Received: 18 February 2024 Accepted: 30 July 2024

DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.3102

RESEARCH ARTICLE

In control but uninspired: Displays of artist self-control

undermine perceptions of creativity

Michail D. Kokkoris1 Olga Stavrova2

1
School of Business and Economics,
Department of Marketing, Vrije Universiteit Abstract
Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Previous research highlighted the interpersonal benefits of self-control in professional
2
Department of Psychology, University of
contexts: People prefer high self-control individuals as work or study partners and
Lübeck, Lubeck, Germany
expect them to perform better than low self-control individuals. We show that these
Correspondence benefits of self-control reverse in the artistic domain. Results of one pilot study and
School of Business and Economics, Vrije
Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, five preregistered online experiments (N = 1644) reveal that artists with high (vs.
The Netherlands. low) self-control are perceived as less creative. This effect replicates across various
Email: [email protected]
artistic domains (visual art, music, poetry, screenwriting), holds for both male and
female artists and can be explained by perceptions of lower experiential processing,
which is considered indispensable for creativity. However, art created by high (vs. low)
self-control artists is ascribed higher market value due to stronger attributions of
productivity. These findings provide novel insights into the social perception of self-
control and contribute to the understudied topic of the downsides of self-control as
well as to the literature on lay theories of creativity.

KEYWORDS
arts, creativity, experiential processing, lay theories, rational processing, self-control, social
perception

When you make music or write or create, it is really your job & Stavrova, 2021; Stavrova et al., 2020; Tangney et al., 2004). But is
to have mind-blowing, irresponsible, condomless sex with self-control always beneficial? More recently, research started reveal-
whatever idea it is you are writing about at the time. ing potential detrimental consequences of self-control (for a brief
Lady Gaga overview, see Kokkoris & Stavrova, 2020). For example, self-control
can feel alienating for some people (Kokkoris et al., 2019), can lead
to regret in the long run (Kivetz & Keinan, 2006) and might help indi-
1 INTRODUCTION viduals reach not only benevolent but also unethical, antisocial and
personally harmful goals (Mathes et al., 2017; Rawn & Vohs, 2011).
Extensive research in psychology has demonstrated that self-control Most research on the consequences of self-control has focused on
– defined as ‘the capacity to control impulses to resist a temptation intrapersonal or actor-level effects (i.e., how an individual’s self-control
[. . . ] and protect a valued goal’ (Touré-Tillery & Fishbach, 2015, p. 1117) affects that individual’s life outcomes). Much less is known about the
– is a valuable trait in many spheres of life. People with higher self- potential interpersonal or perceiver-level effects of self-control (i.e.,
control have better health, more successful school and work lives, how an individual’s self-control shapes other people’s reactions to
better interpersonal relationships and higher well-being and psychoso- them). Advancing our knowledge on perceiver-level effects of self-
cial adjustment (de Ridder et al., 2012; Hofmann et al., 2014; Kokkoris control is crucial because it can shed more light on positive and

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited.
© 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Social Psychology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Eur J Soc Psychol. 2024;54:1531–1544. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ejsp 1531

 10990992, 2024, 7, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3102 by Cochrane France, Wiley Online Library on [15/03/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1532 KOKKORIS and STAVROVA

negative consequences of self-control in the social domain. For exam- listen to one’s heart, then we can predict that high self-control as a
ple, positive reputational consequences of self-control might reinforce personality trait will be perceived as detrimental for creativity.
self-control behaviours, whereas negative reputational consequences Note that our proposition solely concerns creativity perceptions
might undermine them. (i.e., whether people perceive the work by artists differing in self-
First studies on the social perception of self-control have painted control as more or less creative) and not the actual creativity level of
a predominantly positive picture by showing that high self-control artists with higher and lower self-control. The latter question has been
individuals are expected to show better performance at work (Koval partially addressed in prior empirical investigations with conflicting
et al., 2015), are perceived as more trustworthy (Righetti & Finke- findings (Baumeister et al., 2008; Chiu, 2014; Radel et al., 2015). More
nauer, 2011), are considered more likeable (Röseler et al., 2021) and recent research suggests that the relationship between self-control
are less likely to be socially excluded (Stavrova et al., 2021). However, and creativity might not be that straightforward and instead various
more recently, it has been suggested that the social perception benefits factors like task instructions might moderate the effect of self-control
of self-control might be context dependent. For example, individu- on creativity (Taylor, 2021).
als prefer high self-control others as study or work partners but low In contrast, here we focus on whether and how people use the
self-control others as socializing buddies (Röseler et al., 2021). More- information about artists’ self-control in judging artists’ creativity. But
over, people with higher self-control are perceived as more robotic and how do people have access to the information about artists’ self-
dehumanized (Lapka et al., 2023) and as lacking interpersonal warmth control levels? Research shows that people often actively seek – or
(Tang et al., 2022), because people tend to see those who restrain their are incidentally exposed to – information about artists’ private lives,
impulses as not acting upon their genuine preferences and thus lacking including their relationships, emotions, beliefs and personality and
authenticity (see also Garrison et al., 2023). a big industry around tabloid news, celebrity gossip, etc. caters to
The current research contributes to this nascent literature by this need (McCutcheon et al., 2002; Yan & Zhang, 2020). Addition-
extending the scope of potential detrimental interpersonal conse- ally, museums often feature biographical information about artists
quences of self-control to the domain of artistic creation. In contrast that help contextualize artists’ creations. Building on these insights,
to previous studies highlighting the benefits of self-control in the we argue that people have many opportunities to form impressions
work domain (Koval et al., 2015; Righetti & Finkenauer, 2011; Röseler about artists’ self-control, and these self-control inferences influence
et al., 2021), we propose that when it comes to artistic profes- creativity perceptions of their work.
sions, self-control can be rather disadvantageous and have detrimental We further tested whether artist self-control has downstream
perceiver-level (i.e., reputational) consequences. Specifically, we sug- consequences for perceptions of market value. We hypothesized
gest that artists perceived as high (vs. low) in self-control might be that artist self-control can affect perceived market value through
seen as less creative. Creative work is defined as work that is novel, two opposing pathways. On the one hand, lower perceptions of artist
original and of value (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). Our proposition that creativity – that we expect to be associated with higher self-control –
self-control can undermine perceptions of creativity in art is based on might lead to lower perceived market value of their art products. On
two lines of reasoning. the other hand, self-control is tightly linked to work ethic, productivity
First, research from a dual process perspective (Hofmann et al., and professionalism (Feather, 1984), which can be beneficial for
2009) shows that exerting self-control can be ascribed to higher ratio- perceptions of market value. Hence, high (vs. low) self-control in artists
nal processing (i.e., approaching a task systematically based on reason might decrease market value via decreasing perceptions of creativity
and deliberation), whereas giving in to a temptation can be ascribed to and increase market value via increasing perceptions of productivity.
experiential processing (i.e., approaching a task based on intuition and In summary, we hypothesized that artists’ displays of high (vs. low)
gut feelings). Lay people seem to also share this intuition and associate self-control undermine perceptions of creativity of their work and that
self-control with more rational than experiential processing (Kokkoris this effect is mediated by perceptions of lower experiential and/or
et al., 2019). Therefore, exerting self-control is considered to be an act higher rational processing. We also expected that an artist’s high (vs.
stemming more from the mind rather than from the heart. Second, lay low) self-control will impact market value negatively via decreased
theories about the creative process suggest that people find experien- perceptions of creativity but positively via increased perceptions of
tial processing more important for creativity than rational processing productivity. We tested these hypotheses in one pilot study and five
(Ritter & Rietzschel, 2017). For example, as reflected in the opening preregistered experiments in a wide range of artistic domains (visual
quote, people believe that creativity requires total freedom, impulsiv- art in Studies 1 and 5; poetry in Study 2; music in Study 3; screenwriting
ity, lack of constraints and rejection of social norms (Baas et al., 2015; in Study 4) with respect to both male (Studies 1, 2, 4 and 5) and female
Feist, 1998). (Study 3) artists.
Combining these insights, we propose that artists with high (vs. low) All stimulus materials are publicly available as Online Supple-
self-control are perceived as less creative because they are consid- mental Material. Data are publicly available at the project’s website
ered to work more rationally and/or less experientially. In other words, on Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/3u5b9/?view_only=
if people believe that acts of self-control stem more from the ‘mind’ 201ca72bacb0418a9daea169288b3d16). All five main studies have
(rational processing) rather than from the ‘heart’ (experiential process- been preregistered (see respective links in each study’s introduction).
ing), and if they also believe that in order to be creative one must The research was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Vrije
 10990992, 2024, 7, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3102 by Cochrane France, Wiley Online Library on [15/03/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SELF-CONTROL AND CREATIVITY 1533

Universiteit Amsterdam and complies with all relevant ethical regu- via perceptions of higher experiential and lower rational processing.
lations. Participants provided informed consent before participation The hypotheses, study design, study materials and analytical plan were
in each study and were rewarded for their time with either course preregistered: https://aspredicted.org/blind.php?x=rg3it3.
credit (Studies 1, 2, 4 and 5) or a monetary compensation (Study 3). All
measures, manipulations and exclusions in the studies are disclosed
as well as the method of determining the final sample size (no data 3.1 Method
collection was continued after data analysis).
3.1.1 Participants

2 PILOT STUDY One hundred sixty-six students of a large European university took
part in the study online for course credit. The sample size in this and all
Before examining whether high self-control undermines perceptions subsequent studies was determined by the capacity of the subject pool
of creativity, we present evidence that people hold a lay belief that with a 1-week stopping criterion applied unless stated otherwise. After
experiential processing contributes to creativity more than rational excluding seven participants who failed an attention check (to select a
processing. predetermined option in a question), the final sample comprised 159
participants (71 women; Mage = 21.97, SD = 2.04). This sample size can
detect effect sizes of d = 0.40, 95% CI = [0.09, 0.71] with alpha .05 and
2.1 Method power .80.

2.1.1 Participants
3.1.2 Procedure
Two hundred thirty-six students of a large European university took
part in the study online for course credit. After excluding five partic-
As a cover story, we told participants that they would read the
ipants who failed an attention check (to select a predetermined option
description of an artist, Robin, who allegedly took part in one of our
in a question), the final sample comprised 231 participants (50 women;
previous studies, and they were also shown a painting supposedly
Mage = 19.81, SD = 1.87). This sample size can detect effect sizes of
painted by Robin. We informed participants that the description of
d = 0.16, 95% CI = [0.03, 0.29] with alpha .05 and power .80.
the artist was based on how he described himself in the study as
well as on input from his friends. To manipulate artist self-control,
we created two personality profiles by adjusting the items of the
2.1.2 Procedure
trait self-control scale (Tangney et al., 2004). For example, in the high
(low) self-control condition, it was stated that the artist almost always
Participants were asked to indicate to what extent each one of two
(never) says ‘no’ to temptation, rarely says (might say) inappropriate
factors, namely ‘reason, logic, rules, system’ and ‘intuition, gut feeling,
things, that pleasure and fun never (often) interfere with his striving
insight, emotion’ contribute to creativity in art broadly defined (paint-
for long-term goals and that his friends say that he has iron (weak)
ing, music, writing, etc.). With the help of a constant sum question, they
self-discipline (see Online Supplemental Material for complete manip-
could allocate 100 points in total to these two factors. The order of the
ulation text). This methodological approach has been used by other
two factors was counterbalanced.
researchers studying the social perception of self-control (e.g., Lapka
et al., 2023; Röseler et al., 2021), as it provides a controlled way
2.2 Results and discussion to study the effects of high (vs. low) self-control from an observer
perspective.
Participants allocated almost two thirds of the total 100 points to intu- Participants were randomly assigned to either a high or a low self-
ition, gut feeling, insight and emotion (M = 76.45, SD = 17.02) and only control condition. We then assessed the perceived creativity of the
one third to reason, logic, rules and system (M = 23.55, SD = 17.02). artist’s work (α = .85) with six items (e.g., ‘How creative do you think
One-sample t-tests indicated that the points allocated to each factor Robin is as an artist?’, ‘How original do you think Robin is as an artist?’)
were significantly different from 50, t(230) = 23.61, p < .001, Cohen’s on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all; 7 = very much) adapted from Moreau
d = 17.02. Clearly, participants believe that experiential processing is and Dahl (2005). We also assessed rational processing (α = .94)
more important than rational processing for artistic creativity. and experiential processing (α = .90) with six items each (e.g., ‘In
creating his paintings, Robin applies precise rules’ and ‘In creating his
paintings, Robin uses his gut feelings’, respectively) on a 5-point scale
3 STUDY 1 (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) adapted from Novak and Hoff-
man (2009). The order between dependent variable and mediators
Study 1 examined the effect of artist self-control on perceptions of cre- was randomized (in this and all following studies). Finally, as a manip-
ativity in the domain of visual art and tested the underlying mechanism ulation check, we assessed perceived self-control with a single item
 10990992, 2024, 7, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3102 by Cochrane France, Wiley Online Library on [15/03/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1534 KOKKORIS and STAVROVA

F I G U R E 1 Mediation analysis in Study 1. Negative indirect effect via rational processing: B = −0.32, Boot SE = 0.17, 95% CI = [−0.67, −0.02].
Negative indirect effect via experiential processing: B = −0.70, Boot SE = 0.18, 95% CI = [−1.04, −0.35].

(1 = low; 7 = high). (See Online Supplemental Material for details on all visual art. This effect was mediated by perceived higher rational and
measures.) lower experiential processing.

3.2 Results and discussion 4 STUDY 2

The manipulation was successful: The artist was perceived as hav- Study 2 sought to conceptually replicate the findings of Study 1 in
ing higher self-control in the high self-control condition (M = 6.52, another artistic domain, poetry. The study was preregistered: https://
SD = 0.71) than in the low self-control condition (M = 2.49, SD = 0.95), aspredicted.org/blind.php?x=4cu98q. 1
95% CI for the mean difference = [−4.29, −3.77], t(157) = −30.40,
p < .001, Cohen’s d = 4.85. This indicates that our manipulation of
artist self-control had high validity: the vignettes successfully created 4.1 Method
an image of the artist that was perceived by our participants as either
low or high in self-control (see also Lapka et al., 2023; Röseler et al., 4.1.1 Participants
2021). In terms of the core hypothesis, the high self-control artist
(M = 4.17, SD = 1.00) was perceived as less creative than the low self- One hundred ninety-two students of a large European university took
control artist (M = 4.84, SD = 0.81), 95% CI = [0.39, 0.96], t(157) = 4.65, part in the study online for course credit. After excluding 10 partici-
p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.74. In terms of processing styles, the high pants who failed an attention check, the final sample comprised 182
self-control artist was considered to work more rationally (M = 3.98, participants (160 women; Mage = 19.55, SD = 2.52). This sample size
SD = 0.80) and less experientially (M = 2.78, SD = 0.85) than the low can detect effect sizes of d = 0.37, 95% CI = [0.08, 0.66] with alpha .05
self-control artist (M = 2.19, SD = 0.79; M = 4.12, SD = 0.47), 95% and power .80.
CI = [−2.04, −1.54], t(157) = −14.24, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 2.27 and
95% CI = [1.13, 1.55], t(126.71) = 12.37, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 1.96,
respectively. A mediation analysis with artist self-control (0 = low; 4.1.2 Procedure
1 = high) as independent variable, creativity as dependent variable
and rational and experiential processing as parallel mediators revealed The study design and materials were the same as in Study 1. The only
negative indirect effects via rational, B = −0.32, Boot SE = 0.17, 95% difference was that Robin was now described as a poet and a sample
CI = [−0.67, −0.02] and experiential processing, B = −0.70, Boot of his work (a poem) was presented to participants. We assessed per-
SE = 0.18, 95% CI = [−1.04, −0.35] (Figure 1). Correlations of all vari- ceived creativity (α = .86), rational processing (α = .92), experiential
ables in this study as well as in all subsequent studies are provided
in Table 1. Results of Study 1 provide preliminary support to the idea
that self-control undermines perceptions of creativity in the domain of 1 The stopping criterion in this study was 2 weeks’ time.
 10990992, 2024, 7, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3102 by Cochrane France, Wiley Online Library on [15/03/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SELF-CONTROL AND CREATIVITY 1535

TA B L E 1 Correlations between variables in Studies 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively.

2 3 4 5
1. Creativity −.48* / −.26* / −.07 / −.35* .56* / .32* / .38* / .50* .05 .42*
2. Rational processing – −.77* / −.65* / −.52* / −.55* – –
3. Experiential processing – – – –
4. Productivity – – – .26*
5. Market value – – – –

Note: Rational and experiential processing were only measured in Studies 1–4; productivity and market value were only measured in Study 5; Creativity was
measured in all studies.
*p < .01.

processing (α = .86) and perceived self-control (manipulation check) vs. female) between-subjects design. The study was preregistered:
with the same items as in Study 1. https://aspredicted.org/blind.php?x=t8ce9b.

4.2 Results and discussion 5.1 Method

The self-control manipulation was again successful: The poet was per- 5.1.1 Participants
ceived as having higher self-control in the high self-control condition
(M = 6.29, SD = 1.11) than in the low self-control condition (M = 2.43, Four hundred fifty participants from the United States were recruited
SD = 1.09), 95% CI = [−4.18, −3.54], t(180) = −23.70, p < .001, Cohen’s online on Prolific in exchange for monetary compensation. We aimed
d = 3.53. Conceptually replicating the findings of Study 1, the high at recruiting at least 100 participants per cell. After excluding 13 par-
self-control poet (M = 3.97, SD = 1.00) was rated as less creative than ticipants who failed an attention check, the final sample comprised 437
the low self-control poet (M = 4.54, SD = 0.97), 95% CI = [0.28, 0.85], participants (233 women; Mage = 32.77, SD = 12.49). With alpha .05
t(180) = 3.86, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.58. Regarding processing styles, and power .80, this sample size can detect effect sizes of d = 0.27, 95%
the high self-control poet (M = 3.98, SD = 0.72) was considered to work CI = [0.08, 0.46] for the main effect of self-control as well as effect sizes
more rationally than the low self-control poet (M = 2.37, SD = 0.29), of f = .13, 95% CI = [0.00, 0.66] for the interaction effect.
95% CI = [−1.82, −1.40], t(180) = −15.13, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 2.26.
At the same time, the high self-control poet (M = 3.08, SD = 0.79)
was considered to work less experientially than the low self-control 5.1.2 Procedure
poet (M = 4.13, SD = 0.51), 95% CI = [0.86, 1.25], t(154.87) = 10.72,
p < .001, Cohen’s d = 1.72. A parallel mediation analysis showed The study design and materials were the same as in Studies 1 and 2.
a negative indirect effect via experiential processing, B = −0.30, The target artist was now described as a composer and the composer’s
Boot SE = 0.13, 95% CI = [−0.57, −0.05], but no indirect effect via gender (male vs. female) was manipulated between participants (in
rational processing, B = −0.03, Boot SE = 0.17, 95% CI = [−0.35, 0.31] addition to the composer’s self-control). Participants were also asked
(Figure 2). to listen to a 1-min percussion piece (allegedly, a sample of the com-
Study 2 documented the detrimental effect of self-control on cre- poser’s work). We assessed perceived creativity (α = .91), rational
ativity in the domain of poetry. Less experiential processing (but not processing (α = .94), experiential processing (α = .91) and perceived
more rational processing) accounted for this effect. Interestingly, ratio- self-control (manipulation check) with the same items as in Studies 1
nal processing was not associated with perceptions of creativity in and 2.
poetry.

5.2 Results and discussion

5 STUDY 3
The analysis of the manipulation check question showed only a main
Study 3 examined whether the negative effect of self-control on cre- effect of the self-control manipulation, such that the composer was
ativity applies to both male and female artists. This is important since perceived as having higher self-control in the high self-control con-
gender has been shown to have implications for the perceptions of both dition (M = 6.58, SD = 0.75) than in the low self-control condition
creativity and self-control (Duckworth et al., 2015; Proudfoot et al., (M = 2.54, SD = 1.45), 95% CI = [−4.26, −3.83], F(1, 433) = 1319.85,
2015). Moreover, we tested the hypotheses with a different population p < .001, partial η2 = .75. There was no main effect of composer’s
(US Americans) in a new artistic domain (music). The study employed a gender and no interaction between composer’s self-control and com-
2 (composer’s self-control: high vs. low) × 2 (composer’s gender: male poser’s gender, ps > .261.
 10990992, 2024, 7, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3102 by Cochrane France, Wiley Online Library on [15/03/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1536 KOKKORIS and STAVROVA

F I G U R E 2 Mediation analysis in Study 2. No indirect effect via rational processing: B = −0.03, Boot SE = 0.17, 95% CI = [−0.35, 0.31]. Negative
indirect effect via experiential processing: B = −0.30, Boot SE = 0.13, 95% CI = [−0.57, −0.05].

Regarding creativity, only the main effect of the self-control manip- another artistic domain: screenwriting. The study was preregistered:
ulation reached significance, F(1, 433) = 8.29, 95% CI = [0.11, 0.56], https://aspredicted.org/blind.php?x=t8dq9f.
p = .004, partial η2 = .02. The high self-control composer (M = 4.46,
SD = 1.18) was perceived as less creative than the low self-control
composer (M = 4.76, SD = 1.35) (Figure 3a). This effect was not moder- 6.1 Method
ated by composer gender nor was the main effect of gender significant,
ps > .260. 6.1.1 Participants
The analyses of processing styles revealed main effects of the self-
control manipulation, F(1, 433) = 529.15, 95% CI = [−1.52, −1.81], Three hundred ninety-one participants of a large European university
p < .001, partial η2 = .55 for rational, and F(1, 433) = 192.21, 95% took part in the study online for course credit. After excluding 34 par-
CI = [0.89, 1.18], p < .001, partial η2 = .31 for experiential, and no main ticipants who failed an attention check, the final sample comprised 357
effects of composer’s gender or interactions, ps > .191. Participants participants (98 women; Mage = 19.74, SD = 1.82). This sample size can
perceived the high self-control composer to rely more on rational pro- detect effect sizes of d = 0.27, 95% CI = [0.06, 0.48] with alpha .05 and
cessing style and less on experiential processing style, compared to the power .80.
low self-control composer (see Figure 3b,c). A parallel mediation anal-
ysis revealed a positive indirect effect via rational processing, B = 0.38,
Boot SE = 0.13, 95% CI = [0.13, 0.65], and a negative indirect effect via 6.1.2 Procedure
experiential processing, B = −0.65, Boot SE = 0.08, 95% CI = [−0.82,
−0.49] (Figure 4). The study design and materials were the same as in Studies 1 and
Using a different population (United States), Study 3 showed that 2. The main difference was that the target artist was now described
the negative effect of self-control on perceived creativity generalizes as a screenwriter and instead of a personality profile, the self-
to both male and female artists and holds in the domain of music. Inter- control manipulation featured an interview in the form of questions
estingly, in contrast to the domains of visual art and poetry (Studies 1 and answers that covered similar content as the manipulation of
and 2), perceptions of higher rational processing in music writing were self-control used in the previous studies (see Online Supplemental
associated with higher perceptions of creativity. Material). No stimuli were presented in this study as sample of the
screenwriter’s work. We assessed anticipated creativity (α = .88), ratio-
nal processing (α = .93), experiential processing (α = .84) and perceived
6 STUDY 4 self-control (manipulation check) with the same items as in Studies 1–3.

Study 4 extended the results of Studies 1–3 in two ways. First, to

develop a more ecologically valid manipulation of artist self-control, we 6.2 Results and discussion
presented participants with excerpts from an interview with an artist,
which is among the most common ways the public can get some insight The new manipulation was successful: The screenwriter was per-
into artists’ personalities. Second, we tested our hypotheses in yet ceived as having higher self-control in the high self-control condition
10990992, 2024, 7, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3102 by Cochrane France, Wiley Online Library on [15/03/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1537

F I G U R E 3 Perceived creativity: (a) rational processing, (b) and experiential processing (c) as a function of composer’s self-control and
SELF-CONTROL AND CREATIVITY

composer’s gender in Study 3.

 10990992, 2024, 7, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3102 by Cochrane France, Wiley Online Library on [15/03/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1538 KOKKORIS and STAVROVA

F I G U R E 4 Mediation analysis in Study 3. Positive indirect effect via rational processing: B = 0.38, Boot SE = 0.13, 95% CI = [0.13, 0.65].
Negative indirect effect via experiential processing: B = −0.65, Boot SE = 0.08, 95% CI = [−0.82, −0.49].

(M = 6.50, SD = 0.74) than in the low self-control condition (M = 2.66, 7.1 Method
SD = 1.25), 95% CI = [−4.05, −3.62], t(302.10) = −35.61, p < .001,
Cohen’s d = 4.10. Conceptually replicating the findings of all previ- 7.1.1 Participants
ous studies, the high self-control screenwriter (M = 4.33, SD = 1.05)
was expected to be less creative than the low self-control screen- Two hundred eighty-three participants from a large European univer-
writer (M = 5.10, SD = 0.97), 95% CI = [0.56, 0.98], t(355) = 7.20, sity took part in the study online for course credit. After excluding five
p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.76. Participants also believed that the high participants who failed an attention check, the final sample comprised
self-control screenwriter worked more rationally and less experien- 278 participants (100 women; Mage = 19.59, SD = 1.84). This sample
tially than the low self-control screenwriter, 95% CI = [−2.09, −1.84], size can detect effect sizes of d = 0.30, 95% CI = [0.06, 0.54] with
t(355) = −31.73, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 3.37 and 95% CI = [0.66, 0.93], alpha .05 and power .80.
t(310.67) = 11.70, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 1.37, respectively. A parallel
mediation analysis showed a negative indirect effect via experiential
processing, B = −0.51, Boot SE = 0.11, 95% CI = [−0.73, −0.30], but no 7.1.2 Procedure
indirect effect via rational processing, B = 0.002, Boot SE = 0.21, 95%
CI = [−0.42, 0.41] (Figure 5). The study design and materials were the same as in Study 1 (visual
Study 4 conceptually replicated the negative effect of self-control art) except for the following. Rational and experiential processing were
on perceived creativity in the domain of screenwriting with a new not assessed in this study. In addition to perceived creativity (α = .90),
manipulation of higher ecological validity. Interestingly, like in the we also assessed perceived productivity (α = .91) with three items
domain of poetry (Study 2), higher rational processing was unrelated (‘How productive/hard-working/professional do you think Robin is as
to perceptions of creativity. Yet, consistent with Studies 1–3, the nega- an artist?’) and perceived market value (α = .90) with another three
tive effect of high self-control on perceived creativity was mediated by items (‘How much do you think people pay for Robin’s paintings in auc-
attributions of lower experiential processing. tions?’, ‘How high do you think the market value of Robin’s paintings is?’,
‘How much do you think Robin’s paintings are worth?’); all items used a
7-point response scale.
7 STUDY 5

Study 5 examined downstream consequences for the perception of 7.2 Results and discussion
market value. We expected artist self-control to have a negative indi-
rect effect on market value via creativity but a positive indirect effect The self-control manipulation was successful: The artist was per-
via productivity. We tested this hypothesis in the domain of visual ceived as having higher self-control in the high self-control condition
art. The study was preregistered: https://aspredicted.org/blind.php?x= (M = 6.46, SD = 0.88) than in the low self-control condition (M = 2.34,
3ui84y. SD = 1.19), 95% CI = [−4.37, −3.88], t(252.11) = −32.91, p < .001,
 10990992, 2024, 7, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3102 by Cochrane France, Wiley Online Library on [15/03/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SELF-CONTROL AND CREATIVITY 1539

F I G U R E 5 Mediation analysis in Study 4. No indirect effect via rational processing: B = 0.002, Boot SE = 0.21, 95% CI = [−0.42, 0.41]. Negative
indirect effect via experiential processing: B = −0.51, Boot SE = 0.11, 95% CI = [−0.73, −0.30].

Cohen’s d = 4.15. As in all previous studies, the high self-control artist in Cohen’s d. We conducted separate analyses for the three different
(M = 4.41, SD = 1.15) was rated as less creative than the low self- outcomes: perceived creativity, perceived experiential processing and
control artist (M = 4.80, SD = 1.07, 95% CI = [0.13, 0.66], t(276) = 2.97, perceived rational processing. For creativity, a one-sample t-test of the
p = .003, Cohen’s d = 0.36. On the other hand, the high self-control mean ES against zero was significant, Md = .54, 95% CI [0.26, 0.82],
artist (M = 6.20, SD = 0.79) was rated as more productive than the t(4) = 5.29, p = .006 (two-sided). The average effects for experiential
low self-control artist (M = 3.86, SD = 1.17), 95% CI = [−2.58, −2.11], and rational processing were highly significant as well (based on four
t(239.83) = −19.58, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 2.53. Moreover, the market studies as these variables were not measured in Study 5) – experien-
value of the work of the high self-control artist (M = 4.09, SD = 1.02) tial processing: Md = 1.60, 95% CI [1.12, 2.07], t(3) = 10.64, p = .002
was perceived to be higher than that of the low self-control artist (two-sided) and rational processing: Md = 2.52, 95% CI [1.62, 3.42],
(M = 3.79, SD = 1.07), 95% CI = [−0.55, −0.06], t(276) = −2.46, t(3) = 9.91, p = .003 (two-sided). The overview of all effect sizes is
p = .015, Cohen’s d = 0.30. A parallel mediation analysis confirmed shown in Figure 7.
our hypothesis: There was a negative indirect effect via creativity,
B = −0.16, Boot SE = 0.05, 95% CI = [−0.27, −0.05], and a positive indi-
rect effect via productivity, B = 0.27, Boot SE = 0.14, 95% CI = [0.01, 9 DISCUSSION
0.56] (Figure 6). The difference between the two indirect effects was
significant, B = −0.43, Boot SE = 0.15, 95% CI = [−0.71, −0.15]. In the present research, we showed that the social perception benefits
Study 5 showed that artist self-control has downstream conse- of self-control reverse in the artistic domain. Results of five preregis-
quences on perceived market value through two opposing paths: It tered experiments indicate that people view artists with high (vs. low)
decreases market value via lower creativity but increases market value self-control as less creative (see Figure 7 for an overview). This effect
via higher productivity. Interestingly, the latter path was also stronger seems to primarily occur because people consider artists with high
resulting in the overall higher market value in the case of high (vs. low) (vs. low) self-control to be working less experientially, which is con-
self-control artists. sidered indispensable for creativity (Ritter & Rietzschel, 2017). This
effect holds across various artistic domains (visual art, music, poetry,
screenwriting) and generalizes to both male and female artists. How-
8 MINI META-ANALYSIS OF STUDIES 1–5 ever, the negative downstream consequences of high self-control on
market value are largely offset by perceptions of higher productivity.
We meta-analysed the five studies following the guidelines by Goh Given that people can accurately detect others’ self-control at zero
et al. (2016). As our studies varied in sample sizes (from N = 159 in acquaintance (Righetti & Finkenauer, 2011), they might form impres-
Study 1 to N = 437 in Study 3) and this variation was not indepen- sions about artists’ self-control through their media presence and
dent from other study characteristics (different artistic fields, artist public exposure. The public has a substantial interest in learning about
gender), we opted for a fully random effects test that does not assign artists’ lives and the media regularly feed this need by providing rel-
different studies different weights based on sample size. Our focal evant information (media coverage of artists’ lifestyle, tabloid news,
effect size (ES) was the difference between the conditions expressed etc.). Beyond inferential processes, our research suggests that artists
 10990992, 2024, 7, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3102 by Cochrane France, Wiley Online Library on [15/03/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1540 KOKKORIS and STAVROVA

F I G U R E 6 Mediation analysis in Study 5. Negative indirect effect via creativity: B = −0.16, Boot SE = 0.05, 95% CI = [−0.27, −0.05]. Positive
indirect effect via productivity: B = 0.27, Boot SE = 0.14, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.56].

FIGURE 7 Overview of effect sizes (Cohen’s d) across studies.

can also strategically communicate information concerning their self- research has almost exclusively focused on actor-level effects of self-
control (e.g., via interviews or press releases) in order to manage their control (i.e., exploring how one’s self-control affects one’s behaviour),
creative image. our work suggests that one’s self-control can have substantial conse-
quences for how one is perceived by others and thus contributes to
an emerging stream of literature on the interpersonal effects of self-
9.1 Theoretical contribution control (Koval et al., 2015; Lapka et al., 2023; Righetti & Finkenauer,
2011; Röseler et al., 2021; Stavrova et al., 2021; Tang et al., 2022).
The current research makes six major theoretical contributions. First, it Moreover, whereas most prior research has focused on exploring the
adds to the existing self-control literature in two ways. Whereas prior beneficial consequences of self-control, the present work highlighted
 10990992, 2024, 7, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3102 by Cochrane France, Wiley Online Library on [15/03/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SELF-CONTROL AND CREATIVITY 1541

that self-control can also have detrimental effects – at least at the interpersonal skills, which might also be beneficial for promoting one’s
social perception level – and thus extends the nascent literature on work. In any case, our results clearly demonstrate that people antici-
the dark side of self-control (Kokkoris & Stavrova, 2020; Rawn & Vohs, pate individuals with high self-control to be successful in life – even in
2011). domains like arts where self-control might be compromising one of the
Second, our research contributes to the literature on lay theories major qualities required in this domain (i.e., creativity).
of creativity (Ritter & Rietzschel, 2017). Specifically, our findings con- Fifth, our research converges with and extends the literature on the
verge with prior work suggesting that people perceive experiential effort heuristic (Kruger et al., 2004) and the labour valuation effect
processing as more important for creativity than rational processing (Burgmer et al., 2019), which suggests that people value work and
(e.g., Baas et al., 2015). In addition, our work suggests that whereas all effort more than ideas. Specifically, the findings of Study 5 show that
creative domains benefit from experiential processing, some creative even though high self-control artists are perceived as less creative,
domains might benefit from rational processing (e.g., music), others this is not enough to undermine their overall market value. Apparently,
might be harmed (e.g., visual art) and yet others might be unaffected people’s higher valuation of labour than ideas spares high self-control
(e.g., poetry, screenwriting). Future research can test whether rational artists – who are perceived to be highly productive, professional
processing is perceived as beneficial in artistic domains that are viewed and hard-working – from the deleterious effects of perceived low
as more analytical (i.e., music) rather than holistic (i.e., visual art). Addi- creativity.
tionally, the extent to which creativity is perceived as requiring more Finally, our findings could be viewed through the prism of the
rational or experiential processing might also vary within each artis- stereotype content model (Fiske, 2018), which posits that warmth and
tic field. For example, composing classical music might be perceived competence are two fundamental dimensions that people use when
as more analytical than composing punk rock music. In this case, peo- they form impressions of others in interpersonal contexts (Russell &
ple might perceive rational processing as more beneficial for a classical Fiske, 2008; Wojciszke et al., 2009). Although the two dimensions are
music composer than a punk rock music composer. Future research orthogonal and people can be perceived as high or low in both (Fiske,
could examine this between-genre variation and its consequences for 2018), there are situations where trade-offs take place and being high
the perception of high and low self-control artists not only across but on one dimension (e.g., warmth) automatically implies being low on the
also within artistic fields. other (e.g., competence). How would self-control of an artist shape the
Third and, building on the previous point, our research suggests perceptions of the artist warmth and competence? Prior research in
some perceptual barriers that might hinder the development of marketing has shown that consumers who engage in indulgent con-
people’s creative potential. Research has shown that mindsets and sumption (i.e., are potentially low in self-control) are perceived as more
lay beliefs have a substantial impact on people’s actual behaviour warm (Tang et al., 2022). In combination with our finding of low self-
(Burnette, 2010; Dweck, 2012). Similarly, we assume that people’s lay control artists being perceived as less productive (Study 5), one could
beliefs about creativity might affect the way they approach creative expect artists perceived as high in self-control to be seen as less warm
tasks. For example, people might give in to temptations and exercise (e.g., lacking passion, expressiveness and impulsivity), but more com-
less self-restraint when attempting to be creative. Ironically, this petent (e.g., championing rationality, deliberation and productivity). As
approach might backfire: there is research arguing that creativity perceptions of warmth have been linked to perceptions of higher cre-
thrives not only through impulsivity (Feist, 1998) but also through ativity in prior research (Bonetto et al., 2021), perceived warmth might
constraints, persistence, effort and training (Benedek et al., 2012; represent an additional (to perceive experiential processing tested
Lucas & Nordgren, 2015; Preckel et al., 2020; Simonton, 2014). Future here) mechanism through which artist self-control affects attributions
research could examine to what extent people’s attempts at creative of creativity. We encourage future research to test this possibility
tasks are guided by their beliefs about the role of self-control in empirically.
boosting creativity and whether these beliefs subsequently undermine
creative performance.
Fourth, even though we set off to explore detrimental effects of self- 9.2 Limitations and future research
control in the domain of artistic creativity, we should acknowledge that
the net effect of self-control on market value is overall positive. This One important limitation of our research is that we used a rather overt
implies that even though people view artists with high self-control as manipulation of artist self-control in constructed vignettes. Indeed,
less creative, they believe that their productivity and work ethic will the effect of the manipulation on the manipulation check item was
counteract any negative effect of self-control on creativity and eventu- very large (Cohen’s d ranging from 3.53 to 4.85), suggesting that the
ally they will be successful and prosperous artists. This finding shows vignettes had high internal validity and successfully created an image
how deeply ingrained the belief is that self-control is a sine qua non of an artist high versus low in self-control. While this approach max-
virtue that prevails and makes up for other weaknesses. Another possi- imizes internal validity, it might do so at the expense of external
bility, not tested here, is that artists high on self-control are also better validity. In Study 4 (interview), we sought to increase external valid-
at public relations, communicating with others and selling their work, ity by integrating artist personality information into a journalistic piece
which might also increase their market value. In other words, in addi- that presented an interview with the artist. It could be worthwhile for
tion to higher productivity, self-control might be associated with higher future studies to examine other contexts where the public could come
 10990992, 2024, 7, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3102 by Cochrane France, Wiley Online Library on [15/03/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1542 KOKKORIS and STAVROVA

across cues to an artist’s personality in a natural way and test whether studies using behavioural measures of self-control such as the Stroop
self-control inferences will affect perceptions of artist creativity in task show that greater inhibitory control is associated with greater
these contexts as well. In addition, future research could also investi- creativity (Beaty et al., 2014; Benedek et al., 2012; Groborz & Necka,
gate the reverse causal link: Do people consider highly creative artists 2003).
to have lower self-control? It seems plausible that the relationship Perhaps one way to reconcile these conflicting findings could be to
between self-control and perceived creativity is bidirectional. assume that even if artists do not possess lower levels of self-control
Another avenue for future research would be to distinguish than non-artists, as studies measuring performance indicate, they
between creation and performance. People might believe that artistic might nevertheless report lower self-control because this is better
performance (e.g., playing a musical instrument, singing, acting, danc- aligned with their identity as artists and what is expected by society
ing) requires a high degree of self-discipline, precision and attention from them. This resonates with conceptualizations of self-control not
to detail in order to faithfully execute a creator’s vision. Given that just as a capacity but also as identity (Berkman et al., 2017; Kokkoris
high self-control individuals are better at self-presentation as they can et al., 2019). Considering that artists themselves must be aware of
override their own responses and tailor them to external demands lay beliefs associating creativity more with experiential processing
(Stavrova & Kokkoris, 2019; Vohs et al., 2005), they might be per- and less so with rational processing (see the Pilot Study section), they
ceived as better performers who stay true to the essence of an artistic might intuitively ascribe themselves lower self-control when it comes
creation. Therefore, the nature of the artistic task, creation versus to describing themselves as a way to fit social norms and expectations.
performance, might be a moderator of the observed effect. Future research could empirically test this proposition.
We have found differences across artistic domains with regard to
the effect of rational processing on perceptions of creativity. This ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
implies that the role of rational processing in creativity judgements The authors would like to acknowledge support for data collection
might be more complex than that of experiential processing. One pos- from Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (Research Participation Project of
sibility is that rational processing might enhance creativity perceptions the School of Business and Economics) and Tilburg University. The
in artistic domains that are considered to be more analytical, such as authors thank the associate editor and two anonymous reviewers
music, which makes use of mathematics, logic and rules, rather than for their insightful comments, as well as Katherine Du and partici-
domains that are considered to be more holistic, such as painting. The pants of research seminars at the University of Groningen and Vilnius
same might also apply within domains: In subfields of the same artis- University for helpful feedback.
tic domain (e.g., music) that are deemed more analytical (e.g., classical)
versus more holistic (e.g., punk rock), rationality might be seen as bene- CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
ficial for the creative process. Whereas this interpretation is in line with The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
the current findings, these differences across domains were not sys-
tematically tested here and therefore need to be addressed in future ETHICS STATEMENT
research. The current data suggest that the perceived nature of the The research was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Vrije
artistic task, analytical versus holistic, may moderate the observed Universiteit Amsterdam and complies with all relevant ethical regula-
effect. tions. Participants provided informed consent before participation in
A question remaining open is whether the detrimental effect of self- each study and were rewarded for their time with either course credit
control on perceived creativity extends also to other domains that (Studies 1, 2, 4 and 5) or a monetary compensation (Study 3).
require creativity, such as research and development, technology or
marketing. Whereas we assume that the effect generalizes to these TRANSPARENCY STATEMENT
domains too, we chose to limit our investigation to the artistic domain The data that support the findings of this research are openly available
because the ecological validity of the proposed effect seems to be at the project’s website on Open Science Framework (https://osf.
higher in this domain (i.e., it is a domain in which people actively seek or io/3u5b9/?view_only=201ca72bacb0418a9daea169288b3d16). All
have a high chance of being incidentally exposed to information about stimulus materials are publicly available as Online Supplemental
artists’ personalities). It would be nevertheless interesting for future Material.
research to examine whether this effect also holds in non-artistic
occupations. ORCID
Although the goal of this research was to study the link between Michail D. Kokkoris https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8716-0706
trait self-control and creativity through a social perception perspec-
tive, our findings also pose intriguing questions about the nature of REFERENCES
this link (actual, not perceived). As mentioned in the introduction, Baas, M., Koch, S., Nijstad, B. A., & De Dreu, C. K. (2015). Conceiving cre-
there are conflicting findings in the literature as to whether trait self- ativity: The nature and consequences of laypeople’s beliefs about the
realization of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,
control harms or benefits creativity. Research based on self-reported
9(3), 340–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039420
self-control suggests that artists compared to non-artists indeed score Baumeister, R. F., Schmeichel, B. J., DeWall, C. N., & Vohs, K. D. (2008). Is
lower on self-control and higher on impulsivity (Feist, 1998). However, the conscious self a help, a hindrance, or an irrelevance to the creative
 10990992, 2024, 7, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3102 by Cochrane France, Wiley Online Library on [15/03/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SELF-CONTROL AND CREATIVITY 1543

process? In A. M. Columbus, (Ed.), Advances in psychology research (Vol. 53, Kivetz, R., & Keinan, A. (2006). Repenting hyperopia: An analysis of self-
pp. 137–152). Nova Science. control regrets. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(2), 273–282. https://
Beaty, R. E., Silvia, P. J., Nusbaum, E. C., Jauk, E., & Benedek, M. (2014). doi.org/10.1086/506308
The roles of associative and executive processes in creative cognition. Kokkoris, M., & Stavrova, O. (2020). The dark side of self-control. Har-
Memory & Cognition, 42, 1186–1197. vard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/01/the-dark-side-of-self-
Benedek, M., Franz, F., Heene, M., & Neubauer, A. C. (2012). Differential control
effects of cognitive inhibition and intelligence on creativity. Personality Kokkoris, M. D., Hoelzl, E., & Alós-Ferrer, C. (2019). True to which self?
and Individual Differences, 53, 480–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid. Lay rationalism and decision satisfaction in self-control conflicts. Journal
2012.04.014 of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(2), 417–447. https://doi.org/10.
Berkman, E. T., Livingston, J. L., & Kahn, L. E. (2017). Finding the “self” in self- 1037/pspp0000242
regulation: The identity-value model. Psychological Inquiry, 28(2-3), 77– Kokkoris, M. D., & Stavrova, O. (2021). Staying on track in turbulent times:
98. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2017.1323463 Trait self-control and goal pursuit during self-quarantine. Personality and
Bonetto, E., Pichot, N., Girandola, F., & Bonnardel, N. (2021). The norma- Individual Differences, 170, 110454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.
tive features of creativity: Creative individuals are judged to be warmer 110454
and more competent. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 55(3), 649–660. Koval, C. Z., VanDellen, M. R., Fitzsimons, G. M., & Ranby, K. W. (2015). The
https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.477 burden of responsibility: Interpersonal costs of high self-control. Journal
Burgmer, P., Forstmann, M., & Stavrova, O. (2019). Ideas are cheap: When of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(5), 750–766. https://doi.org/10.
and why adults value labor over ideas. Journal of Experimental Psychology: 1037/pspi0000015
General, 148(5), 824–844. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000473 Kruger, J., Wirtz, D., Van Boven, L., & Altermatt, T. W. (2004). The effort
Burnette, J. L. (2010). Implicit theories of body weight: Entity beliefs heuristic. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(1), 91–98. https://
can weigh you down. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00065-9
410–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209359768 Lapka, S. P., Kung, F. Y., Brienza, J. P., & Scholer, A. A. (2023). Determined
Chiu, F. C. (2014). The effects of exercising self-control on creativity. Think- yet dehumanized: People higher in self-control are seen as more robotic.
ing Skills and Creativity, 14, 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.06. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 14(2), 117–129. https://doi.
003 org/10.1177/19485506221093109
de Ridder, D. T., Lensvelt-Mulders, G., Finkenauer, C., Stok, F. M., & Lucas, B. J., & Nordgren, L. F. (2015). People underestimate the value of
Baumeister, R. F. (2012). Taking stock of self-control: A meta-analysis persistence for creative performance. Journal of Personality and Social
of how trait self-control relates to a wide range of behaviors. Personal- Psychology, 109(2), 232–243. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000030
ity and Social Psychology Review, 16(1), 76–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Mathes, E. W., Lane, D. J., Helmers, B. R., Jamnik, M. R., Hendrickson, M.,
1088868311418749 & Aleshire, B. (2017). The dark side of self-control: High self-control
Duckworth, A. L., Shulman, E. P., Mastronarde, A. J., Patrick, S. D., Zhang, J., leads to better outcomes when engaging in bad behaviors. Personality
& Druckman, J. (2015). Will not want: Self-control rather than motiva- and Individual Differences, 100(105), 326–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/
tion explains the female advantage in report card grades. Learning and j.paid.2016.10.005
Individual Differences, 39, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015. McCutcheon, L. E., Lange, R., & Houran, J. (2002). Conceptualization and
02.006 measurement of celebrity worship. British Journal of Psychology, 93(1),
Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets and human nature: Promoting change in the 67–87. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712602162454
Middle East, the schoolyard, the racial divide, and willpower. American Moreau, C. P., & Dahl, D. W. (2005). Designing the solution: The impact of
Psychologist, 67(8), 614–622. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029783 constraints on consumers’ creativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1),
Feather, N. T. (1984). Protestant ethic, conservatism, and values. Journal of 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1086/429597
Personality and Social Psychology, 46(5), 1132–1141. https://doi.org/10. Novak, T. P., & Hoffman, D. L. (2009). The fit of thinking style and sit-
1037/0022-3514.46.5.1132 uation: New measures of situation-specific experiential and rational
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artis- cognition. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(1), 56–72. https://doi.org/10.
tic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290–309. 1086/596026
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5 Preckel, F., Golle, J., Grabner, R., Jarvin, L., Kozbelt, A., Müllensiefen,
Fiske, S. T. (2018). Stereotype content: Warmth and competence endure. D., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Schneider, W., Subotnik, R., Vock, M., &
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(2), 67–73. https://doi.org/ Worrell, F. C. (2020). Talent development in achievement domains: A
10.1177/0963721417738825 psychological framework for within-and cross-domain research. Perspec-
Garrison, K. E., Rivera, G. N., Schlegel, R. J., Hicks, J. A., & Schmeichel, B. J. tives on Psychological Science, 15(3), 691–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/
(2023). Authentic for thee but not for me: Perceived authenticity in self- 1745691619895030
control conflicts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 49(12), 1646– Proudfoot, D., Kay, A. C., & Koval, C. Z. (2015). A gender bias in the attribu-
1662. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221118187 tion of creativity: Archival and experimental evidence for the perceived
Goh, J. X., Hall, J. A., & Rosenthal, R. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your association between masculinity and creative thinking. Psychological Sci-
own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and ence, 26(11), 1751–1761. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615598739
Personality Psychology Compass, 10(10), 535–549. Radel, R., Davranche, K., Fournier, M., & Dietrich, A. (2015). The role of
Groborz, M., & Necka, E. (2003). Creativity and cognitive control: Explo- (dis)inhibition in creativity: Decreased inhibition improves idea genera-
rations of generation and evaluation skills. Creativity Research Journal, 15, tion. Cognition, 134, 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.
183–197. 09.001
Hofmann, W., Friese, M., & Strack, F. (2009). Impulse and self-control from Rawn, C. D., & Vohs, K. D. (2011). People use self-control to risk personal
a dual-systems perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(2), harm: An intra-interpersonal dilemma. Personality and Social Psychology
162–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01116.x Review, 15(3), 267–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310381084
Hofmann, W., Luhmann, M., Fisher, R. R., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. Righetti, F., & Finkenauer, C. (2011). If you are able to control yourself, I will
(2014). Yes, but are they happy? Effects of trait self-control on affective trust you: The role of perceived self-control in interpersonal trust. Jour-
well-being and life satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 82(4), 265–277. nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(5), 874–886. https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12050 10.1037/a0021827
 10990992, 2024, 7, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3102 by Cochrane France, Wiley Online Library on [15/03/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1544 KOKKORIS and STAVROVA

Ritter, S., & Rietzschel, E. (2017). Lay theories of creativity. In The science of Taylor, C. L. (2021). Task instructions influence the effects of impaired
lay theories: How beliefs shape our cognition, behavior, and health (pp. 95– self-control on creative cognition. Psychology of Aesthetics, Cre-
126). Springer. ativity, and the Arts, 15(1), 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1037/
Röseler, L., Ebert, J., Schütz, A., & Baumeister, R. F. (2021). The upsides and aca0000249
downsides of high self-control: Evidence for effects of similarity and situ- Touré-Tillery, M., & Fishbach, A. (2015). It was(n’t) me: Exercising
ation dependency. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 17(1), 1–16. https://doi. restraint when choices appear self-diagnostic. Journal of Personality
org/10.5964/ejop.2639 and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1117–1131. https://doi.org/10.1037/
Russell, A. M. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2008). It’s all relative: Competition and sta- a0039536
tus drive interpersonal perception. European Journal of Social Psychology, Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., & Ciarocco, N. J. (2005). Self-regulation
38(7), 1193–1201. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.539 and self-presentation: Regulatory resource depletion impairs impres-
Simonton, D. K. (2014). The mad-genius paradox: Can creative people be sion management and effortful self-presentation depletes regulatory
more mentally healthy but highly creative people more mentally ill? resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4), 632–657.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(5), 470–480. https://doi.org/10. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.632
1177/1745691614543973 Wojciszke, B., Abele, A. E., & Baryla, W. (2009). Two dimensions of inter-
Stavrova, O., & Kokkoris, M. D. (2019). Struggling to be liked: The prospec- personal attitudes: Liking depends on communion, respect depends on
tive effect of trait self-control on social desirability and the moderating agency. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(6), 973–990. https://doi.
role of agreeableness. International Journal of Psychology, 54(2), 232–236. org/10.1002/ejsp.595
https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12444 Yan, Y., & Zhang, W. (2020). Gossip at one’s fingertips: Predictors of celebrity
Stavrova, O., Pronk, T., & Kokkoris, M. D. (2020). Finding meaning in self- news on Twitter. Journalism, 21(5), 707–726. https://doi.org/10.1177/
control: The effect of self-control on the perception of meaning in life. 1464884918791349
Self and Identity, 19(2), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.
2018.1558107
Stavrova, O., Ren, D., & Pronk, T. (2021). Low self-control: A hidden cause
of loneliness? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(3), 347–362. SUPPORTING INFORMATION
https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211007228 Additional supporting information can be found online in the Support-
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects ing Information section at the end of this article.
and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–15).
Cambridge University Press.
Tang, Q., Zhang, K., & Huang, X. (2022). Indulgent consumption signals
interpersonal warmth. Journal of Marketing Research, 59(6), 1179–1196.
How to cite this article: Kokkoris, M. D., & Stavrova, O. (2024).
https://doi.org/10.1177/00222437221097089
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control pre- In control but uninspired: Displays of artist self-control
dicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal undermine perceptions of creativity. European Journal of Social
success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/ Psychology, 54, 1531–1544. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.3102
j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x