many
items, may be one reason that this scale has not been popular among
laboratory researchers in recent decades, despite the rapid expansion
of research on self-regulation. Certainly self-control is a distinct
construct that should be largely independent of high spirits and a
taste for deviltry. In any case, the CPI antedates most of the modern
research on self-control, and so, on an a priori basis, it would be
desirable to construct a new scale based on recent developments.
In view of the drawbacks with these existing measures, we felt it
desirable to develop our own. Central to our concept of self-control
was the ability to override or change one’s inner responses, as well as
to interrupt undesired behavioral tendencies (such as impulses) and
refrain from acting on them. The concept of self-control as over-
riding responses fits well with Carver and Scheier’s (1981, 1982,
1998) pioneering work on self-regulation. Their theoretical model
emphasized the feedback loop (test, operate, test, exit) that guides
behavior toward goals and standards. Indeed, their work arose from
studies of self-awareness, for which an effective trait measure has
long been available (Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975). Our interest
placed less emphasis on the supervisory feedback loop and instead
emphasized the ‘‘operate’’ phase of the loop, by which the self per-
forms operations that alter itself. Regulating the stream of thought
(e.g., forcing oneself to concentrate), altering moods or emotions,
restraining undesirable impulses, and achieving optimal perfor-
mance (e.g., by making oneself persist) all constitute important
instances of the self overriding its responses and altering its states or
behaviors. More generally, breaking habits, resisting temptation,
and keeping good self-discipline all reflect the ability of the self to
control itself, and we sought to build our scale around them.
Benefits of Self-Control
Self-control is widely regarded as a capacity to change and adapt the
self so as to produce a better, more optimal fit between self and
world (e.g., Rothbaum et al., 1982). Central to our concept of self-
control is the ability to override or change one’s inner responses, as
well as to interrupt undesired behavioral tendencies and refrain from
acting on them. From this perspective, self-control should con-
tribute to producing a broad range of positive outcomes in life. In
fact, empirical evidence indicates that people with high dispositional
self-control have better outcomes in various spheres. In two
independent studies, we sought to replicate and extend these prior
findings, taking advantage of two large ongoing investigations in
which multiple outcomes were being assessed.
Achievement and Task Performance

A first domain involves task performance, such as in school or work.
Our participants were university students, and so the primary or
quintessential measure of overall success is grade point average.
People with high self-control should presumably achieve better
grades in the long run, because they should be better at getting tasks
done on time, preventing leisure activities from interfering with
work, using study time effectively, choosing appropriate courses,
and keeping emotional distractions from impairing performance.
Prior studies have provided some evidence that self-control
facilitates school performance. Feldman, Martinez-Pons, and
Shaham (1995) found that children with higher self-regulation (as
assessed by the Student Regulated Learning Scale; Zimmerman &
Martinez-Pons, 1988) received better grades in a computer course.
Flynn (1985) found that improvements in delay of gratification were
276 Tangney et al.
correlated to improvements in school achievement among 4-year-old

African American migrant boys, although not girls. A pair of studies
by Mischel, Shoda, and Peake (1988) and Shoda, Mischel, and
Peake (1990) assessed children’s capacity to delay gratification at age
4 and then followed up the participants as they completed high
school and entered college. They showed that the children who were
most successful at delaying gratification went on to become adults
with higher SAT scores, indicating better academic performance.
Insofar as delay of gratification constitutes a behavioral index of
self-control, these results do point toward lasting and long-term
benefits of good self-control. Wolfe and Johnson (1995) found that
self-control was the only one among 32 personality variables that
contributed significantly to prediction of grade point average among
university students. They used four different self-control scales,
including a Big Five Conscientiousness subscale ( John, 1990), an
organization subscale from the Jackson Personality Inventory
( Jackson, 1976), a control subscale developed by Waller, Lilienfeld,
Tellegen, and Lykken (1991), and a new scale of items pertaining
self-efficacy. These findings lent support for our prediction that high
self-control would predict better academic performance.
Impulse Control
A second domain involves impulsive behaviors. Many university
students suffer from problems in impulse regulation, as has been
widely documented (see Baumeister et al., 1994, for review). In
particular, problems with regulating eating are prevalent, if not
epidemic, among female university students, whereas surveys of
male students suggest that many suffer from alcohol abuse problems
(e.g., Heatherton, 1993; Heatherton & Baumeister, 1991; Johnston,
O’Malley, & Bachman, 1991; Williamson, 1990). Regulating intake
of food and drink is one of the most obvious and direct applications
of self-control, and so we predicted that people high in self-control
should exhibit fewer such problems.
Several studies have linked impulse control problems to deficits
in self-control. Storey (1999) concluded that poor self-regulation, as
assessed by the Barratt Impulsivity Scale, was an important pre-
dictor of heroin addiction. Wills, DuHamel, and Vaccaro (1995)
found that self-control, as assessed by a scale they derived from
a behavior rating scale by Kendall and Wilcox (1979), was an
important predictor of substance abuse among adolescents and, in

fact, seemed to mediate between temperament and substance abuse.
Peluso, Ricciardelli, and Williams (1999) found some links of
generally poor self-control, as assessed by a scale developed by
Rohde, Lewinsohn, Tilson, and Seeley (1990), to problem drinking
and problem eating patterns among college students. Cook, Young,
Taylor, and Bedford (1998) found that low CPI self-control
predicted higher alcohol consumption among adults. Romal and
Kaplan (1995) found that people with good self-control, as assessed
by Rosenbaum’s (1980) scale, were better able to save their money
rather than spend it. In Study 1, we sought to extend these findings
by examining the links between self-control and young adults’
reports of eating disorder symptoms and alcohol use.
Adjustment
A third domain involves psychological adjustment. Many psycholo-
gical problems and disorders involve some degree of self-regulation
failure. The link between psychological symptoms and self-control
could be bidirectional. On one hand, difficulties with self-regulation
can set the stage for a range of psychological problems. Indeed,
problems with self-control are the hallmark of many disorders
detailed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Conversely, the
emotional distress associated with many of these problems can
impair self-control by preempting limited resources and by produ-
cing stressful outcomes that further burden the individual’s
regulatory capacity.
Of particular interest is the hypothesis that psychological
difficulties can result from either too little or too much control.
The pathogenic nature of self-control failure is fairly obvious. The
DSM-IV has an entire cluster of diagnoses that fall under the
umbrella of ‘‘Impulse Control Disorders,’’ and many other disorders
are essentially defined by problems in the regulation of thought,
affect and/or behavior (e.g., panic and other anxiety disorders,
antisocial personality disorder, anger management problems).
Psychological problems purported to stem from an excess of self-
control are less obvious, but they have been hypothesized to be
important too. Most notably, notions of overcontrol pervade clinical
conceptualizations of both obsessive-compulsive disorder and
278 Tangney et al.
certain eating disorders, such as anorexia nervosa. In contrast, other

writers have rejected the notion that too much self-control is bad,
holding that self-regulatory failures are either underregulation or mis-
regulation (Carver & Scheier, 1981; Baumeister et al., l994). In this
view the putative category of overcontrol is simply a misuse of a
desirable capacity rather than an indication that too much self-
control is bad.
From these accounts, two sets of competing hypotheses can be
made. Based on the concept that overcontrol exists and is mala-
daptive, one would expect individual differences in self-control to be
differentially related to distinct symptom clusters—for example,
positively correlated with symptoms of obsessive-compulsive dis-
order and negatively correlated with problems with anxiety and
anger. From this perspective, it would also follow that an index of
overall psychological adjustment (or psychopathology) would show
(a) a curvilinear relationship, such that both very high and very low
self-control are associated with pathology, or (b) no relationship
because the two opposing effects cancel each other out. In contrast,
the misregulation theories would predict that self-control would
have an essentially linear relationship to psychological symptoms,
such that the highest scores would be associated with greatest
positive psychological adjustment. This should be the case across
distinct symptom clusters as well as for an index of general psycho-
logical adjustment.
Surprisingly little previous work has examined links between self-
control and adjustment. And to our knowledge, no study has
systematically evaluated these competing hypotheses regarding
‘‘overcontrol.’’ At most, some findings have indicated that poor
self-control is associated with aversive emotions. In a sample of
preschool children, Fabes et al. (1999) found that good effortful
control reported by parents and teachers (interacting with situa-
tional factors) predicted less negative emotional arousal. Several
measures pertaining to self-control (including Block’s, 1961 mea-
sures of ego-control and ego-resiliency, Barron’s 1953 measure of ego-
strength, and several measures of hardiness) were also included in a
recent study with an adult sample by Gramzow, Sedikides, Panter,
and Insko (2000), and they predicted emotional distress better than
measures of the structure of the self (such as complexity or
consistency of self-concepts or discrepancies between self-concept
and ideal or ought selves).
The present Study 1 sought to extend this work substantially by

examining the relationship of self-control to such key psychological
symptoms as anxiety, depression, obsessive-compulsive behaviors,
and somatic complaints. We also investigated both linear and
nonlinear effects, as a way of getting at the question of whether very
high levels of self-control are associated with poor adjustment.
Interpersonal Relationships
A fourth domain concerns interpersonal relationships. High self-
control should make people better, more desirable relationship
partners and could contribute to relationship success in a variety of
ways. Self-control could contribute directly to harmonious interac-
tions, such as when people refrain from saying hurtful things on
impulse. It can also contribute indirectly, such as by enabling people
to resist temptations to become involved with alternative partners.
Poor self-control may lead to angry outbursts and even aggressive
behavior, as well as difficulty moving beyond interpersonal slights to
forgive others.
There is a good deal of evidence suggesting that children with
good self-control get along better with others. A longitudinal study
by Eisenberg et al. (1997) confirmed that good self-regulation,
reported by parents and teachers, at early ages predicts better social
functioning up through age 10. Maszk, Eisenberg, and Guthrie
(1999) found that teacher ratings of children’s self-control (ages 4-6)
predicted subsequent social status such that children who had better
self-control went on to become more popular. Fabes et al. (1999)
found that good effortful control, reported by parents and teachers,
(interacting with situational factors) predicted more socially com-
petent responding among preschool children. Moreover, the long-
itudinal studies by Mischel et al. (1988) and Shoda et al. (l990), cited
above, found that effective capacity to delay gratification at age 4
predicted better interpersonal relationships in early adulthood.
There is also a growing body of research confirming that poor
self-control leads to aggression and antisocial behavior. Much of
this work was stimulated by a landmark book by Gottfredson and
Hirschi (1990), who proposed that low self-control is a major cause
of criminal and violent activity. In subsequent empirical tests, this
theory has held up well, insofar as criminals and other rule breakers
typically exhibit deficits or lapses in self-control assessed with
280 Tangney et al.
diverse methods (Avakame, 1998; Cherek, Moeller, Dougherty, &

Rhoades, 1997; Cochran, Wood, Sellers, Wilkerson, & Chamlin,
1998; Gibbs, Giever, & Martin, 1998; Longshore, 1998; Longshore
& Turner, 1998; McGuire & Broomfield, 1994). A longitudinal study
by Tremblay, Boulerice, Arseneault, and Niscale (1995) found that
parent- and teacher-rated self-control was associated with higher
rates of juvenile delinquency. Similar conclusions were reached with
a Finnish sample by Pulkkinen and Haemaelaeinen (1995). Burton,
Cullen, Evans, Alarid, and Dunaway (1998) found that the gender
gap in crime became nonsignificant when self-control was con-
trolled, which suggests that self-control plays a powerful mediating
role. Using a maze performance task as an index of self-control,
Latham and Perlow (1996) concluded that people with high self-
control, assessed with the Porteus Maze Test (Porteus, 1965), were
less aggressive toward other people in the workplace.
Among children, also, aggression and antisocial behavior have
been linked to poor self-control. Nigg, Quamma, Greenberg, and
Kusche (1999) found that high mental inhibitory control predicted
fewer behavioral problems among elementary school children.
Murphy and Eisenberg (1997) found that children with lower teacher-
reported self regulation reported more angry conflicts with others,
and they enacted more unfriendly responses to anger in a role-
playing scenario with puppets. Krueger, Caspi, Moffitt, White, and
Stouthamer-Loeber (1996) concluded that poor self-control, as-
sessed by the California Child Q-Set (Block, 1961), is a risk factor
for aggressive and delinquent behavior among preadolescent and
early adolescent boys.
Poor control over anger may be relevant to interpersonal
aggression, and there are some findings linking anger problems to
overall poor self-control. Kochanska, Murray, and Harlan (2000)
found that the capacity for effortful control among young children
(33 months), assessed with a comprehensive behavioral battery
incorporating multiple tasks, was correlated with the ability to
control anger.
In the current studies, we considered three sets of variables
relevant to interpersonal relationships—quality of relationships in
the family of origin (family conflict and family cohesion), capacity
for interpersonal empathy, and quality of attachment. We predicted
that high scores on self-control would be correlated with higher
relationship quality, enhanced empathy, a willingness to forgive
others for their transgressions, and a secure attachment style. We

also sought to replicate the link between self-control and angry,
aggressive patterns.
Moral Emotions
The moral emotions constituted another domain potentially relevant
to self-control. Shame and guilt have been linked to a variety of
interpersonal and personal outcomes. On balance, guilt appears to
be the more adaptive response to sin and failure. People who experi-
ence guilt about their bad behaviors tend to be motivated in a con-
structive, future-oriented direction—confessing, apologizing, or in
some way undoing the harm that was done (Tangney, 1991, 1995b;
Tangney, Miller, Flicker, & Barlow, 1996). In contrast, research has
consistently shown that shame brings with it a panoply of psycho-
logical and social hidden costs.
We were unable to find any previous studies linking self-control
to shame and guilt. However, given the evidence that shame often
provokes irrational anger and other impulsive attempts to defend
the self (e.g., externalization of blame, efforts to hide or escape
shame-inducing situations), we anticipated a link between poor self-
control and proneness to shame. In contrast, we anticipated a posi-
tive relationship between proneness to ‘‘shame-free’’ guilt and high
self-control.
Related Personality Features

We also sought to examine the relationship of self-control to two
key personality features (conscientiousness and perfectionism)
theoretically related to the propensity for self-control. The capacity
for self-control is obviously an important component of behaving in
a conscientious manner—completing assignments, fulfilling commit-
ments, and otherwise taking care of business require the ability to
control and direct behavior strategically. The role of self-control in
perfectionism is less clear, but still plausible. Perfectionism is the
tendency to adhere rigidly to unrealistically high expectations and
standards. People high in perfectionism may sometimes exert
considerable self-control in their pursuit of perfection, but they also
exhibit problems with self-regulation in at least two ways. First,
perfectionistic individuals have difficulty modifying their standards
and expectations in response to the nature and demands of a given
282 Tangney et al.
situation. One hallmark of perfectionism is the drive for flawless

performance in important domains, regardless of what is actually
required (e.g., striving for the highest score on a licensing exam when
all that is needed is a passing grade). Second, there appears to be an
important link between perfectionism and procrastination (Fee &
Tangney, 2000), the latter representing an obvious breakdown in
self-control.
METHOD
Participants
Participants in Study 1 were 351 undergraduate students attending a
large East Coast state university who received credit toward an
undergraduate psychology course in exchange for their participation.
Participants ranged in age from 18 to 55, (M 5 20.07, SD 5 4.99); 28%
were male and 72% were female. Regarding ethnic/racial background,
49% were White, 20% Asian, 11% African American, 20% Other.
Participants in Study 2 were 255 undergraduate students attending a
large East Coast state university who received credit toward an
undergraduate psychology course in exchange for their participation.
Participants ranged in age from 18 to 49, (M 5 20.10, SD 5 4.23); 19%
were male and 81% were female. Regarding ethnic/racial background,
58% were White, 13% Asian, 11% African American, 22% Other.
Development of the Self-Control Scale

Our approach followed directly from an extensive review of published
studies on self-control processes and failures (Baumeister et al., 1994). We
began by generating a larger pool of 93 items encompassing all the
spheres of self-control failure covered in that review (in particular,
control over thoughts, emotional control, impulse control, performance
regulation, and habit breaking). Items were rated on a 5-point scale,
anchored from 1 not at all like me to 5 very much like me. Using both
rational and empirical methods, the scale was reduced to its final form
comprising 36 items, based on an analysis of Study 1 data. We deleted,
for example, items with low item-total correlations, duplicate or nearly
duplicate items, and items likely to vary substantially by gender diff-
erences.1 Based on a review of item-total correlations from both Study 1
1. Exploratory factor analyses were also conducted to investigate the dimension-

ality of the Self-Control Scale. To this end, these final 36 ı́tems were subjected to a
principal components analysis with varimax rotation. Both a consideration of
Kaiser’s ‘‘little jiffy’’ (eigenvalues greater than 1) and a scree test suggested 5
factors. Factor 1 (11 ı́tems, 10.2% of the variance) assesses a general capacity for
and Study 2, we also constructed a 13-item Brief Self-Control Scale. The

Brief Self-Control Scale correlated .93 and .92 with the Total Self-
Control Scale in Studies 1 and 2, respectively. Moreover, the Brief Self-
Control Scale taps the same range of content as the Total Self-Control
Scale.2
Additional measures and procedures. The data reported here were

collected as part of two larger investigations of the personality correlates
of moral emotional styles. Students participated in several sessions of 45
to 60 minutes, conducted on separate days. At the beginning of the study,
informed consent forms were distributed describing the general nature of
the procedures. The voluntary and confidential nature of the study was
emphasized, and students were asked not to write their names on any of
the questionnaires. Questionnaires were coded with unique ID numbers
in advance. The following measures were among those completed by
respondents. (Table 1 presents descriptive statistics and coefficient alpha
estimating the reliability of scales.)
The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe,
1960) is a widely used, well-validated measure of social desirability
response bias. Participants rate 33 items as True or False (Study 1 and
half of Study 2).
The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (Paulhus, 1988) is a
40-item measure composed of two 20-item subscales. Self-Deception
Self-Discipline. Factor 2 (10 items, 9.7% of the variance) assesses an inclination

toward Deliberate/Nonimpulsive action. Factor 3 (7 items, 7.7% of the variance)
assesses a range of Healthy Habits. Factor 4 (5 items, 7.6% of the variance)
assesses self regulation in service of a Work Ethic. Finally, Factor 5 (5 items,
7.0% of the variance) assesses Reliability. (We also conducted analyses using
principal axis factoring methods. Results based on a principal axis factoring were
nearly identical to those based on principal components analysis. We opted for
orthogonal varimax rotation, as opposed to an oblique rotation, because our aim
was to identify potentially unique components of self-control that would have
empirical utility, rather than exploring the underlying structure of self-control,
conceptually. As it turns out, varimax and oblique procedures resulted in nearly
identical structures. As expected, factors derived from the oblique rotation were
substantially correlated-range of r’s 5 .26 to .54, mean r 5 .42). In subsequent
analyses, we observed little systematic variation in the correlates of the 5 factors.
Thus, for the remainder of the article, we focus solely on the Total and Brief self
control scores. Details of the factor analysis are available from the first author.
2. For example, items were included from each of the factors described in
Footnote 1 (5 items from Factor 1, 3 items from Factor 2, 2 items from Factor 3,
2 items from Factor 4, and 1 item from Factor 5).
284 Tangney et al.
assesses the degree to which respondents make exaggerated claims of

competence and rationality. Impression Management assesses the degree
to which respondents systematically—and presumably consciously—
overreport desirable behaviors and underreport undesirable behaviors.
Items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale and after reversing items, one
point is added for each extreme (6 or 7) response. This scoring is designed
to identify respondents who give exaggeratedly desirable responses
(Study 2).
The Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI; Garner, Olmstead, & Polivy,
1983) is a self-rating questionnaire designed to assess a broad range of
behavioral and attitudinal characteristics of anorexia nervosa and buli-
mia nervosa. The measure yields eight subscales: Drive for Thinness,
Bulimia, Body Satisfaction, Ineffectiveness, Perfectionism, Interpersonal
Distrust, Interoceptive Awareness and Maturity Fears (Study 1).
The Short Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (SMAST; Selzer,
Vinokur, & van Rooijen, 1975) is a widely used 13-item self-administered
screening measure of alcoholism. Items include ‘‘Do you ever feel guilty
about your drinking?’’ and ‘‘Have you ever gotten into trouble at work
because of drinking?’’ (Study 1).
The Symptom Checklist 90 (SCL-90; Derogatis, Lipman, &
Covi, 1973) is comprised of 90 symptoms, each rated on a 5-point scale
to indicate absence or intensity. The SCL-90 is a widely used clinical
rating scale, appropriate for psychiatric outpatients as well as for
screening nonclinical populations. The checklist yields nine clinical
subscales: Somatization, Obsessive/Compulsive, Interpersonal Sensitivity
(assessing feelings of personal inadequacy or inferiority), Depression,
Anxiety, Hostility, Phobic Anxiety, Paranoid Ideation, and Psychoticism.
An extensive body of research supports the reliability and validity of
these scales (e.g., Derogatis, Rickels, & Rock, 1976; Derogatis & Cleary,
1977; Derogatis, 1989) (Study 1).
The Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory – III (MCMI-III; Millon,
Davis, & Millon, 1997) is a widely used 175-item measure of
psychopathology, yielding 24 clinical scales that tap a broad range of
psychological problems. Fourteen scales assess Clinical Personality
Patterns (e.g., Schizoid, Avoidant, Antisocial) and Severe Personality
Pathology (e.g., Schizotypal, Borderline) reflected on Axis II of the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV;
American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Ten scales assess Clinical
Syndromes (e.g., Anxiety, Dysthymia, PTSD) and Severe Clinical
Syndromes (e.g., Thought Disorder, Major Depression) reflected on
Axis I of the DSM-IV (Study 2).
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE; Rosenberg, 1965) is a widely
used measure of global self-esteem. The 10 items are each answered on a
5-point scale. The RSE has been found to be reliable, internally

consistent, and representative of a unidimensional construct (Gray-
Little, Williams, & Hancock, 1997; Shevlin, Bunting, & Lewis, 1995; and
others). The Stability of Self-Esteem Scale (5 items) measures the degree to
which the evaluation of self-concept is constant versus variable (Studies 1
and 2).
The Mini Marker (Saucier, 1994) is a brief set of 40 adjective markers
taken from Goldberg’s (1992) original 100 adjective markers. The
markers for Big-Five factor structure include Extraversion (e.g., ‘‘bold’’),
Agreeableness (e.g., ‘‘cooperative’’), Conscientiousness (e.g., ‘‘efficient’’),
Emotional Stability (e.g., ‘‘temperamental’’ -reversed), and Openness to
Experience (e.g., ‘‘creative’’). Respondents are asked to rate each adjec-
tive on a 9-point scale ranging from extremely inaccurate to extremely
accurate. Saucier (1994) provides data supporting the reliability and
validity of this measure as a brief marker of the Big Five personality
factors (Study 2).
The Brief Perfectionism Scale (BPS; Gosselin, Boone, Sinek, &
Tangney, 2001) is a 7-item measure of perfectionism. Each item is rated
on a 7-point scale. The BPS assesses the maladaptive, dichotomous
thinking style of perfectionists, as well as their negative emotional
reaction to making mistakes across work and leisure domains (Study 2).
The Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS; Hewitt & Flett, 1991)
is a 45-item scale that assesses three dimensions of perfectionism: Self-
Oriented perfectionism (e.g., ‘‘When I’m working on something, I cannot
relax until it is perfect’’), Socially Prescribed perfectionism (e.g., ‘‘I feel that
people are too demanding of me’’), and Other-Oriented perfectionism (e.g.,
‘‘I have high expectations for the people who are important to me’’). Items
are rated on a 7-point scale. Hewitt and Flett (1991, 1993; Hewitt, Flett, &
Turnbull, 1992) provide extensive data supporting the reliability and
validity of this widely used perfectionism measure (Studies 1 and 2).
Portions of the Family Environment Scale (FES; Moos & Moos, 1981)
were used to assess family conflict and cohesion. Each scale is composed
of 9 items (Study 1).
The Close Relationships Questionnaire (Hazan & Shaver, 1987)
translates the three infant attachment types described by Bowlby (1982)
and Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978) into terms appropriate
to adult love relationships. Participants are asked to consider their most
important romantic relationships and then rate three general descriptions
of their attachment experiences. Participants first rate each description on
a 7-point scale; they are then asked to select the single description that
best describes their experiences. Hazan and Shaver (1987, 1990) provided
considerable evidence for the validity of this brief assessment of
attachment (Studies 1 and 2).
286 Tangney et al.
The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1983) is a 28-item

paper-and-pencil measure which yields two cognitively oriented empathy
scales and two emotionally oriented empathy scales. The Perspective
Taking Scale assesses the ability to ‘‘step outside of the self’’ and take
another’s perspective in real-life situations. The Fantasy Scale assesses
perspective taking in the fictional realm (e.g., identifying with the feelings
of a character in a book). The Empathic Concern Scale assesses the extent
to which respondents experience ‘‘other-oriented’’ feelings of compassion
and concern. The Personal Distress Scale assesses the degree to which
respondents experience ‘‘self-oriented’’ discomfort or fear when faced
with another’s distress. The Personal Distress Scale taps empathic
overconcern, and there is also an element of ‘‘loss of control’’ inherent in
many of the items. Davis (1980, 1983; Davis & Oathout, 1987) has
provided evidence supporting the reliability and validity of his multi-
dimensional assessment of empathy (Studies 1 and 2).
The Anger Response Inventory (ARI; Tangney, Wagner, Marschall, &
Gramzow, 1991) is a scenario-based self-report measure that presents
respondents with a series of common, developmentally appropriate
situations that are likely to elicit anger. They are asked to imagine
themselves in each situation and then rate on a 5-point scale (1) how
angry they would be in such a situation (assessing anger arousal); (2) their
intentions—what they would feel like doing, not necessarily what they
would actually do (constructive, malicious, fractious intentions are
assessed); (3) their likely behavioral and cognitive responses (including a
variety of aggressive and non-aggressive behaviors, escapist/diffusing
tactics, and cognitive reappraisals); and (4) their assessment of the likely
long-term consequences (for self, target, and relationship).
Several independent studies provide support for the reliability and
validity of the ARI (Tangney, Barlow et al., 1996, Tangney, Wagner,
Barlow, Marschall, & Gramzow, 1996). Together, estimates of internal
consistency and test-retest correlations indicate that the ARI scales are
quite reliable. Regarding validity, theoretically consistent patterns of cor-
relations were observed with (1) global self-report measures of hostility,
aggression, and anger management strategies; (2) self and family
members’ reports of respondents’ behaviors in specific anger episodes;
and (3) various dimensions of moral emotional style (Studies 1 and 2).
The Multidimensional Forgiveness Inventory (MFI; Tangney, Boone,
Fee, & Reinsmith, 1999) is a measure of dispositional forgiveness (e.g.,
people’s generalized tendency to forgive across a range of relationships
and types of transgressions). Three subscales assess (1) a propensity to
forgive others (FO), (2) a propensity to ask for forgiveness from others
(AF), and (3) a propensity for self-forgiveness (FS). The MFS consists of
a series of situations involving transgressions that could be applicable to
most adults. In all, there are 16 situations described, 8 from the

perspective of the victim of the transgression and 8 from the perspective
of the perpetrator. Each ‘‘victim’’ situation is followed by questions
assessing the likelihood of forgiving the perpetrator (FO). Each
‘‘perpetrator’’ situation is followed by questions assessing the respon-
dent’s likelihood of seeking forgiveness (AF), as well as their propensity
to forgive themselves (FS) (Study 2).
The Test of Self-Conscious Affect (TOSCA; Tangney, Wagner, &
Gramzow, 1989) consists of a series of brief scenarios (10 negative and 5
positive), each followed by several associated responses. Aggregating
across the scenarios, the TOSCA yields indices of shame—proneness,
guilt-proneness, externalization, detachment/unconcern, alpha pride (pride
in self), and beta pride (pride in a specific behavior). These scenarios were
drawn from written accounts of personal shame, guilt, and pride
experiences of adults, and therefore represent shame and guilt-inducing
situations that adults encounter in day-to-day life. The respondent is asked
how likely (on a 5-point scale) they would be to respond in each manner
indicated, in connection with a given scenario. In this way, it is possible
for a respondent to endorse multiple responses (e.g., he/she can endorse
shame, guilt, both or neither) in response to any given scenario.
Convergent and divergent validity for the TOSCA scales have been
well documented (see Tangney, 1991; Tangney, 1994; Tangney, Burggraf,
& Wagner, 1995; Tangney, et al., 1992). Because shame and guilt both
involve negative affect and internal attributions, the subscales overlap
considerably (r 5 .45; Tangney, et al., 1992). By partialing out the shared
variance, the constructs of shame and guilt have each demonstrated
unique variance that is functionally distinct. In order to compare the
individual relationships of shame and guilt with other constructs, it is
useful to partial out the shared variance (Studies 1 and 2).
RESULTS
Properties of Self-Control Scale
As shown in Table 1, internal consistency estimates of reliability
were high. Alphas for the Total Self-Control Scale were .89 in both
Studies 1 and 2. Similarly, the Brief SCS was highly reliable
(alpha 5 .83 and .85 in Studies 1 and 2, respectively). Thus, the scale
appears to have adequate internal reliability.
In addition, to establish test-retest reliability of the new Self-
Control Scale, 233 participants in Study 2 completed the scale
a second time in Session 3, conducted roughly three weeks later.
288 Tangney et al.
Test-retest reliability was .89 for the Total SCS score and .87 for the
Brief SCS.
One possible concern is the degree to which the Self-Control Scale
correlates with Social Desirability. As shown in Table 2, the
correlations between self-control and social desirability (as assessed
by the Marlowe-Crowne and BIDR) ranged from .54 to .60. This
raises the possibility that any observed effects involving self-control
may be due to social desirability biases. Therefore, we repeated all
the main analyses with social desirability partialed out.
Self-Control and Task Performance

The first sphere in which we predicted beneficial consequences of
high self-control was performance. For college students, probably
the most important and relevant index of performance is grade point
average. As Table 2 shows, grade point average was significantly
related to both Total and Brief Self-Control Scales in both Study 1
and Study 2. People with higher self-reported self-control had better
grades than those reporting low self-control, consistent with the
notion that self-control makes a significant contribution to academic
success. Further, social desirability was not responsible for the link
between self-control and grade point average. Considering the Total
Self-Control Scale, the relationship between self-control and GPA
remained robust even when controlling for scores on the Marlowe-
Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Studies 1 and 2) and the BIDR
(Study 2). (Results for the Brief SCS were similarly strong in Study 1
but somewhat weaker in Study 2 when controlling for social
desirability.)
Impulse Control
The second prediction was that self-control would contribute to
success at impulse regulation, so that people scoring low on self-con-
trol would report a higher rate or incidence of dysfunctional, impu-
lsive behaviors.
The regulation of eating is one important form of impulse
control. Participants in Study 1 completed the Eating Disorders
Inventory. As Table 2 shows, better self-control was associated with
fewer problems regulating eating. Self-control was negatively
correlated with most EDI subscales, including drive for thinness,
bulimia, body dissatisfaction, ineffectiveness, interpersonal distrust,
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Reliabilities of Study Measures
# of Possible Observed
Scale items Range Range Mean SD Alpha
Self-Control Scale
Total Self Control Study 1 44–168 114.47 18.81 0.89
36 36–180
Study 2 50–154 102.66 18.19 0.89
Brief Self-Control Study 1 15–63 39.22 8.58 0.83
13 13–65
Scale Study 2 17–62 39.85 8.61 0.85
Marlowe Crowne Study 1 35–63 48.51 4.93 0.74
33 33–66
Social Desirability Study 2 77–189 127.38 20.09 0.80
BIDR
Impression Study 2 20 0–20 0–16 5.80 3.56 0.75
Management
Eating Disorder
Inventory
Drive for Thinness Study 1 7 0–21 7–21 4.67 5.49 0.87
Bulimia Study 1 7 0–21 0–17 1.73 2.89 0.74
Body Dissatisfaction Study 1 9 0–27 0–27 9.03 7.52 0.91
Ineffectiveness Study 1 10 0–30 0–30 3.05 4.31 0.86
Perfectionism Study 1 6 0–18 0–17 5.93 4.03 0.71
Interpersonal Study 1 7 0–21 0–21 3.33 3.55 0.79
Distrust
Interoceptive Study 1 10 0–30 0–25 3.41 4.44 0.81
Awareness
Maturity Fears Study 1 8 0–24 0–24 4.53 4.50 0.82
Michigan Alcohol Study 1 13 0–13 0–9 0.00 19.74 0.88
Screening Test—S
Symptom Checklist 90
Somatization Study 1 12 12–60 12–53 23.54 8.82 0.89
Obsessive Study 1 10 10–50 10–50 22.58 7.81 0.87
Compulsive
Interpersonal Study 1 9 9–45 9–42 18.62 7.39 0.88
Sensitivity
Depression Study 1 12 12–60 12–54 25.87 9.89 0.91
Anxiety Study 1 10 10–50 10–45 18.85 7.43 0.88
Hostility-Anger Study 1 6 6–30 6–25 11.58 4.49 0.79
(Continued)
290 Tangney et al.
Table 1 (cont.)
Phobic Anxiety Study 1 7 7–35 7–25 10.27 4.38 0.82

Paranoid Ideation Study 1 6 6–30 6–26 12.27 4.75 0.80
Psychoticism Study 1 10 10–50 10–41 17.75 7.67 0.86
MCMI-III
Clinical Personality
Patterns
Schizoid Study 2 16 0–23 0–17 4.43 3.75 0.69
Avoidant Study 2 16 0–24 0–23 4.65 4.86 0.81
Depressive Study 2 15 0–23 0–22 5.23 5.28 0.85
Dependent Study 2 16 0–24 0–22 6.93 5.00 0.76
Histrionic Study 2 17 0–24 3–24 17.09 5.33 0.80
Narcissistic Study 2 24 0–32 0–27 15.45 4.52 0.67
Antisocial Study 2 17 0–24 0–18 6.48 4.16 0.69
Sadist (Aggressive) Study 2 20 0–27 0–21 7.33 5.10 0.77
Compulsive Study 2 17 0–25 2–25 13.69 4.80 0.67
Negativistic Study 2 16 0–26 0–22 7.63 5.19 0.76
(Passive-Aggressive)
Masochistic Study 2 15 0–22 0–19 3.27 4.05 0.81
(Self-Defeating)
Severe Personality
Pathology
Schizotypal Study 2 16 0–25 0–20 4.38 4.30 0.77
Borderline Study 2 16 0–25 0–22 6.10 4.99 0.77
Paranoid Study 2 17 0–26 0–22 5.42 4.80 0.77
Clinical Syndromes
Anxiety Study 2 14 0–20 0–17 4.49 3.85 0.74
Somatoform Study 2 12 0–17 0–12 3.81 3.36 0.72
Bipolar: Manic Study 2 13 0–18 0–17 7.21 3.59 0.68
Dysthymia Study 2 14 0–20 0–19 3.73 4.29 0.82
Alcohol DependenceStudy 2 15 0–21 0–16 3.72 2.92 0.66
Drug Dependence Study 2 14 0–20 0–17 3.59 2.86 0.68
Post-Traumatic Study 2 16 0–21 0–18 3.79 4.04 0.82
Stress Disorder
(Continued)
Table 1 (cont.)
Severe Clinical Syndromes

Thought Disorder Study 2 17 0–23 0–22 5.20 4.56 0.81
Major Depression Study 2 17 0–23 0–20 3.93 4.01 0.81
Delusional Disorder Study 2 13 0–17 0–12 2.13 2.24 0.61
Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale
Self-Esteem Study 1 14–50 38.06 6.66 0.88
10 10–50
Study 2 18–50 39.54 6.86 0.89
Stability of Study 1 5–25 14.36 3.65 0.77
5 5–25
Self-Esteem Study 2 6–25 15.71 4.02 0.79
Mini-Marker
Extra version Study 2 8 12–56 38.09 9.25 0.86
Agreeableness Study 2 8 15–56 46.06 6.63 0.84
Conscientiousness Study 2 8 8–56 19–56 41.00 7.57 0.82
Emotional Study 2 8 8–56 35.00 8.65 0.81
Stability
Openness to Study 2 8 21–56 42.14 6.77 0.78
Experience
Brief Perfectionism Study 2 7 7–49 8–46 25.74 8.53 0.86

Scale
Multidimensional
Perfectionsm Scale
Self oriented Study 1 30–99 66.59 15.09 0.86
15 7–105
perfectionism Study 2 21–105 68.07 16.09 0.89
Other oriented Study 1 19–85 58.07 11.06 0.71
15 7–105
perfectionsim Study 2 24–90 56.29 10.89 0.72
Socially oriented Study 1 21–85 53.72 12.97 0.81
15 7–105
perfectionsim Study 2 19–94 54.26 14.01 0.85
Family Environment
Scale
Family CohesivenessStudy 1 9 9–36 12–36 27.29 5.07 0.82
Family Conflict Study 1 9 9–36 9–34 20.26 5.38 0.82
(Continued)
292 Tangney et al.
Table 1 (cont.)
Close Relationship
Questionnaire
Avoidant Study 1 1–7 3.37 1.95 –
1 1–7
Study 2 1–7 2.94 1.98
Anxious- Study 1 1–7 3.49 1.9 –
1 1–7
Ambivalent Study 2 1–7 2.83 1.87
Secure Study 1 1–7 4.37 1.84 –
1 1–7
Study 2 1–7 4.78 1.82
Empathy- Interpersonal
Reactivity Index
Perspective Taking Study 1 7–35 24.35 4.77 0.74
7 7–35
Study 2 9–35 24.36 4.88 0.75
Empathic Concern Study 1 15–35 28.03 4.15 0.70
7 7–35
Study 2 11–35 28.62 4.46 0.77
Personal Distress Study 1 12–47 29.27 6.13 0.76
10 10–50
Study 2 14–46 29.46 5.62 0.68
Anger Response
Inventory
Total Anger Study 1 47–112 89.54 10.94 0.85
23 23–115
Arousal Study 2 40–111 85.47 13.64 0.92
Intentions
Constructive Study 1 34–115 93.82 13.59 0.88
23 23–115
Intentions Study 2 34–115 87.02 17.60 0.93
Malevolent Study 1 27–111 69.81 17.64 0.92
23 23–115
Intentions Study 2 23–110 65.04 20.12 0.95
Fractious Study 1 25–115 75.10 19.84 0.93
23 23–115
Study 2 25–113 70.75 20.55 0.95
Maladaptive Responses
Direct Physical Study 1 7–28 10.97 3.84 0.70
7 7–35
Aggression Study 2 7–28 11.55 4.59 0.79
Direct Verbal Study 1 8–39 18.20 6.15 0.71
8 8–40
(Continued)
Table 1 (cont.)
Direct Symbolic Study 1 7–30 13.85 4.84 0.65
7 7–35
Indirect Harm Study1 11–40 21.15 5.98 0.70
11 11–55
Study 2 11–45 21.60 6.84 0.78
Malediction Study 1 10–47 24.48 6.55 0.67
10 10–50
Study 2 10–46 24.02 7.44 0.76
Displaced Physical Study 1 7–23 8.83 2.76 0.69
7 7–35
Displaced Verbal Study 1 7–26 11.56 3.98 0.66
7 7–35
Displaced Study 1 8–26 11.68 4.20 0.73
8 8–40
Aggression-Object Study 2 8–40 12.24 5.82 0.88
Self-Directed Study 1 9–41 22.45 6.54 0.72
9 9–45
Anger Held In Study 1 10–44 25.90 6.74 0.70
10 10–50
Study 2 10–43 24.22 7.28 0.79
Adaptive Responses
Communicate Study1 20–55 42.92 6.98 0.76
11 11–55
with Target Study 2 19–55 41.15 7.60 0.80
Constructive Study 1 26–49 38.67 4.41 0.39
10 10–50
Action Study 2 22–50 38.06 5.01 0.55
Escapist-Diffusing
Behaviors
Diffusion of Anger Study 1 10–35 23.02 4.79 0.57
7 7–35
Study 2 10–35 22.94 4.66 0.57
Minimization Study 1 8–36 21.55 4.73 0.46
8 8–40
Study 2 10–36 21.88 4.69 0.75
Removal Study 1 7–34 19.50 4.47 0.49
7 7–35
Study 2 9–30 19.52 4.33 0.49
Doing Nothing Study 1 10–39 24.66 5.12 0.49
9 9–45
Study 2 11–40 26.11 5.29 0.51
(Continued)
294 Tangney et al.
Table 1 (cont.)
Cognitive Reappraisals Study 1 18–58 38.37 6.81 0.68

12 12–60
Target’s Role Study 2 40–58 38.02 7.53 0.75
Selfs Role Study 1 10–46 28.10 6.59 0.73
10 10–50
Study 2 12–46 27.73 6.52 0.75
Long-Term Consequences
For Self Study 1 31–105 74.93 14.49 0.93
21 21–105
Study 2 24–105 76.61 16.22 0.95
For Target Study 1 29–105 67.86 12.17 0.88
21 21–105
Study 2 23–105 71.50 14.78 0.94
For Relationship Study 1 20–75 46.91 11.02 0.89
15 15–75
Study 2 16–75 50.82 12.08 0.92
Total Study 1 41–144 96.68 17.19 0.96
29 29–145
Study 2 33–145 101.35 20.73 0.98
Multidimensional
Forgiveness Inventory
Forgive Others Study 2 8 8–40 10–40 23.94 5.70 0.78
Ask for Forgiveness Study 2 8 8–40 8–40 33.27 6.27 0.83
Forgive Self Study 2 8 8–40 8–38 21.92 5.89 0.79
TOSCA
Shame-Proneness Study 1 20–71 44.25 9.42 0.76
16 16–80
Study 2 19–71 47.29 9.70 0.77
Guilt–Proneness Study 1 44–80 62.87 6.99 0.70
16 16–80
Study 2 37–80 64.65 7.70 0.75
Externalization Study 1 18–61 37.96 7.78 0.66
16 16–80
Study 2 22–67 38.83 9.17 0.75
Study 1 n 5 200–351 except MAST and GPA, n 5 140–157.
Study 2 n 5 200–254 except MC, n 5 105.
interoceptive awareness, and maturity fears. Thus, people who are

high in self-control report fewer eating disorder symptoms and fewer
of the cognitive patterns that have been linked to eating disorders.
Alcohol abuse is another commonly bemoaned manifestation of
deficient impulse control among university students. Study 1
Table 2
Relationship of Self-Control to GPA, Eating Disorders, and Alcoholism
Controlling for Marlowe-

Bivariate Correlations Crowne Controlling for BIDR
Full Self- Brief Self- Full Self- Brief Self- Full Self- Brief Self-
Control Control Control Control Control Control
Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure
Marlowe Crowne Study 1 .56nnn .54nnn – – – –
Study 2 .60nnn .59nnn – – – –
BIDR Study 2 .57nnn .55nnn – – – –
Grade Point Average Study 1 .39nnn .39nnn .32nnn .32nnn – –
Study 2 .19nn .15n .23nn .18 .16n .11
Eating Disorder Inventory
Drive for Thinness Study 1 ! .34nnn ! .37nnn ! .31nnn ! .35nnn – –
Bulimia Study 1 ! .36nnn ! .35nnn ! .30nnn ! .28nnn – –
Body Dissatisfaction Study 1 ! .37nnn ! .40nnn ! .33nnn ! .34nnn – –
Ineffectiveness Study 1 ! .41nnn ! .44nnn ! .35nnn ! .39nnn – –
Perfectionism Study 1 .06 .08 .01 .04 – –
Interpersonal Distrust Study 1 ! .22nnn ! .25nnn ! .14nn ! .21nnn – –
Interoceptive Awareness Study 1 ! .48nnn ! .51nnn ! .43nnn ! .47nnn – –
Maturity Fears Study 1 ! .13n ! .16n ! .22nnn ! .23nnn – –
Michigan Alcohol Screening Test
Alcoholism Study 1 ! .31nnn ! .32nnn ! .26nn ! .26nn – –
Study 1 n 5 200 –346, except for analysis involving MAST and GPA n 5 140 –157.
Study 2 n 5 200 –255, except for analysis involving MC, n 5 98–105
n
po.05. nnpo.01. nnnpo.001.
296 Tangney et al.
participants completed the SMAST, which assesses markers com-

monly associated with alcohol abuse such as alcohol-related arrests,
problems at work, concerned friends or relatives, and binge drinking.
Scores on the alcohol screening inventory were significantly negatively
correlated with both Total and Brief SCS scores. In short, high self-
control is linked to a relative absence of problem drinking patterns.
Again, the link between low self-control and both eating problems
and problematic drinking patterns held when controlling for social
desirability. Thus, these correlations do not simply reflect method
variance or response bias.
Psychological Adjustment and Self-Esteem

We hypothesized that self-control would be associated with positive
psychological adjustment. This hypothesis was confirmed. As shown
in Table 3, both Total and Brief SCS scores were significantly
negatively correlated with all measures of psychological symptoms
from the SCL-90, including somatization, obsessive-compulsive
patterns, depression, anxiety, hostile, anger, phobic anxiety, para-
noid ideation, and psychoticism. Again, these findings were robust
with respect to social desirability.
A second set of analyses was conducted to evaluate a competing
hypothesis of a curvilinear relationship between self-control and
psychological adjustment. Do very high scores on the Self-Control
Scale reflect tendencies toward overcontrol, contributing perhaps to
a distinctive set of psychopathologies? Based on the present data, the
answer is no. In a series of regression analyses, no significant change
in R2 was associated with squared terms entered following each
SCL-90 subscale. These would detect any signs of curvilinearity in
the data, beyond the basic linear effect we already reported. The
failure of these analyses to yield significant improvements in
prediction suggests that self-control is beneficial and adaptive in a
linear fashion. We found no evidence that any psychological
problems are linked to high self-control.
To assess the relationship between self-control and psychological
adjustment further, in Study 2 we used the MCMI-III, a more
detailed measure of psychopathology, assessing both Axis I and
Axis II syndromes described in the DSM-IV. Here, too, both Total
and Brief SCS scores were substantially negatively related with the
broad range of personality and psychopathology symptom clusters,
Table 3
Relationship of Self-Control to Psychological Adjustment and Self-Esteem
Controlling for
Bivariate Correlations Marlowe-Crowne Controlling for BIDR
SCL-90
Somatization Study 1 ! .39nnn ! .35nnn ! .31nnn ! .26nnn – –
Obsessive-Compulsive Study 1 ! .42nnn ! .41nnn ! .33nnn ! .32nnn – –
Interpersonal Sensitivity Study 1 ! .36nnn ! .33nnn ! .27nn ! .24nn – –
Depression Study 1 ! .41nnn ! .38nnn ! .34nnn ! .32nnn – –
Anxiety Study 1 ! .36nnn ! .34nnn ! .33nnn ! .30nnn – –
Hostility-Anger Study 1 ! .40nnn ! .34nnn ! .27nn ! .22nn – –
Phobic Anxiety Study 1 ! .30nnn ! .25nn ! .25nn ! .19n – –
Paranoid Ideation Study 1 ! .29nnn ! .25nnn ! .22nn ! .17n – –
Psychotisicm Study 1 ! .33nnn ! .28nnn ! .25nn ! .20n – –
MCMI-III
Clinical Personality Patterns
Schizoid Study 2 ! .18nn ! .16n ! .07 ! .10 ! .08 ! .05
Avoidant Study 2 ! .27nnn ! .25nnn ! .17 ! .17 ! .17 ! .15n
(Continued)
Table 3 (cont.)
Controlling for Marlowe-

Bivariate Correlations Crowne Controlling for BIDR
Depressive Study 2 ! .39nnn ! .35nnn ! .29nn ! .26nn ! .35nnn ! .30nnn

Dependent Study 2 ! .43nnn ! .38nnn ! .35nnn ! .30nn ! .36nnn ! .30nnn
Histrionic Study 2 .09 .09 .01 .04 .06 .05
Narcissistic Study 2 .01 .01 .06 .06 .06 .05
Antisocial Study 2 ! .62nnn ! .58nnn ! .51nnn ! .49nnn .50nnn ! .45nnn
Sadist (Aggressive) Study 2 ! .48nnn ! .43nnn ! .36nnn ! .33nnn ! .32nnn ! .27nnn
Compulsive Study 2 .65nnn .61nnn .53nnn .53nnn .56nnn .50nnn
Negativistic (Passive-Aggressive) Study 2 ! .57nnn ! .48nnn ! .42nnn ! .35nnn ! .46nnn ! .36nnn
Masochistic (Self-Defeati) Study 2 ! .35nnn ! .32nnn ! .21n ! .19 ! .29nnn ! .25nnn
Severe Personality Pathology
Schizotypal Study 2 ! .36nnn ! .31nnn ! .25nn ! .20n ! .28nnn ! .22nnn
Borderline Study 2 ! .65nnn ! .58nnn ! .57nnn ! .50nnn ! .57nnn ! .48nnn
Paranoid Study 2 ! .31nnn ! .27nnn ! .25n ! .26nn ! .20nn ! .16n
Study 1 n 5 339–347, except for analysis involving SCL-90, n 5 151–154.
Study 2 n 5 254, except for analysis involving MC, n 5 101.
n
with the exception of Histrionic, Narcissistic, and Compulsive

Clinical Personality Patterns. This pattern of results is consistent
with Millon et al.’s (1997) findings that these three scales tend to be
negatively correlated with other measures of psychopathology, such
as the Beck Depression Inventory, the State-Trait Anxiety Scales,
and the SCL-90 scales. The MCMI-III Compulsive Scale, in
particular, appears to tap an adaptive trait of conscientiousness,
rather than pathological compulsive tendencies. Thus, it is not
surprising that the MCMI-III Compulsive Scale correlated posi-
tively and substantially with the Total and Brief SCS scores. These
findings involving the MCMI-III held when social desirability was
partialed out.
Self-esteem is often taken as a measure of adjustment (e.g.,
Heilbrun, 1981; Kahle, Kulka, & Klingel, 1980; Whitley, 1983),
although some authors have questioned this practice, suggesting that
excesses of self-esteem can be detrimental. Still, the Rosenberg
(1965) self-esteem scale (which we used) seems well designed to
capture simple self-acceptance without registering inflated or
narcissistic views of self, and so it may be better suited than other
self-esteem scales to measure adjustment. In any case, we found a
significant positive correlation between self-control and the Rosen-
berg self-esteem scale. Stability of self-esteem was also correlated
with self-control. In each case, the findings replicated across studies,
were observed for both Total and Brief SCS scores, and held when
controlling for social desirability using the Marlowe-Crowne
(Studies 1 and 2) and the BIDR (Study 2). Thus, people with high
self-control apparently accept themselves as valuable, worthy
individuals and are relatively well able to sustain this favorable
view of self across time and circumstances.
Related Personality Features

We also examined the relationship of self-control to two key
personality features theoretically related to the propensity for self-
control—conscientiousness (as part of the Big Five personality
factors) and perfectionism. As shown in Table 4, self-control was
substantially positively correlated with conscientiousness, as pre-
dicted. In addition, the capacity for self-control was associated with
emotional stability and (to a somewhat lesser degree) agreeableness.
Table 4
Relationship of Self-Control to the Big Five and Perfectionism
Bivariate Correlations Controlling for Marlowe-Crowne Controlling for BIDR
Mini Marker
Extraversion Study 2 .09 .11 .05 .09 .07 .09
Agreeableness Study 2 .29nnn .29nnn ! .05 ! .01 .12 .12
Conscientiousness Study 2 .54nnn .48nnn .49nnn .43nnn .47nnn .39
Emotional Stability Study 2 .50nnn .42nnn .42nnn .29nn .39nnn .30
Openness to Experience Study 2 .04 .05 ! .02 .01 ! .06 ! .04
Brief Perfectionsim Scale Study 2 .15 .10 .07 .01 .14 .09
Multidimensional Perfectionsim Scale
Self oriented perfectionism Study 1 .15 .15 .18n .17n – –
Study 2 .23nnn .20nn .20n .13 .12 .10
Other oriented perfectionsim Study 1 .13 .18n .15 .20n – –
Study 2 .12 .12 .15 .14 .17nn .16n
Socially oriented perfectionsim Study 1 ! .31nnn ! .29nnn ! .21nn ! .20n – –
Study 2 ! .26nnn ! .25nnn ! .19 ! .21 ! .20nn ! .19nn
Study 1 n 5 146.
Study 2 n 5 229–233, except for analysis involving MC and Self-Perfectionism, n 5 101–105.
n
The links with conscientiousness and emotional stability were

independent of social desirability.
In contrast, the SCS was less strongly linked to indices of
perfectionism. Although at first glance perfectionism may appear to
involve high levels of self-control (working doggedly in pursuit of
perfection), one of the problems perfectionists often report is their
inability to relax their perfectionistic standards—to take a break—
when in reality a perfect product or performance is unnecessary.
Interpersonal Relations
We hypothesized that self-control would be associated with positive
interpersonal relations. Theoretically, the link between self-control
and interpersonal adjustment should be bi-directional. For example,
in the context of the family, good family relations should improve
the capacity for self-regulation (as compared to living in a
dysfunctional, conflict-ridden family). Conversely, a strong capacity
for self-control should enhance one’s ability to get along well with
others, leading to better family dynamics and relationships.
As predicted, participants who reported a positive family
environment in their family of origin had higher self-control,
compared to their peers from more dysfunctional families. Table 5
shows that self-control was positively correlated with family
cohesion and negatively correlated with family conflict. We did
not have the opportunity to replicate across samples. (The measure
of family environment was included in Study 1 only.) But the effects
were consistently significant when considering both Total and Brief
SCS scores, and when controlling for social desirability.
Attachment style was also related to self-control (see Table 5). In
both studies, a secure attachment style was positively correlated with
the capacity for self-control (as measured by both Total and Brief
SCS scores), consistent with the view that self-control strengthens
and is strengthened by good, stable relationships. In contrast,
avoidant and anxious-ambivalent attachment styles were negatively
correlated with self-control. In Study 2, the findings were robust
with respect to social desirability—as assessed by both the Marlowe-
Crowne and BIDR. In Study 1, however, the relationship of self-
control to avoidant and secure attachment did not hold when
controlling for Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scores.
Table 5
Relationship of Self-Control to Family Cohesion and Conflict, Attachment, and Empathy
Bivariate Correlations Controlling for Martowe-Crowne Controlling for BIDR
Family Environment Scale
Family Cohesion Study 1 .38nnn .35nnn .27nn .24nn – –
Family Conflict Study 1 ! .37nnn ! .32nnn ! .24nn ! .18n – –
Attachment
Avoidant Study 1 ! .12n ! .12n ! .04 ! .05 – –
Study 2 ! .20nn ! .22nn ! .18 ! .26nn ! .18nn ! .21nnn
Anxious- Ambivalent Study 1 ! .25nnn ! .23nnn ! .18nn ! .15nn – –
Study 2 ! .24nnn ! .20nn ! .18 ! .13 ! .20nnn ! .15n
Secure Study 1 .16nn .15nn .06 .07 – –
Study 2 .26nnn .25nnn .29nn .35nnn .22nnn .22nnn
Empathy
Perspective Taking Study 1 .16nn .14n ! .02 ! .04 – –
Study 2 .27nnn .25nnn .10 .16 .11 .09
Empathic Concern Study 1 ! .03 ! .02 ! .22nnn ! .22nnn – –
Study 2 .19nn .21nnn ! .14 ! .03 .09 .11
Personal Distress Study 1 ! .28nnn ! .29nnn ! .32nnn ! .33nnn – –
Study 2 ! .18nn ! .13n ! .27nn ! .21n ! .19nn ! .13n
Study 1 n 5 337–350, except for analysis involving FES, n 5 150–153.
Study 2 n 5 248–250 , except for analysis involving MC, n 5 99–100.
n
po.05. nnpo.01. nnnpo001.
Empathy—the ability to take another person’s perspective and to

vicariously experience another’s emotion—is widely regarded as a
fundamental social skill. A vast empirical literature indicates that
empathy contributes to warm, close interpersonal relationships and
inhibits interpersonal aggression (Eisenberg, 1986). As shown in
Table 5, across both studies, Total and Brief SCS scores were
positively correlated with perspective taking. Thus, self-control
appears to facilitate the ability to step outside one’s own point of
view and understand someone else’s concerns. Meanwhile, self-
oriented personal distress, which has generally been linked to
negative interpersonal outcomes, was consistently inversely corre-
lated with self-control. In other words, people high in self-control do
not tend to wallow in their own personal reactions to other people’s
problems. No consistent pattern was observed for the empathic
concern scale.
There were no effects of controlling for social desirability on the
link between self-control and self-oriented personal distress. How-
ever, the findings involving perspective taking were less robust with
respect to social desirability.
We also considered participants’ characteristic strategies for
managing and expressing anger. When left unchanneled and
unchecked, anger can be interpersonally harmful and disruptive,
leading in some cases to aggression. As shown in Table 6, high levels
of self-control were significantly related to a relative absence of
anger in Study 1, with an analogous non-significant trend in Study 2.
More importantly, self-control was strongly linked to people’s
characteristic responses once angered. Specifically, high self-control
was negatively correlated with malevolent and fractious intentions
(e.g., wanting to vent or let off steam), and with outwardly directed
aggression (physical, verbal, symbolic, indirect, and displaced)
aggression. People with high self-control likewise showed low scores
on anger held in, which indicates that they are relatively disinclined
to ruminate about their anger and grow increasingly angry with such
inward thoughts. They also reported relatively low tendencies to
engage in self-directed aggression as a result of their anger. Rather,
people with high self-control emerged from these data as inclined to
take a more constructive approach to anger management, especially
engaging in rational discussion of the matter with the target of their
anger. Not surprisingly, self-control was positively correlated with
beneficial (as opposed to harmful) long-term consequences of
Table 6
Relationship of Self-Control to Anger
Controlling for
Bivariate Correlations Mariowe-Crowne Controlling for BIDR
Anger Response Inventory
Total Anger Arousal Study 1 ! .22nnn ! .21nnn ! .13n ! .14n – –
Study 2 ! .12 ! .09 ! .07 ! .05 ! .05 ! .02
Intentions
Constructive Intentions Study 1 ! .02 ! .04 .03 .00 – –
Study 2 ! .08 ! .09 ! .05 ! .12 ! .04 ! .06
Malevolent Intentions Study I ! .29nnn ! .29nnn ! .19nnn ! .19nnn – –
Study 2 ! .20nn ! .19nn .03 .00 .00 .01
Fractious Study1 ! .31nnn ! .33nnn ! .23nnn ! .26nnn – –
Study 2 ! .24nnn ! .21nnn ! .11 ! .11 ! .06 ! .03
Maladaptive Responses
Direct Physical Aggression Study 1 ! .26nnn .24nnn ! .21nnn ! .19nnn – –
Study 2 ! .18nn ! .15n ! .02 .06 .02 .04
Direct Verbal Aggression Study 1 ! .32nnn ! .23nnn ! .21nnn ! .17nnn – –
Study 2 ! .26nnn ! .23nnn ! .10 ! .03 ! .07 ! .04
Direct Symbolic Aggression Study 1 ! .34nnn ! .29nnn ! .25nnn ! .20nnn – –
Study 2 ! .25nnn ! .24nnn ! .13 ! .14nn ! .02 ! .02
Indirect Harm Study 1 ! .31nnn ! .29nnn ! .25nnn ! .23nnn – –
Study 2 ! .28nnn ! .25nnn ! .10 ! .08 ! .08 ! .06
Malediction Study 1 ! .24nnn ! .21nnn ! .16nn ! .14n – !
Study 2 ! .33nnn ! .31nnn ! .07 ! .07 ! .16n ! .15n
Displaced Physical Aggression Study 1 ! .18nn ! .16nn ! .16nn ! .14nn – –
Study 2 ! .16n ! .13 ! .02 .04 .06 .10
Displaced Verbal Aggression Study 1 ! .19nnn ! .19nnn ! .10 ! .12n – –
Study 2 ! .27nnn ! .23nnn ! .13 ! .08 ! .04 .00
Displaced Aggression (Object) Study 1 ! .25nnn ! .25nnn ! .17nn ! .17nnn – –
Study 2 ! .13n ! .12 ! .03 ! .01 .06 .06
Self-Directed Aggression Study 1 ! .17nn ! .19nnn ! .20nnn ! .23nnn – –
Study 2 ! .17nn ! .16n ! .08 ! .10 ! .02 ! .01
Anger Held In Study 1 ! .35nnn ! .37nnn ! .25nnn ! .28nnn – –
Study 2 ! .30nnn ! .30nnn ! .13 ! .22n ! .13 ! .14n
Adaptive Behaviors
Communicate w/ Target Study 1 .23nnn .22nnn .12n .08 – –
Study 2 .13n .14n ! .10 ! .14 .03 .04
Constructive Action Study 1 ! .02 ! .03 ! .01 ! .03 – –
Study 2 ! .02 ! .02 ! .06 ! .08 ! .06 ! .06
(Continued)
Table 6 (cont.)
Controlling for
Bivariate Correlations Mariowe-Crowne Controlling for BIDR
Escapist-Diffusing Behaviors
Diffusion of Anger Study 1 ! .09 ! .10 ! .13n ! .15nn – –
Study 2 ! .02 ! .06 ! .09 ! .18 ! .05 ! .09
Minimization Study l .01 ! .02 ! .08 ! .11n ! !
Study 2 ! .03 ! .05 .03 ! .03 .05 .02
Removal Study 1 ! .01 ! .04 ! .05 ! .08 ! !
Study 2 .01 .03 ! .01 .00 .08 .10
Doing Nothing Study l ! .06 ! .07 ! .17nnn ! .18nnn – –
Study 2 ! .01 .00 .01 .04 .00 .01
Cognitive Reappraisals
Target’s Role Study 1 .01 .00 ! .08 ! .09 – –
Study 2 .11 .11 .05 .03 .06 .05
Self’s Role Study 1 ! .18nnn ! .17nnn ! .21 ! .20nnn ! –
Study 2 ! .04 ! .03 ! .15 ! .18 .00 .02
Long-Term Consequences
For Self Study 1 .17nnn .19nnn .12n .14nn – –
Study 2 .16n .15n ! .10 .10 .05 .04
For Target Study l .17nnn .20nnn .13n .16nn – –
Study 2 .13 .11 ! .11 ! .13 .01 .00
For Relationship Study l .23nnn .24nnn .15nn .16nn – –
Study 2 .16n .14n ! .15 ! .15 .03 .02
Total Study l .21nnn .23nnn .14nn .17nn ! !
Study 2 .16n .14n ! .12 ! .13 .03 .02
Study 1 n 5 342–351.
Study 2 n 5 224–227, except for analysis involving MC, n 5 99.
n
po.05. nnpo01. nnnpo.001.
308 Tangney et al.
interpersonal episodes of anger. There was no consistent relation-

ship between self-control and the use of escapist-diffusing strategies,
nor cognitive reappraisals of the anger eliciting event.
Insofar as communication seems a constructive way to deal with
anger and hence likely to prove beneficial to interpersonal relation-
ships in times of conflict, these findings provide further support for
the view that self-control is linked to beneficial interpersonal
patterns. The fact that self-control was negatively correlated with
holding anger in (and with self-directed aggression) is another
indication that the benefits of self-control are linear rather than
curvilinear. If overcontrol were a source of problems and
pathologies, then people with high self-control would likely suffer
from the problematic patterns of holding anger inside themselves. In
fact, however, the opposite was found, and so the overcontrol
hypothesis did not receive support.
In general, the bivariate correlations with indices of anger
management replicated across the two studies. Regarding social
desirability, these links between self-control and constructive anger
management held in Study 1 when controlling for the Marlowe-
Crowne. The Study 2 findings were less robust with respect to social
desirability, in many cases dropping below significance when
partialing out Marlowe-Crowne or BIDR scores.
Self-control was less clearly linked to people’s inclination to
forgive others. There was a very modest positive correlation between
Total Self-Control scores and participants’ propensity to forgive
others (Table 7), but this finding dropped below significance when
controlling for social desirability.3
Moral Emotions
Last, we considered the implications of self-control for people’s
reaction to their own transgressions. In the course of daily life, in
spite of their best efforts at self-control, people inevitably sin and
transgress, at least on occasion. An important component of
interpersonal adjustment is the manner in which people manage
their failures and transgressions. As shown in Table 8 across both
studies and when considering both the Total and Brief SCS scores,
people high in self-control exhibited an adaptive moral emotional
3. We also examined parents’ and friends’ reports of the participants’ forgiveness

and empathy. No consistent findings emerged.
Table 7
Relationship of Self-Control to Forgiveness
Controlling for
Bivariate Correlations Marlowe-Crowne Controlling for BIDR
Multidimensional Forgiveness Inventory

Forgive Others Study 2 .15n .08 .07 ! .01 .09 .01
Ask for Forgiveness Study 2 .08 .05 .05 ! .01 .06 .03
Forgive Self Study 2 ! .11 ! .17nn .04 .03 .00 ! .07
Study 2 n 5 249–252, except for analysis involving MC n 5 96–99.
n
Table 8
Relationship of Self-Control to Shame-Proneness & Guilt Proneness
Controlling for
Bivariate Correlations Martowe-Crowne Controlling for BIDR
TOSCA
Shame-Proneness Study 1 ! .33nnn ! .35nnn ! .30nnn ! .32nnn – –
Study 2 ! .26nnn ! .22nnn ! .01 .01 ! .19nn ! .14n
Guilt-Proneness Study 1 .13n .13n ! .01 ! .01 – –
Study 2 .30nnn .27nnn .26nn .13 .13n .09
Externalization Study 1 ! .13n ! .14nn ! .11n ! .13n – –
Study 2 ! .23nnn ! .23nnn ! .10 ! .13 ! .09 ! .09
Study 1 n 5 342.
Study 2 n 5 249–252, except for analysis involving MC, n 5 100.
n
style, scoring relatively low in shame and high in ‘‘shame-free’’ guilt.

In addition, high self-control individuals are inclined to take
responsibility for their transgressions (rather than externalizing
blame, or minimizing the importance of the transgression). In short,
having done wrong, high self-control people are inclined to focus on
the effects of their behavior, and, in doing so, are inclined toward
making amends. In contrast, low self-control individuals are more
apt to experience painful feelings of shame—a moral emotion that
often provokes defensiveness and denial, rather than repair and
redemption. These findings partially held when social desirability
was factored out.
DISCUSSION
The two goals of this paper were to provide evidence for the psycho-
logical benefits and advantages of self-control and, in order to accom-
plish that, to develop a trait scale to assess individual differences in
self-control. The results suggest that our scale performs well as a
trait measure and that self-control is indeed linked to a broad range
of positive outcomes. We shall discuss these two separately.
Benefits of Self-Control
A main purpose of this work was to test the hypothesis that self-
control would be correlated with a range of positive, desirable
outcomes. The present data provide strong and extensive support
for this view.
First, people with high self-control had better grades, as
compared with people low in self-control. Advocates of self-disci-
pline have long speculated that it will produce better performance.
For example, people with poor self-control may procrastinate on
tasks, which often leads to poorer performance and lower grades
(Tice & Baumeister, 1997). Although the current data are correla-
tional, precluding strong causal conclusions, the results are consis-
tent with the view that high self-control fosters strong academic
performance.
Second, people with high self-control showed fewer impulse
control problems, including binge eating and alcohol abuse. Third,
they showed better psychological adjustment, as assessed by a self-
report measure of psychopathological symptoms including somati-
zation, obsessive-compulsive patterns, depression, anxiety, hostile
312 Tangney et al.
anger, phobic anxiety, paranoid ideation, and psychoticism. They

also had higher self-acceptance or self-esteem, which is often
regarded as a vital aspect of mental health and adjustment on
theoretical grounds (e.g., Bednar, Wells, & Peterson, 1989; Mruk,
1995; Taylor & Brown, 1988) and indeed often measured as a
presumptive index of adjustment (e.g., Heilbrun, 1981; Kahle,
Kulka, & Klingel, 1980; Whitley, 1983). High self-control is thus
linked to a broad range of positive outcomes for the individual.
Fourth, high self-control was correlated with better interpersonal
relationships, as indicated by better family cohesion and less family
conflict. People with high self-control also had a more secure attach-
ment style and were less prone to the more problematic attachment
styles (such as avoidant or anxious/ambivalent). Their empathy
scores appeared optimal for interpersonal functioning: High self-
control predicted better perspective-taking and less proneness to
wallow in personal distress, both of which patterns have been
associated with better interpersonal outcomes (see Davis & Oathout,
1987; Leith & Baumeister, 1998). In addition, people with high self-
control reported less anger and better management of anger when
they do get angry.
Last, people with high self-control reported more guilt and less
shame than other people. Recent research has repeatedly established
the individually and interpersonally beneficial aspects of guilt as well
as the destructive, divisive effects of shame (Tangney, 1991, 1995a;
Tangney, Miller, et al., 1996; Tangney et al., 1992; also Baumeister,
Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1994; Leith & Baumeister, 1998). Thus, self-
control is associated with emotional patterns that seem beneficial
both to the individual and to other people associated with the
individual.
During the past several years that we have spent on this project,
we began to make our scale available to other researchers, and they
have also found that high self-control predicts positive outcomes.
People who score high on our self-control scale show better inter-
personal accommodation, better dyadic adjustment, and more satis-
fying relationships (Finkel & Campbell, 2000), lower juvenile
delinquency and less adolescent alcohol abuse (Engels, Finkenauer,
& Den Exter Blokland, 2000), and better ability to make themselves
perform an aversive task in the laboratory as well as resistance to
ego depletion (Twenge, Tice, & Baumeister, 2000). Rohde (2000)
found that high self-control was linked to adaptive traits and
behavior patterns but was not related to intelligence, which is

especially important because it helps rule out that intelligence
contributed to the present study’s finding that grade point average
was correlated with self-control. Last, Cox (2000) found that sup-
ervisors with high self-control were more trusted by their
subordinates and received higher ratings on fairness. Smith (2001)
replicated our finding that high self-control predicted better grades
among university students, using official grade reports obtained
from the university registrar rather than self-report.
Smith’s (2001) use of objective measures is relevant to the main
limitation of the present research, namely its reliance on self-report.
In principle, our results might reflect a response bias or self-
deception pattern that causes people to report high self-control
along with positive outcomes on adjustment, performance, and
other variables. This concern is somewhat diminished by our
findings that controlling for social desirability biases scarcely
affected most of the links between self-control and other outcomes.
Still, objective measures of personal outcomes are desirable ways of
ensuring that the ostensible benefits of self-control are not entirely a
product of distorted self-perceptions. Smith, in fact, found that the
correlation of self-control with grade point average was higher for
objective grade reports than for self-reported grades, which is thus
doubly reassuring. By the same token, Cox’s (2000) finding that
subordinates gave more favorable ratings to leaders with high self-
control helps offset any concern that the superior leadership of those
people is confined to their own self-appraisals. In sum, the present
studies relied on self-reports, but encouraging findings from other
investigations (as well as our social desirability biases) suggest that
the benefits of self-control are indeed objectively valid.
Costs of Self-Control
Not all theoretical views about self-control have emphasized positive
outcomes. In particular, theories about overcontrol have held that
high levels of self-control contribute to pathologies such as
obsession and compulsion.
The present results offer no support for the view that high levels of
self-control are bad. All our findings suggest linear effects such that
more self-control is better. Analyses designed to test for curvilinearity
failed consistently to find any evidence that scores at both extremes
314 Tangney et al.
are problematic. Even on measures such as eating disorder symptoms

and obsessive/compulsive tendencies, where overcontrol should be
most apparent, our findings suggested a linear pattern such that
higher self-control was associated with fewer symptoms.
In short, there was no evidence of problems at both ends of the
continuum of self-control. In fact, self-control might be better concep-
tualized as self-regulation—the ability to regulate the self strategically
in response to goals, priorities, and environmental demands. From
this perspective, rigid ‘‘overcontrolled’’ individuals (e.g., those with
obsessive-compulsive disorder, anorexia) suffer from problems regu-
lating and directing their capacity for self-control. Such overcon-
trolled individuals may be said to lack the ability to control their
self-control. In contrast, individuals genuinely high in self-control
have the ability to exert self-control when it is required (e.g., forgoing
a party to study for an exam, passing on dessert) and to suspend self-
control when it is not (e.g., during spring break, at one’s own birthday
party)—similar to Block & Kremen’s (1996) description of the ego
resilient individual. Consistent with this notion, SCS scores were
substantially positively correlated with conscientiousness but much
less clearly linked to perfectionism.
Measurement of Self-Control
Given that self-control has such broad implications for adjustment,
it is surprising that there are not many theoretically informed,
reliable, and valid measures of self-control. Apart from their sub-
stantive implications, results from the current study provide strong
support for the reliability and validity of the Self-Control Scale—a
relatively brief, easily administered paper-and-pencil measure. Its
internal consistency was good, especially for the full scale but also
for the subscales. Retest reliability over a one-to-three-week period
was also satisfactorily high. Moreover, the brief, 13-item version of
the SCS performed nearly as well as the full-length version.
Self-Control and Social Desirability

Scores on social desirability correlated substantially with scores on
the Self-Control Scale. This substantial amount of shared variance
could be interpreted in two ways. One interpretation is that self-
reports on self-control are colored by social desirability bias, as
when people falsely claim to have good self-control because they
want to look good and conform to socially approved norms. The

other interpretation is that people who do have high self-control are
more likely actually to do things that are socially desirable, because
social desirability consists essentially of overriding selfish interests in
order to do what is best for the entire community.
The strong and significant links between self-control and measures
of performance, impulse control, and psychological adjustment held
even when we controlled for social desirability. (The findings from the
interpersonal cluster were somewhat less robust with respect to social
desirability.) In contrast, social desirability lost most of its predictive
power when we controlled for self-control scores. Thus, the effects of
self-control were more robust than those of social desirability, and
indeed self-control has arguably the prior claim on much of the
variance it shares with social desirability.
Our results should be quite encouraging to those who believe that
self-control produces positive benefits. Our results are correlational
and therefore do not establish that self-control produces positive
effects, but we think that that is the most plausible interpretation of
our findings. In any case, the array of positive correlations between
self-control and positive outcomes suggests that the benefits of self-
control are worth serious consideration. We found that people with
high self-control got better grades, were better adjusted, had better
interpersonal skills and better interpersonal relationships, and had
more optimal emotional lives than other people. Put another way,
people low on self-control reported a remarkable range of unhappy
and undesirable outcomes in schoolwork, social life, personal
adjustment, and emotional patterns.
Thus, the main conclusion is that self-control as measured by our
scale is linked to beneficial, positive outcomes across remarkably
diverse domains. Evidence of causal influence will have to wait for
experimental and longitudinal research designs, but it seems safe to
regard high self-control as a marker of good adjustment. Indeed,
given the breadth of positive outcomes it predicts, self-control may
well be at the core of psychological adjustment.
REFERENCES
Ainsworth, M. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of
attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
316 Tangney et al.
American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of

Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric
Association.
Avakame, E. F. (1998). Intergenerational transmission of violence, self-control,
and conjugal violence: A comparative analysis of physical violence and
psychological aggression. Violence & Victims, 13, 301–316.
Barron, F. (1953). An ego-strength scale which predicts response to psychother-
apy. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 5, 327–333.
Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing control: How
and why people fail at self-regulation. San Diego: Academic Press, Inc.
Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). Guilt: An
interpersonal approach. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 243–267.
Bednar, R. L., Wells, M. G., & Peterson, S. R. (1989). Self-esteem: Paradoxes and
innovations in clinical theory and practice. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Block, J. (1961). The Q-sort method in personality assesment and psychiatric
research. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Block, J., & Kremen, A. M. (1996). IQ and Ego-Resiliency: Conceptual and
empirical connections and separateness. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70, 349–361.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss, Vol. I: Attachment (2nd ed.). New York:
Basic Books.
Brandon, J. E., Oescher, J., & Loftin, J. M. (1990). The self-control questionnaire:
An assessment. Health Values, 14, 3–9.
Burton, V. S., Cullen, F. T., Evans, T. D., Alarid, L. F., & Dunaway, R. G.
(1998). Gender, self-control, and crime. Journal of Research in Crime &
Delinquency, 35, 123–147.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control
theory approach to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual
framework for personality-social, clinical and health psychology. Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, 92, 111–135.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Cherek, D. R., Moeller, F. G., Dougherty, D. M., & Rhoades, H. (1997). Studies
of violent and nonviolent male parolees: II. Laboratory and psychometric
measurements of impulsivity. Biological Psychiatry, 41, 523–529.
Cochran, J. K., Wood, P. B., Sellers, C. S., Wilkerson, W., & Chamlin, M. B.
(1998). Academic dishonesty and low self-control: An empirical test of a
general theory of crime. Deviant Behavior, 19, 227–255.
Cook, M., Young, A., Taylor, D., & Bedford, A. P. (1998). Personality correlates
of alcohol consumption. Personality & Individual Differences, 4, 641–647.
Cox, S. P. (2000). Leader character: A model of personality and moral development.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Tulsa.
Crowne, D., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability indepen-
dent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 24,
349–354.
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in

empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a
multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44,
113–126.
Davis, M. H., & Oathout, H. A. (1987). Maintenance of satisfaction in romantic
relationships: Empathy and relational competence. Journal of Personality and
Social, 53, 397–410.
Derogatis, L. R. (1989). Description and bibliography for the SCL-90-R and other
instruments of the psychopathology rating scale series. Riderwood, MD:
Clinical Psychometric Research, Inc.
Derogatis, L. R., & Cleary, P. A. (1977). Confirmation of the dimensional
structure of the SCL-90: A study in construct validation. Journal of Clinical
Derogatis, L. R., Lipman, R. S., & Covi, L. (1973). The SCL-90: An outpatient
psychiatric rating scale. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 9, 13–28.
Derogatis, L. R., Rickels, K., & Rock, A. (1976). The SCL-90 and the MMPI: A
step in the validation of a new self-report scale. British Journal of Psychiatry,
128, 280–289.
Eisenberg, N. (1986). Altruistic cognition, emotion, and behavior. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Murphy, B. C., Guthrie, I. K., Jones,
S., Friedman, J., Poulin, R., & Maszk, P. (1997). Contemporaneous and
longitudinal prediction of children’s social functioning from regulation and
emotionality. Child Development, 68, 642–664.
Engels, R., Finkenauer, C., & Den Exter, Blokland (2000). Parental influences on
self-control and juvenile delinquency. Manuscript in preparation, Utrecht
University, Netherlands.
Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, N., Jones, S., Smith, M., Guthrie, I., Poulin, R.,
Shepard, S., & Friedman, J. (1999). Regulation, emotionality, and pre-
schoolers’ socially competent peer interactions. Child Development, 70,
432–442.
Fagen, S. A., Long, N. J., & Stevens, D. J. (1975). Teaching children self-control:
Preventing emotional and learning problems in the elementary school.
Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
Fee, R., & Tangney, J. P. (2000). Procrastination: A means of avoiding shame and
guilt? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 167–184.
Feldman, S. C., Martinez-Pons, M., & Shaham, D. (1995). The relationship of
self-efficacy, self-regulation, and collaborative verbal behavior with grades:
Preliminary findings. Psychological Reports, 77, 971–978.
Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-
consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Finkel, E., & Campbell, W. K. (2000, February). Ego depletion and accommoda-
tion in romantic relationships. Poster presented at the Society for Personality
and Social Psychology, Nashville, TN.
318 Tangney et al.
Flynn, T. M. (1985). Development of self-concept, delay of gratification and self-

control and disadvantaged preschool children’s achievement gain. Early Child
Development & Care, 22, 65–72.
Freud, S. (1930). Civilization and its discontents. London: Hogarth.
Garner, D. M., Olmstead, M. P., & Polivy, J. (1983). Development and validation
of a multidimensional eating disorder inventory for anorexia nervosa and
bulimia. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 2, 15–34.
Gibbs, J. J., Giever, D., & Martin, J. S. (1998). Parental management and self-
control: An empirical test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory. Journal
of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 35, 40–70.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big Five factor
structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42.
Gosselin, J. T., Boone, A. L., Sinek, D., & Tangney, J. P. (2001). The Brief
Perfectionism Scale. George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Gough, H. G. (1987). California Psychological Inventory- Administrator’s Guide.
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Gough, H. G., McClosky, H., & Meehl, P. E. (1952). A personality scale for
social responsibility. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 73–80.
Gramzow, R. H., Sedikides, C., Panter, A. T., & Insko, C. A. (2000). Aspects of
self-regulation and self-structure as predictors of perceived emotional distress.
Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 188–205.
Gray-Little, B., Williams, V. S. L., & Hancock, T. D. (1997). An item response
theory analysis of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale. Personality and social
Psychology Bulletin, 23, 443–451.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment
process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1990). Love and work: An attachment-theoretical
perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 270–280.
Heatherton, T. F. (1993). Body dissatisfaction, self-focus, and dieting status
among women. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 7, 225–231.
Heatherton, T. F., & Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Binge eating as escape from self-
awareness. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 86–108.
Heilbrun, A. B. (1981). Gender differences in the functional linkage between
androgyny, social cognition, and competence. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 41, 1106–1118.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social context:
Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456–470.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1993). Dimensions of perfectionism, daily stress, and
depression: A test of specific vulnerability hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Turnbull, W. (1992). Perfectionism and multiphasic
personality inventory (MMPI) indices of personality disorder. Journal of
Psychopathology & Behavioral Assessment, 14, 323–335.
Jackson, D. N. (1976). Jackson Personality Inventory test manual. Goshen, NY:

Research Psychologists Press.
John, O. P. (1990). The ‘‘Big Five’’ factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality
in the natural language and questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of
personality theory and research (pp. 66–100). New York: Guilford.
Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., & Bachman, J. G. (1991). Drug use among
American high school seniors, college students, and young adults, 1975–1990.
Vol. 1: High school seniors. Washington, DC: Department of Health and
Human Services.
Kahle, L. R., Kulka, R. A., & Klingel, D. M. (1980). Low adolescent self-esteem
leads to multiple interpersonal problems: A test of social-adaptation theory.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 39, 496–502.
Kendall, P . C., & Wilcox, L. E. (1979). Self-control in children: Development of a
rating scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 1020–1029.
Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., & Harlan, E. T. (2000). Effortful control in early
childhood: Continuity and change, antecedents, and implications for social
development. Developmental Psychology, 36, 220–232.
Krueger, R. F., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., White, J., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M.
(1996). Delay of gratification, psychopathology, and personality: Is low self-
control specific to externalizing problems? Journal of Personality, 64, 107–129.
Latham, L. L., & Perlow, R. (1996). The relationship of client-directed aggressive
and nonclient-directed aggressive work behavior with self-control. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1027–1041.
Leith, K. P., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Empathy, shame, guilt, and narratives of
interpersonal conflicts: Guilt-prone people are better at perspective taking.
Journal of Personality, 66, 1–37.
Longshore, D. (1998). Self-control and criminal opportunity: A prospective test
of the general theory of crime. Social Problems, 45, 102–113.
Longshore, D., & Turner, S. (1998). Self-control and criminal opportunity: Cross-
sectional test of the general theory of crime. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 25,
81–98.
Maszk, P., Eisenberg, N. G., & Guthrie, I. K. (1999). Relations of children’s
social status to their emotionality and regulation: A short-term longitudinal
study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45, 468–492.
McGuire, J., & Broomfield, D. (1994). Violent offenses and capacity for self-
control. Psychology Crime & Law, 2, 117–123.
Millon, T., Davis, R., & Millon, C. (1997). The MCMI-III Manual, Second
Edition. National Computer Systems, Inc.: Minneapolis, MN.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Peake, P. K. (1988). The nature of adolescent
competencies predicted by preschool delay of gratification. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 687–696.
Moos, S. R., & Moos, B. (1981). Family Environment Scale Manual. Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Mruk, C. J. (1995). Self-esteem: Research, theory, and practice. New York, NY:
Springer Publishing Co, Inc.
320 Tangney et al.
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of

limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin,
126, 247–259.
Murphy, B. C., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Young children’s emotionality, regulation
and social functioning and their responses when they are a target of a peer’s
anger. Social Development, 6, 18–36.
Nigg, J. T., Quamma, J. P., Greenberg, M. T., & Kusche, C. A. (1999). A two-
year longitudinal study of neuropsychological and cognitive performance in
relation to behavioral problems and competencies in elementary school
children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 27, 51–63.
Paulhus, D. L. (1988). Assessing self-deception and impression management in
self-reports: The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Unpublished
manual, University of British Columbia, Vancouver Canada.
Peluso, T., Ricciardelli, L. A., & Williams, R. J. (1999). Self-control in relation to
problem drinking and symptoms of disordered eating. Addictive Behaviors, 24,
439–442.
Porteus, S. D. (1965). Porteus Maze Test: Fifty years Application. New York:
Psychological Corporation.
Pulkkinen, L., & Haemaelaeinen, M. (1995). Low self-control as a precursor to
crime and accidents in a Finnish longitudinal study. Criminal Behaviour &
Mental Health, 5, 424–438.
Richards, P. S. (1985). Construct validation of the self-control schedule. Journal
of Research in Personality, 19, 208–218.
Rohde, P., Lewinsohn, P. M., Tilson, M., & Seeley, J. R. (1990). Dimensionality
of coping and its relation to depression. Journal of Personality and Social
Rohde, T. (2000). Cross-validation of measures of self-control and behavioral
inhibition in young adults. Unpublished thesis.
Romal, J. B., & Kaplan, B. J. (1995). Difference in self-control among spenders
and savers. Psychology—A Quarterly Journal of Human Behavior, 32, 8–17.
Rosenbaum, M. (1980). A schedule for assessing self-control behaviors: Prelimi-
nary findings. Behavior Therapy, 11, 109–121.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J. R., & Snyder, S. S. (1982). Changing the world and
changing the self: A two-process model of perceived control. Journal of
Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar Big-Five
markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 506–516.
Selzer, M., Vinokur, A., & van Rooijen, L. (1975). A self-administered Short
Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (SMAST). Journal of Studies on Alcohol,
36, 117–126.
Shevlin, M. E., Bunting, B. P., & Lewis, C. A. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis
of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale. Psychological Reports, 76, 707–710.
Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Peake, P. K. (1990). Predicting adolescent cognitive
and self regulatory competencies from preschool delay of gratification:
Identifying diagnostic conditions. Developmental Psychology, 26, 978–986.
Smith, S. M. (2001: February). Self-control and academic performance. Presented

at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, San Antonio, TX.
Storey, F. S. (1999). Childhood abuse and self-regulation: Risk factors for heroin
addiction. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: the Sciences &
Engineering, 59, 3717.
Tangney, J. P. (1991). Moral affect: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of
Tangney, J. P. (1994). The mixed legacy of the super-ego: Adaptive and
maladaptive aspects of shame and guilt. In J. M. Masling & R. F. Bornstein
(Eds.), Empirical perspectives on object relations theory (pp. 1–28). Washing-
ton, DC: American Psychological Association.
Tangney, J. P. (1995a). Recent advances in the empirical study of shame and guilt.
American Behavioral Scientist, 38, 1132–1145.
Tangney, J. P. (1995b). Shame and guilt in interpersonal relationships. In J. P.
Tangney & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Self-conscious emotions: Shame, guilt,
embarrassment, and pride (pp. 114–139). New York: Guilford Press.
Tangney, J. P., Barlow, D. H., Wagner, P. E., Marschall, D. E., Borenstein, J. K.,
Sanftner, J., Mohr, T., & Gramzow, R. (1996). Assessing individual
differences in constructive vs. destructive responses to anger across the
lifespan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 780–796.
Tangney, J. P., Boone, A. L., Fee, R., & Reinsmith, C. (1999). Multidimensional
Forgiveness Scale. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.
Tangney, J. P., Burggraf, S. A., & Wagner, P. E. (1995). Shame-proneness, guilt-
proneness, and psychological symptoms. In J. P. Tangney & K. W. Fischer
(Eds.), Self-conscious emotions: Shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride (pp.
343–367). New York: Guilford.
Tangney, J. P., Miller, R. S., Flicker, L., & Barlow, D. H. (1996). Are shame, guilt
and embarrassment distinct emotions? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70, 1256–1269.
Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P. E., Barlow, D. H., Marschall, D. E., & Gramzow, R.
(1996). The relation of shame and guilt to constructive vs. destructive
responses to anger across the lifespan. Journal of Personality and Social
Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P., & Gramzow, R. (1989). The Test of Self-Conscious
Affect (TOSCA). Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.
Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P. E., & Gramzow, R. (1992). Proneness to shame,
proneness to guilt, and psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
103, 469–478.
Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P. E., Marschall, D., & Gramzow, R. (1991). The Anger
Response Inventory (ARI). Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological
perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210.
Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Longitudinal study of procrastination,
performance, stress, and health: The costs and benefits of dawdling.
Psychological Science, 8, 454–458.
Tremblay, R. E., Boulerice, B., Arseneault, L., & Niscale, M. J. (1995). Does low
self-control during childhood explain the association between delinquency
322 Tangney et al.
and accidents in early adolescence? Criminal Behaviour & Mental Health, 5,

439–451.
Twenge, J. M., Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Decision fatigue: Making
multiple personal decisions depletes the self’s resources. Manuscript submitted
for publication.
Waller, N. G., Lilienfeld, S. O., Tellegen, A., & Lykken, D. T. (1991). The
Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire: Structural validity and comparison
with the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 26, 1–23.
Whitley, Bernard E. (1983). Sex role orientation and self-esteem: A critical meta-
analytic review. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 44, 765–778.
Williamson, D. (1990). Drinking: A sobering look at an enduring Princeton
pastime. Princeton Alumni Weekly, 90, 14–19.
Wills, T. A., DuHamel, K., & Vaccaro, D. (1995). Activity and mood
temperament as predictors of adolescent substance use: Test of a self-
regulation mediational model. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 68,
901–916.
Wolfe, R. N., & Johnson, S. D. (1995). Personality as a predictor of college
performance. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 55, 177–185.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. Construct validation of a strategy model
of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80,
284–290.
Self-Control Scale
Using the scale provided, please indicate how much each of the following statements reflects how you typically are.
Not at all Very much

n
1. I am good at resisting temptation. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
(R) n
2. I have a hard time breaking bad habits. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
(R) n
3. I am lazy. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
(R) n
4. I say inappropriate things. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
5 I never allow myself to lose control. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
(R) n
6. I do certain things that are bad for me, if they are fun. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
7. People can count on me to keep on schedule. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
(R) 8. Getting up in the morning is hard for me. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
(R) 9. I have trouble saying no. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
(R) 10. I change my mind fairly often. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
(R) 11. I blurt out whatever is on my mind. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
(R) 12. People would describe me as impulsive. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
n
13. I refuse things that are bad for me. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
(R) 14. I spend too much money. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
15. I keep everything neat. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
(R) 16. I am self-indulgent at times. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
(R) n
17. I wish I had more self-discipline. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
18 I am reliable. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
(R) 19. I get carried away by my feelings. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
(R) 20. I do many things on the spur of the moment. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
(R) 21. I don’t keep secrets very well. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
n
22. People would say that I have iron self- discipline. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
View publication stats

(R) 23. I have worked or studied all night at the last minute. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
24. I’m not easily discouraged. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
(R) 25. I’d be better off if I stopped to think before acting. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
26. I engage in healthy practices. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
27. I eat healthy foods. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
n
(R) 28. Pleasure and fun sometimes keep me from getting work done. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
n
(R) 29. I have trouble concentrating. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
n
30. I am able to work effectively toward long-term goals. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
n
(R) 31. Sometimes I can’t stop myself from doing something, even if I 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
know it is wrong.
n
(R) 32. I often act without thinking through all the alternatives. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
(R) 33. I lose my temper too easily. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
(R) 34 I often interrupt people. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
(R) 35. I sometimes drink or use drugs to excess. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
36. I am always on time. 1——–2——–3——–4——–5
n
Items included in the Brief Self Control measure
(R) Reversed Items

ZZ Ok Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004) .

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ZZ Ok Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004) .

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ZZ Ok Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004) .

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

High self-control predicts good adjustment, less

Chapter · January 2018

June P Tangney Roy F. Baumeister

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Shame-Related Responses to Threatened Masculinity View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ABSTRACT What good is self-control? We incorporated a new measure

Journal of Personality 72:2, April 2004.

The human capacity to exert self-control is arguably one of the most

to develop an up-to-date scale for measuring individual differences

peculiar and strange experiences’’). Some address interpersonal

Achievement and Task Performance

correlated to improvements in school achievement among 4-year-old

important predictor of substance abuse among adolescents and, in

certain eating disorders, such as anorexia nervosa. In contrast, other

The present Study 1 sought to extend this work substantially by

diverse methods (Avakame, 1998; Cherek, Moeller, Dougherty, &

others for their transgressions, and a secure attachment style. We

Related Personality Features

situation. One hallmark of perfectionism is the drive for flawless

Development of the Self-Control Scale

1. Exploratory factor analyses were also conducted to investigate the dimension-

and Study 2, we also constructed a 13-item Brief Self-Control Scale. The

Additional measures and procedures. The data reported here were

Self-Discipline. Factor 2 (10 items, 9.7% of the variance) assesses an inclination

assesses the degree to which respondents make exaggerated claims of

5-point scale. The RSE has been found to be reliable, internally

The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1983) is a 28-item

most adults. In all, there are 16 situations described, 8 from the

Self-Control and Task Performance

Phobic Anxiety Study 1 7 7–35 7–25 10.27 4.38 0.82

Severe Clinical Syndromes

Brief Perfectionism Study 2 7 7–49 8–46 25.74 8.53 0.86

Cognitive Reappraisals Study 1 18–58 38.37 6.81 0.68

interoceptive awareness, and maturity fears. Thus, people who are

Controlling for Marlowe-

participants completed the SMAST, which assesses markers com-

Psychological Adjustment and Self-Esteem

Controlling for Marlowe-

Depressive Study 2 ! .39nnn ! .35nnn ! .29nn ! .26nn ! .35nnn ! .30nnn

with the exception of Histrionic, Narcissistic, and Compulsive

Related Personality Features

Bivariate Correlations Controlling for Marlowe-Crowne Controlling for BIDR

The links with conscientiousness and emotional stability were

Bivariate Correlations Controlling for Martowe-Crowne Controlling for BIDR

Empathy—the ability to take another person’s perspective and to

interpersonal episodes of anger. There was no consistent relation-

3. We also examined parents’ and friends’ reports of the participants’ forgiveness

Multidimensional Forgiveness Inventory

style, scoring relatively low in shame and high in ‘‘shame-free’’ guilt.

anger, phobic anxiety, paranoid ideation, and psychoticism. They

behavior patterns but was not related to intelligence, which is

are problematic. Even on measures such as eating disorder symptoms

Self-Control and Social Desirability

want to look good and conform to socially approved norms. The

American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of

Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in

Flynn, T. M. (1985). Development of self-concept, delay of gratification and self-