124 Personality and Social Psychology Review 18(2) reality nevertheless focus group studies and the recent evidence for self-gener- ask steered participants preference toward the more indul ated justifications indicate that the justifications that partici ent options in subsequent choices,favoring low-brow ove pants came up witl were lated to one of the igh idy 1b);indulgent chocolate cake ove litical m dy 2)and ine ed the 2009). likelihood of subsequent participation in a fun study with no smen Altruistic and Laudable Acts tudy with id not par In a series of studies by Khan and Dhar(2006).imagining Zheng.2006).Similar results were obtained in a study oneself having contributed to a charitable cause,such as from our lab that demonstrated that not actual effort but pe teac hing children in a homeles center or improving the envi ceived effort increased hedonic con e) ent indu had aste test tael to people who did not have to think of benevolent deeds (Study 1).In the same line of studies,participants who imag way that they had to do the task again(thus doing the task fo ined having donated a part of ther tax refunds to min);in the control conditi were me ctical le sunglasses (Study 2).Likewise,when participants were asked to indicate their willingness to help a foreign studen with unders nding a cture,they were dona nes more in a tin d span of 10 ght they had only co mpleted a single task. pants in the control condition,who did an unrelated task In a recent study,it was demonstrat ted that actually exert being asked to donate money to c anty (Study 3). ing effort is not necessary to induce similar effects:Simply y by nay and aig ab by buving a chocolate bar.they preferred cake yho were instructed to think of that same 30-min walk as a er fruit salad in a sub ent choice tas (Study 3).The read about a te that 11 tim and effor or ind.. What is notable is that in most studiesin this contet participants did Prior Restraint 20 participants not intended to buy and either ended up buyin Effort and Achievement it or had resisted buying it.Those who had to remind them nce where they ha sed r n the role of justific in self-control fail nded ded t prefe stifications entailed either hard work or excellence feed hoice task,their prior restraint presumably serving as a jus vem ent can serve as a tion for thei indulgent choice.Along the same lin hopadhyay, gupta,and R an(20( dea that entitled to the ither had nhed to ed a food related t (Weber.1958)which is also reflected in findings from qual ation.Particinants who were instructed to think of p tative stu es wher re people indicate to only alloy resistance,ate more COO kies in a subsequent tas 00- Xu so they rene succu Empirical evidence for this notion comes from a line of ce exnressed weaker intentions to ther weight-os studies demonstrating that ustifications such as having goals and a week later indicated to have actually done less exerted (relatively)more effort in an unrelated task or and intended to do less to pursue their weight-loss goals124 Personality and Social Psychology Review 18(2) justifications may be more exhaustive in reality. Nevertheless, focus group studies and the recent evidence for self-gener￾ated justifications indicate that the justifications that partici￾pants came up with were mostly related to one of the categories outlined below (De Witt Huberts, Evers, & De Ridder, 2012d; Mick & Demoss, 1990; Xu & Schwarz, 2009). Altruistic and Laudable Acts In a series of studies by Khan and Dhar (2006), imagining oneself having contributed to a charitable cause, such as teaching children in a homeless center or improving the envi￾ronment, increased choice of a luxury product (designer jeans) over a utilitarian product (vacuum cleaner) compared to people who did not have to think of benevolent deeds (Study 1). In the same line of studies, participants who imag￾ined having donated a part of their tax refunds to a charity were more likely to subsequently choose a pair of luxurious expensive sunglasses over a pair of practical, less expensive sunglasses (Study 2). Likewise, when participants were asked to indicate their willingness to help a foreign student with understanding a lecture, they were less likely to donate the money they earned by participating to a local charity and preferred to keep it for themselves, as compared to partici￾pants in the control condition, who did an unrelated task before being asked to donate money to charity (Study 3). In another study by Mukhopadhyay and Johar (2009), it was found that if participants thought they contributed to charity by buying a chocolate bar, they preferred chocolate cake over fruit salad in a subsequent choice task (Study 3). These examples indicate that good behavior can be used to justify indulgent behavior regardless if the laudable behavior entails investing time and effort or indulging. What is particularly notable is that in most studies in this context participants did not actually have to perform the behavior. Even imagining laudable behavior in a vignette study or intending to help produced these results (Khan & Dhar, 2006). Effort and Achievement In a review on the role of justifications in self-control failure, Kivetz and Zheng (2006) concluded that the most common justifications entailed either hard work or excellence feed￾back, suggesting that effort and achievement can serve as a justification to allow oneself a forbidden pleasure. This phe￾nomenon can presumably be traced back to the puritanical idea that one is entitled to the good life only after hard work (Weber, 1958), which is also reflected in findings from qual￾itative studies where people indicate to only allow them￾selves a pleasure when they feel they earned it (Mick & Demoss, 1990; Xu & Schwarz, 2009). Empirical evidence for this notion comes from a line of studies demonstrating that justifications such as having exerted (relatively) more effort in an unrelated task or receiving excellence feedback on an unrelated performance task steered participants’ preference toward the more indul￾gent options in subsequent choices, favoring low-brow over high-brow movies (Study 1b); indulgent chocolate cake over healthy fresh fruit salad (Study 1c); an entertainment maga￾zine over a political magazine (Study 2); and increased the likelihood of subsequent participation in a fun study with no delayed benefits rather than in a painful self-assessment study with long-term benefits (Study 1a) compared with par￾ticipants who did not dispose of these justifications (Kivetz & Zheng, 2006). Similar results were obtained in a study from our lab that demonstrated that not actual effort but per￾ceived effort increased hedonic consumption in a subse￾quent indulgent taste test (De Witt Huberts et al., 2012c). Participants had to complete a non-involving task on the computer. In the effort condition, participants were told half￾way that they had to do the task again (thus doing the task for 2 × 5 min); in the control condition, participants received no such instruction (and thus completed the task as if it were a single task of 10 min), thereby manipulating perceived effort while keeping actual effort constant. Participants who were led to believe that they had completed two tasks consumed on average 130 calories more in a time span of 10 min than participants who actually performed the same task but thought they had only completed a single task. In a recent study, it was demonstrated that actually exert￾ing effort is not necessary to induce similar effects: Simply reading about a 30-min walk as an exercise activity increased consumption of indulgent snacks compared to participants who were instructed to think of that same 30-min walk as a leisurely activity or a control group who had read about a non-exercise related activity (Werle et al., 2011). Prior Restraint Prior restraint can also justify subsequent indulgent choice. Mukhopadhyay and Johar (2009) asked participants to remember an instance where they had seen a product on sale that they had not intended to buy and either ended up buying it or had resisted buying it. Those who had to remind them￾selves of a prior instance where they had exercised restraint by not buying an attractive product, tended to prefer the chocolate cake over the healthier fruit salad in a subsequent choice task, their prior restraint presumably serving as a jus￾tification for their indulgent choice. Along the same lines, Mukhopadhyay, Sengupta, and Ramanathan (2008) asked participants to recall an instance of past behavior where they either had succumbed to or had resisted a food-related temp￾tation. Participants who were instructed to think of prior resistance, ate more cookies in a subsequent taste test than participants who recalled having succumbed. Similarly, diet￾ers who were instructed to reflect on prior foregone indul￾gence expressed weaker intentions to pursue their weight-loss goals and a week later indicated to have actually done less and intended to do less to pursue their weight-loss goals Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at Remen University of China on September 6, 2015