Thinking and Deciding

SELF-CONTROL 491
offered the fourth beer, we will see it not as a single choice but as a choice for a long
string of similar occasions. Because all of the future occasions are far away in time,
the utility of not having the beer (on these future occasions) considerably outweighs
the utility of having it. This difference in favor of moderation may be large enough
to outweigh the difference in favor of indulgence that would otherwise be present. 11
To some extent, this mechanism can operate even without the conscious formulation
of rules. As we noted earlier, each decision we make sets a precedent for
making the same decision in similar situations in the future. When we decide to have
the fourth beer (the first time we have the opportunity), we are likely to have four
beers on similar occasions in the future. If we simply recognize this fact the first
time that the decision is presented to us, we may make the decision differently, with
more awareness of distant consequences, than if we see the decision as applying to
a single case. It is possible that many bad habits, such as smoking, begin in this
way, with an apparently isolated decision that sets a precedent. If I try a cigarette
that someone offers me at a party, I am likely to make the same decision (to accept
one) again later, and soon I will be hooked. What is critical, then, in order for this
mechanism to work, is the recognition that single decisions establish patterns over
the indefinite future.
We respond to our own violation of our personal rules in two ways. We can
rationalize the violations by making up exceptions. The alcoholic trying to reform
suddenly discovers an old buddy whom he has not seen for years — a situation that
requires a drink — or else it is his half-birthday, or his second cousin’s wedding
anniversary. If this mechanism is relied upon too much, the rule itself is weakened,
but it may never be totally destroyed in the person’s mind, even though an external
observer would surely think it was. Rationalization of this sort is an example of
wishful thinking (Chapter 9).
If we do not rationalize the violation but feel guilty, we may try to compensate for
the violations by inventing some sort of self-punishment — in essence, the piling up
of rules (concerning penalties) on rules (concerning behavior). The bulimic woman
may force herself to fast totally after a day of overeating, leading to the cycles of
fasting and overeating that characterize this disorder. This mechanism is often used
when the initial rules are too strict.
If personal rules are violated and one of these mechanisms is not used, the person
may suffer defeat: A temporary or more permanent inability to exercise self-control
(in some area, or in general) may result. In view of the need for self-control, for the
sake of both personal welfare (for example, smoking) and making contributions to
society (for example, doing one’s job responsibly), these topics are of great importance
for future research.
11 This mechanism corresponds to the defenses used by compulsives.