Final Report Summary - TEAMCONTROL (Self-Control and the Person: An Inter-Disciplinary Account)
The aim of the project was to develop and test a novel theory of willpower. In decision theory, a standard way of modelling a person who has to make a series of choices over time is as a series of transient agents, or timeslices, who each make choices at particular times. In this framework, a person has a problem of self-control when the course of action that is preferred by an earlier timeslice relies on a choice by a later timeslice that will not be preferred from that later timeslice’s point of view. Faced with such a problem, the earlier timeslice can try to influence the later timeslice’s behaviour by taking action to alter her later self’s incentives or limit her later self’s opportunities. However, what she cannot do is use willpower. A person who believes that she can simply make a plan and act on it when the time comes is considered ‘naive’ and her naivety is a cause of bad outcomes. This view is in stark contrast to much research in psychology and philosophy, which assumes that people have willpower (sometimes cashed out as the idea of forming an intention, or plan, that will have motivating force later on) and that exercising willpower is a good thing.
We introduced willpower into decision theory—and bridged the gap between psychology, philosophy and economics—by applying a novel theory of the person over time. The economic model treats the timeslice at different times as if they were different agents, who ask ‘What should I-now do?’ The timeslices may care about the earlier or later timeslices but, not only does that not necessarily solve the problem, there is also no sense of a continuing person who has interests that extend over time. In order to introduce the person over time into the model, we made use of an analogy with interpersonal problems of cooperation. In game theory, the branch of economics that studies interactions between individual agents, individuals are modelled as asking ‘What should I do?’. The theory of team reasoning is an extension of game theory which allows that groups can be agents and, depending on how they frame the situation, instead individuals can ask ‘what should we do?’. Then they can formulate the best team plan and play their part in it. The project took this multiple levels of agency framework and applied it to the self-over-time, allowing timeslices to ask ‘what should I-the-self-over-time do?’ and therefore solve the problem of self-control.
We thus introduced willpower into decision theory. In our framework, willpower is the ability to identify with and act as a self-over-time, rather than as a transient timeslice. This is also an improvement upon the most prominent theory of willpower in philosophy, where the earlier self forms a resolution to overcome the later self’s inclinations and willpower consists of not reopening the question of what to do. People often do re-open the question and this theory has no resources for willpower in that scenario. Our theory of willpower as intrapersonal team reasoning can provide such a resource. It also provides answers to philosophical questions about why it is rational to form intentions and why it is rational to have a tendency not to revise them.
As well as presenting and testing the theory, we used it to develop a new theorization of Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), a psychiatric disorder for which identity disturbance and impulsivity are both diagnostic symptoms. We plan to test this theorization in future work.
We introduced willpower into decision theory—and bridged the gap between psychology, philosophy and economics—by applying a novel theory of the person over time. The economic model treats the timeslice at different times as if they were different agents, who ask ‘What should I-now do?’ The timeslices may care about the earlier or later timeslices but, not only does that not necessarily solve the problem, there is also no sense of a continuing person who has interests that extend over time. In order to introduce the person over time into the model, we made use of an analogy with interpersonal problems of cooperation. In game theory, the branch of economics that studies interactions between individual agents, individuals are modelled as asking ‘What should I do?’. The theory of team reasoning is an extension of game theory which allows that groups can be agents and, depending on how they frame the situation, instead individuals can ask ‘what should we do?’. Then they can formulate the best team plan and play their part in it. The project took this multiple levels of agency framework and applied it to the self-over-time, allowing timeslices to ask ‘what should I-the-self-over-time do?’ and therefore solve the problem of self-control.
We thus introduced willpower into decision theory. In our framework, willpower is the ability to identify with and act as a self-over-time, rather than as a transient timeslice. This is also an improvement upon the most prominent theory of willpower in philosophy, where the earlier self forms a resolution to overcome the later self’s inclinations and willpower consists of not reopening the question of what to do. People often do re-open the question and this theory has no resources for willpower in that scenario. Our theory of willpower as intrapersonal team reasoning can provide such a resource. It also provides answers to philosophical questions about why it is rational to form intentions and why it is rational to have a tendency not to revise them.
As well as presenting and testing the theory, we used it to develop a new theorization of Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), a psychiatric disorder for which identity disturbance and impulsivity are both diagnostic symptoms. We plan to test this theorization in future work.