Go to his effect (What-the-hell effect) with self-indulgence

Go to his effect (What-the-hell effect) with self-indulgence

Why write this article:

For me, but I feel tired-"no intention to pick up" mobile phone, said to myself "casually look"-but can not stop-feel no "energy" to stop-finally put down the phone, feel anxious, regret, because wasted time, did not complete the plan.

Peter·Herman (Peter Herman) led the research team to do an experiment. When the subjects arrived at the lab, they were at the researcher's word."Food Deprivation Status", that's what the saying goes"Hunger Status". They haven't eaten in a few hours. The researchers gave some of the subjects a small milkshake, a small milkshake that only eased hunger, and gave the other participants two big shakes, two big shakes that contained enough calories to make the normal person feel full. The researchers then asked two groups of participants and another group of participants who had not had a milkshake to taste the food.

that's a cover. If the subjects knew that a predator was watching themselves, they would suddenly lose their appetite and become very restrained. So the researchers pretended to just want to know what the subjects thought about the taste of various snacks and put them in a cubicle, where they had a few bowls of pancakes and cookies and a rating sheet. At the time of grading, the subjects were able to take as much from the bowl as they wanted- - the bowl was eaten up, and they could always say to themselves, eat more to score better. They are not aware that scoring is not important, and the researchers are interested only in how many pancakes and cookies they eat, how the shakes affect them, and how the diet and non-dieting groups differ.

The reaction of non-dieting groups was expected by researchers. The participants, who had just had two large milk shakes, simply bit the pancakes and quickly filled out the scoring table. The subjects who drank a small milkshake ate more pancakes. For several hours, the still hungry subjects, who had eaten a lot of cookies and pancakes, had a big bang. The responses of all participants are understandable.

But dieters reacted the opposite. The subjects who drank two large milk shakes actually ate more pancakes and cookies than those who had eaten for hours. The researchers were greatly surprised. Because they did not believe it, they did a further experiment and the results were still the same. Finally, they finally understand why very disciplined people are also hard to diet success.

The researchers took a formal scientific name for the phenomenon.--Counter-regulate eating (counterregulatory Eating), but Peter·and the Herman Labs people and their colleagues called him"to go with his effect"(What-the-hell Effect). dieters limit their daily calorie intake, and when they have more than a limit for an accident, such as having two big shakes in an experiment at the invitation of a researcher, they think the day's diet is gone. So, whatever the rest of the day, they were in the heart of the day as a failure. You can only start your diet again the next day. So they thought, " go to him, I can enjoy it today. " , and the subsequent binge-eating often allows them to grow more meat than the meat they lose. It's not rational, but dieters seem to be unaware of the damage caused by the binge, like Herman's longtime partner (and wife) Janet·Plavix (Janet Polivy) is demonstrated in a subsequent experiment. Again, the researchers brought hungry dieters and non-dieters to the lab, giving some of the dieters enough calories to break through their daily limits. And then they put sandwiches on all the subjects, and each sandwich was cut into4small pieces. Finally, I asked each of the participants how many small sandwiches they had eaten.

Most of the participants answered the question effortlessly.--after all, they just ate and knew how many sandwiches they had eaten. However, dieters who have exceeded the daily limit are clearly not responding. Some of them are overvalued and some are undervalued. As a result, their responses were far from the truth, whether compared to non-dieters or dieters who did not exceed the daily limit. As long as the day's diet is not spoiled, dieters will record how much they eat. However, once the daily limit is exceeded, the yield to"to go with his effect", they no longer count how much they eat, not even the non-dieters know how much they eat. As we know, in self-control, after setting goals, the next step is monitoring, but if dieters no longer record how much they eat, how do they monitor it? Another way is to keep an eye on the body's"Eat Full"the signal. However, for dieters, this approach will eventually fail.

Selected from: "Willpower: Psychology of concentration, self-control and efficiency" Roy Baumeister

How to avoid the effect of going to him

• Automate your behavior. For the difficulties you often encounter, make a "subconscious" response, the more detailed the better.

  For me, when I feel tired, such as staring at the screen, meaningless brush know, mind chaos, want to stop and stop.

  That should change the state : Drop the hand immediately-leave the chair or bed-stand up-inhale deep into the arch, exhale and relax the shoulders and even the whole body. Then go on foot or sleep and so on.

• delay your thoughts. 。 Do not say never do something, but say to yourself, "Well, I allow you to do, but wait for minutes okay? "If > After a minute you still want to do it, then do it. This can also be used to terminate a thing, such as a boring brush know, "temporarily stop 5 minute no look, if 5 you want to see it after a minute, then go on. "
• Positive calculation. For example, when you can't sleep, keep track of how long you've been lying down, how long you've been relaxed, not just getting out of bed.

Avoid the What-the-hell effect

Although we ' ve talked about the What-the-hell effect in dieting, it likely occurs quite often when we set ourselves Certai n Types of goals. It could is money, alcohol, shopping or any of the other area where we ' ve set ourselves a limit. If we blow that limit, it's like we want to release all this pent-up self-control in one big rush by going it P.

So, was there any-around this? The suggests the answer is recognising when the What-the-hell effect occurs, which are:

1. When goals is seen as short-term, i.e. today or tomorrow compared with next week or next month,
2. And you ' re trying to the stop doing something, like eating or drinking.

This suggests the What-the-hell effect can is avoided by has longer-term goals and transforming inhibitional goals into Acquisitional goals. Changing short-term to long-term are obvious, but how can inhibitional goals being turned into acquisitional goals?

One famous example is Alcoholics Anonymous. Alcoholics is trying to avoid drinking (a inhibitional goal) but they transform this into a acquisitional goal by think ing about the number of days sober. It ' s like they ' re trying to acquire non-drinking days.

The same principle can be applied to any inhibitional goal. Dieters can think about the number of days they ' ve been good. Procrastinators can forget about their idling and concentrate on producing a certain amount of work each day.

Reframing a goal in this is gives us a good chance of side-stepping one of the problems of goal-setting and keeping us on The straight and narrow.

[Update:there is some very recent evidence the What-the-hell effect could not be as strong as previously thought in dieting (Tomiyama et al.,)]

From: http://www.spring.org.uk/2011/03/the-what-the-hell-effect.php

Go to his effect (What-the-hell effect) with self-indulgence