The effect of incidental emotions on self-control: an examination using a need-based choice model

The literature, which has conceptualized self-control dilemmas as a trade-off between immediate pleasure and long-term benefits, overlooks critical components of the choice dilemma. While gratifying options provide immediate hedonic benefits, and virtuous options provide long-term goal-related benefits, these benefits can, in turn, satisfy different higher-order needs. For instance, hedonic benefits provided by gratifying options can facilitate hedonic needs for pleasure, physical comfort or cognitive ease. Similarly, long-term benefits, such as losing weight or saving money, can facilitate needs for security, autonomy, power, etc.

Because consumers choose the option most instrumental to their needs, they should be more likely to show self-control when the virtuous option aligns better with their needs than the gratifying option (Van Osselaer et al., 2005). Therefore, we conceptualize choice in a self-control dilemma as a function of consumers’ active needs and the extent to which the gratifying and virtuous options are instrumental to them (Van Osselaer et al., 2005). Formally, a consumer selects the virtuous option (V) in a self-control dilemma when the sum of the activation of his or her needs (N₁, N₂,… N_n) multiplied by the instrumentality of the virtuous option to satisfy each of these needs (VB₁, VB₂,… VB_n) is greater than the sum of the activation of the consumer’s needs multiplied by the instrumentality of the gratifying option to satisfy each of these needs (GB₁, GB₂,… GB_n; see Figure 1(a):

Consider the following example: John is deciding between buying expensive sunglasses (G) or saving money (V). The choice represents a typical self-control dilemma because John’s desire for immediate pleasure (i.e. a hedonic need, N₁) increases the likelihood of buying the stylish sunglasses, as they would make John feel good (i.e. GB₁ > VB₁). However, this discretionary purchase would also prevent him from saving money for future needs. For instance, John could save for emergencies and satisfy a security need (N₂) or save to buy the biggest house on the block and satisfy a power need (N₃). Therefore, whether John decides to save money or buy the sunglasses depends not only on the strength of John’s hedonic need (N₁), which should decrease self-control (because GB₁ > VB₁), but also the strength of his security need (N₂), the strength of his power need (N₃) and the extent to which John expects that financial savings and sunglasses will offer him immediate pleasure, make him feel more or less secure, and more or less powerful than saving money (i.e. the relative magnitude of GB₁, VB₁, GB₂, VB₂, GB₃ and VB₃).

Based on this model, we can predict how hedonic and non-hedonic needs affect self-control. Past research finds that the need for hedonic pleasure (N₁) is typically better facilitated by gratifying options (i.e. GB₁ > VB₁) (Baumeister, 2002). For instance, visceral hedonic cravings, such as hunger, sexual desire (Loewenstein, 1996) or exhaustion (Muraven and Baumeister, 2000), strengthen the hedonic need and impair self-control. On the other hand, sweetened snacks or beverages replenish blood glucose and thus lower the hedonic need, improving self-control (Gailliot et al., 2007). However, we note that hedonic pleasure is only one way consumers seek happiness or greater well-being (Deci and Ryan, 2008). While hedonic pleasure focuses on experiences that allow consumers to feel immediate sensory pleasure and enjoyment, another form of well-being, eudaimonia, focuses on experiences that are deeply satisfying and meaningful for consumers and facilitate their desire for self-growth (Deci and Ryan, 2008; Huta, 2013; Steger, 2016). These distinct well-being needs – hedonic and eudaimonic – may be facilitated differently by gratifying and virtuous options. While gratifying options that provide immediate pleasure and enjoyment would better facilitate hedonic needs, we argue that virtuous options (e.g. studying to earn an education degree) better facilitate eudaimonic needs for personal growth and well-being (Huta, 2015).

Similar to eudaimonic needs, research also suggests that virtuous options better benefit other non-hedonic needs (i.e. N₂, N₃, N₄, etc.) than gratifying options (i.e. GB_n < VB_n) (Lades and Hofmann, 2019; Vosgerau et al., 2020). For instance, John is likelier to think that saving money will improve his financial security (i.e. GB₂ < VB₂) or financial power and autonomy (i.e. GB₃ < VB₃) more than buying sunglasses. Consequently, an increase in the activation of non-hedonic needs, such as security (N₂) or power (N₃), is more likely to increase the choice of virtuous options. Indeed, consistent with that, research finds that situations that activate non-hedonic needs increase self-control. For instance, the COVID-19 pandemic increased prudent behaviors like mask-wearing or getting vaccines by increasing the desire to be safe (Knowles and Olatunji, 2021). Similarly, the desire for power motivates individuals to achieve their long-term goals (Guinote, 2017; McClelland and Burnham, 2017), and thus to choose virtuous options such as pursuing career growth or saving money (Koley and Warren, 2025).

However, hedonic needs may not always impair self-control, while non-hedonic needs may not always increase self-control. Indeed, their effects on self-control vary depending on how instrumental the gratifying and virtuous options are to these needs.

For instance, while the gratifying option typically offers stronger hedonic benefits than the virtuous option (i.e. GB₁ > VB₁), the magnitude of the difference in instrumentality can vary greatly. For example, John might believe that buying the sunglasses will offer a small, temporary boost to his mood or make him joyously exuberant (i.e. GB₁ can vary in magnitude). Alternatively, John might believe that saving money will be an excruciating sacrifice or a pleasurable act of frugality (i.e. VB₁ can vary in magnitude). Consequently, we predict that consumers will exert higher (lower) self-control when they perceive the gratifying options as being less (more) instrumental and the virtuous options as being more (less) instrumental to consumers’ hedonic needs. Consistently, research shows that self-control increases when the instrumentality of the gratifying option to the hedonic need decreases, such as when consumers habituate to the gratifying experiences (Baumeister, 2002) or when gratifying carries a penalty (e.g. the pain of payment while spending impulsively) (Thomas et al., 2011). Self-control also increases when the instrumentality of the virtuous option to the hedonic need increases, such as when virtuous activities seem pleasurable (e.g. working out feels enjoyable) (Woolley and Fishbach, 2016) or are imminently rewarded (e.g. with appreciation or financial incentives) (Slessareva and Muraven, 2004).

Conversely, while the virtuous option typically offers stronger non-hedonic benefits than the gratifying option (i.e. GB₁ > VB₁), the magnitude of the difference in instrumentality can also vary. For example, John might think that sunglasses are a better means to security than saving money, perhaps because he feels adequately financially secure (i.e. decreasing VB₂) but wants to protect his eyes from feeling more strained or his vision from getting weaker (i.e. increasing GB₂). Consequently, we predict that consumers will exert lower (higher) self-control when they perceive gratifying options as more (less) instrumental and virtuous options as less (more) instrumental to their non-hedonic needs. Consistently, research shows that consumers exert lower self-control (i.e. lower likelihood of working out) when the virtuous options (e.g. working out) become less instrumental to the non-hedonic needs, such as when they facilitate multiple non-hedonic needs (e.g. to build muscles and to lose weight), thus diluting their perceived instrumentality to each need (Zhang et al., 2007). Conversely, believing in naïve theories, such as tasty = unhealthy (Raghunathan et al., 2006), lowers the instrumentality of the gratifying option to the non-hedonic needs (e.g. the need to be healthy) and increases self-control. In the next section, we apply the need-based choice model to develop mechanisms explaining how emotions affect self-control.

Emotions greatly influence judgment and decisions (Pham, 2007), including those in self-control dilemmas (Schmeichel and Inzlicht, 2013). Their effect can either be integral or incidental (Schmeichel and Inzlicht, 2013). Integral effects occur when an emotion influences a judgment or decision related to the experience that elicited the emotion. On the other hand, incidental effects occur when the emotions evoked by an experience influence unrelated judgments or decisions. For example, if being excited by a magazine cover influences a consumer’s decision to buy the magazine, the effect of excitement is integral (Kim et al., 2010). On the other hand, if the excitement influences the consumer’s decision to purchase an adventurous rather than a serene vacation from a travel agent, the effect is incidental (Kim et al., 2010). Our research focuses on the incidental effects of emotions on self-control.

A need-based model of self-control offers a promising framework for understanding how incidental emotions influence choices in self-control dilemmas. Based on this model, the effect of emotion should depend on the needs they activate (N₁, N₂, N₃, etc.) and the instrumentality of the virtuous (VB_n) and gratifying options (GB_n) to those needs (N_n) [see Figure 1(b)].

The framework allows us to infer four broad processes that explain how emotions affect self-control.

The first process predicts that because the gratifying option facilitates the hedonic need more than the virtuous option (GB₁ > VB₁), emotions that increase (decrease) the activation of the hedonic need (N₁) decrease (increase) self-control.

Emotions can also influence self-control by activating other needs (e.g. N₂, N₃) in addition to hedonic ones (Tooby and Cosmides, 1990). For instance, fear activates a desire for self-protection (Griskevicius et al., 2009), anxiety for risk avoidance (Raghunathan and Pham, 1999), stress for control (Durante and Laran, 2016), anger for dominance (Koley and Warren, 2025), disgust for avoiding contaminants (Rozin et al., 2008), guilt for self-improvement (Allard and White, 2015) and sadness for avoiding future losses (Salerno et al., 2014). Because consumers generally believe that virtuous options better facilitate non-hedonic needs than gratifying options (i.e. GB_n < VB_n), emotions that increase (or decrease) the activation of non-hedonic needs should increase (or decrease) self-control.

While consumers generally perceive gratifying options as more pleasurable than virtuous ones (i.e. GB1 > VB1), the difference in instrumentality varies substantially across situations. Process three predicts that decreasing the instrumentality of the gratifying option (i.e. decreasing GB_n) or increasing the instrumentality of the virtuous option (i.e. increasing VB_n) toward the hedonic need activated by the emotion should improve self-control.

While virtuous options are typically more instrumental to non-hedonic needs than gratifying options (i.e. VB_n > GB_n), the relative difference in instrumentality can vary. Hence, process four predicts that increasing the instrumentality of the virtuous option (i.e. increasing VB_n) or decreasing the instrumentality of the gratifying option (i.e. decreasing GB_n) toward the non-hedonic need activated by the emotion should improve self-control.

We now apply the framework to develop propositions about how some of the most frequently experienced emotions affect self-control (see Table 2).

Building on these predictions, we develop strategies that businesses and policymakers can use to enhance self-control among consumers experiencing sadness, happiness, pride, guilt, anger and anxiety.

Businesses (e.g. health practitioners, gyms, financial apps that promote budgeting and expense tracking), and policymakers who seek to encourage long-term goals such as financial prudence and healthy lifestyles can enhance self-control among emotional consumers by implementing strategies grounded in the proposed model. There are three ways they could apply these strategies. They could apply them generally when the strategy also benefits non-emotional consumers. However, when it does not confer benefits for the general population, they can either apply the strategies to a segment with a greater tendency to experience the specific emotion (i.e. a trait emotion) or to consumers experiencing the emotion in that moment (i.e. a state emotion). Service providers, such as health practitioners, often collect information about members’ emotional health. They can use this information to segment consumers who are more prone to experiencing specific emotions, like anger, anxiety, sadness, etc. Similarly, service providers and policymakers can segment consumers according to their momentary state emotions by leveraging indicators such as online and social media activity that reveal how individuals feel in that moment – for instance, interacting with content that evokes anger or happiness, or sharing messages about a promotion that convey pride.

Guilt activates a non-hedonic need for self-improvement. Since virtuous behaviors always promote long-term goals, they are naturally aligned with the need for self-improvement. Consequently, guilt should enhance self-control by default. However, making the long-term benefits even more salient (i.e. prediction 10), for example, by emphasizing how healthy eating enhances strength and immunity, saving enhances financial independence and stability or learning a new skill promotes competence, can further increase the instrumentality of virtuous behavior toward the self-improvement need and thus, further enhance self-control.

Happiness elicits a need for pleasure when consumers focus on mood maintenance (e.g. when consumers read the statement “I want to enjoy the moment”), whereas it fosters a need for self-improvement when aspirations are salient (e.g. when consumers read the statement “Ambition is a virtue”) (Fishbach and Labroo, 2007). Consequently, the most effective way service providers can promote self-control is by reaching out to happy consumers with messaging emphasizing aspirations and growth (e.g. “Become a better version of yourself, one choice at a time,” “Choose the path that strengthens you”, etc.) (i.e. prediction 11). Furthermore, when aspirations are salient, emphasizing how virtuous behaviors promote self-improvement (i.e. prediction 13), just as for guilt, can further enhance self-control among happy consumers.

Because pride increases self-awareness and thus the desire to pursue long-term goals, when the source of pride (e.g. a promotion) is salient, businesses or policymakers should emphasize the source of pride (e.g. a promotion, a win in a competition) when addressing proud consumers (i.e. prediction 14). In addition, while making the source salient, businesses should emphasize how virtuous options are particularly good at facilitating long-term goals (i.e. prediction 16).

Sad consumers can be encouraged to exercise more self-control by highlighting how virtuous behaviors help avoid future reward losses, whereas indulgences don’t (i.e. prediction 3). For instance, managers seeking to promote healthy eating can increase the salience of reward losses by adopting practices such as nutrition labeling or emphasizing the sugar and fats that consumers avoid when selecting healthier food options. Financial service providers and policymakers can emphasize that impulsive spending constrains consumers’ ability to afford future luxuries, such as travel or a larger home, car, or other aspirational assets.

Sad (predictions 2), happy (prediction 12) and proud (prediction 15) consumers can also be encouraged to exert more self-control by highlighting how virtuous behaviors can be pleasurable, and indulgences less pleasurable than imagined. For instance, service providers in the health space can remind consumers that activities such as exercising, dancing, spending time in nature, yoga and meditation can be enjoyable and boost mood. Similarly, they can remind consumers that gratifying behaviors such as excessive TV watching, scrolling on social media or sedentary behavior can lead to irritation and bad moods.

Because these strategies for guilt, happiness, pride and sadness are normative and might also help the general population, they can be applied more broadly.

Anxious consumers are more likely to exercise self-control when they are told that virtuous behaviors help prevent future threatening events (i.e. prediction 6). For instance, they’re more likely to brush, wear masks, eat healthy and exercise when reminded that these actions help prevent future poor health or disease. Similarly, they are more likely to save money when reminded that savings can increase preparedness for financial uncertainties, emergencies and job losses. Conversely, anxious consumers are also more likely to exercise self-control when reminded that gratifying behaviors increase the risk of future threatening events. For instance, they are more likely to avoid unhealthy foods, quit smoking and drinking, when reminded that they increase the risk of diseases.

Anxious consumers should be more inclined to exercise self-control when virtuous activities are described as more relaxing and indulgent options as less relaxing (prediction 5). For instance, anxious consumers would be more inclined to engage in virtuous activities such as spending time in nature, practicing yoga, dancing or meditating when reminded that these activities provide relaxation. Conversely, they may be less inclined to engage in gratifying behaviors – such as excessive social media use or unhealthy eating – when reminded that any mood enhancement these activities provide is fleeting and often followed by a subsequent drop in mood.

Angry consumers can be motivated to exercise greater self-control when virtuous benefits are framed as offering dominance-related rather than unrelated benefits (prediction 8). For instance, angry consumers are more likely to exercise or eat healthily when they’re told that these behaviors help them gain strength rather than prevent disease, such as through slogans like “Eat healthy not to be skinny, but to be badass.” (p. 252; Koley and Warren, 2025). Conversely, they can also be better motivated by framing gratifying behaviors as inhibiting consumers’ dominance needs. For instance, angry consumers should be more likely to forgo a sedentary lifestyle when told it hurts their strength or stamina rather than their immunity.

The need-based choice model offers a key to understanding the complex and seemingly inconsistent effects of emotions on self-control by accounting for the interplay between the specific needs activated by emotions and the benefits of options in self-control dilemmas. However, a limitation of the model is that it predicts the effects of incidental, but not integral, emotions. Prior research suggests that integral emotions are more likely to take the form of fleeting, nonconscious affect rather than persistent, consciously experienced emotions (Baumeister et al., 2007). Because the model assumes that emotional consumers consciously evaluate their active needs and the instrumental value of choice options, it is less suited to predicting the effects of integral emotions. Accordingly, future research could extend the framework to include integral emotions, empirically test the proposed predictions for sadness, happiness, pride, guilt, anger and anxiety, and examine the self-control effects of yet other underexplored incidental emotions, such as excitement, boredom, frustration and loneliness.