Why Will Power Fails

How to strengthen your self-control.

(First published August 12, 2013)

Reason in man obscured, or not obeyed,
Immediately inordinate desires,
And upstart passions, catch the government
From reason; and to servitude reduce
Man, till then free.
—John Milton, Paradise Lost

What is will power? Is it the same as delayed gratification? Why is will power “far from bulletproof,” as researchers put it in a recent article for Neuron? Why is willpower “less successful during ‘hot’ emotional states”? And why do people “ration their access to ‘vices’ like cigarettes and junk foods by purchasing them in smaller quantities,” despite the fact that it’s cheaper to buy in bulk?

 Everyone, from children to grandparents, can be lured by the pull of immediate gratification, at the expense of large—but delayed—rewards. By means of a process known as temporal discounting, the subjective value of a reward declines as the delay to its receipt increases. Rational Man, Economic Man, shouldn’t behave in a manner clearly contrary to his or her own best interest. However, as Crockett et. al. point out in a recent paper in Neuron “struggles with self-control pervade daily life and characterize an array of dysfunctional behaviors, including addiction, overeating, overspending, and procrastination.”

Previous research has focused primarily on “the effortful inhibition of impulses” known as will power. Crockett and coworkers wanted to investigate another means by which people resist temptations. This alternative self-control strategy is called precommitment, “in which people anticipate self-control failures and prospectively restrict their access to temptations.” Good examples of this approach include avoiding the purchase of unhealthy foods so that they don’t constitute a short-term temptation at home, and putting money in financial accounts featuring steep penalties for early withdrawal. These strategies are commonplace, and that’s because people generally understand that will power is far from foolproof against short-term temptation. People adopt strategies, like precommitment, precisely because they are anticipating the possibility of a failure of self-control. We talk a good game about will power and self-control in addiction treatment, but the truth is, nobody really trusts it—and for good reason.  The person who still trusts will power has not been sufficiently tempted.

The researchers were looking for the neural mechanisms that underlie precommitment, so that they could compare them with brain scans of people exercising simple self-control in the face of short-term temptation.

After behavioral and fMRI testing, the investigators used preselected erotic imagery rated by subjects as either less desirable ( smaller-sooner reward, or SS), or more highly desirable ( larger-later reward, or LL). The protocol is complicated, and the analysis of brain scans is inherently controversial. But previous studies have shown heightened activity in three brain areas when subjects are engaged in “effortful inhibition of impulses.” These are the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), and the posterior parietal cortex (PPC). But when presented with opportunities to precommit by making a binding choice that eliminated short-term temptation, activity increased in a brain region known as the lateral frontopolar cortex (LFPC).  Study participants who scored high on impulsivity tests were inclined to precommit to the binding choice.

In that sense, impulsivity can be defined as the abrupt breakdown of will power. Activity in the LFPC has been associated with value-based decision-making and counterfactual thinking. LFPC activity barely rose above zero when subjects actively resisted a short-term temptation using will power.  Subjects who chose the option to precommit, who were sensitive to the opportunity to make binding choices about the picture they most wanted to see, showed significant activity in the LFPC. “Participants were less likely to receive large delayed reward when they had to actively resist smaller-sooner reward, compared to when they could precommit to choosing the larger reward before being exposed to temptation.”

Here is how it looks to Molly Crockett and her fellow authors of the Neuron article:

Precommitment is adaptive when willpower failures are expected…. One computationally plausible neural mechanism is a hierarchical model of self-control in which an anatomically distinct network monitors the integrity of will-power processes and implements precommitment decisions by controlling activity in those same regions. The lateral frontopolar cortex (LFPC) is a strong candidate for serving this role.

None of the three brain regions implicated in the act of will power were active when opportunities to precommit were presented.  Precommitment, the authors conclude, “may involve recognizing, based on past experience, that future self-control failures are likely if temptations are present. Previous studies of the LFPC suggest that this region specifically plays a role in comparing alternative courses of action with potentially different expected values.” Precommitment, then, may arise as an alternative strategy; a byproduct of learning and memory related to experiences “about one’s own self-control abilities.”

There are plenty of caveats for this study: A small number of participants, the use of pictorial temptations, and the short time span for precommitment decisions, compared to real-world scenarios where delays to greater rewards can take weeks or months. But clearly something in us often knows that, in the immortal words of Carrie Fisher, “instant gratification takes too long.” For this unlucky subset, precommitment may be a vitally important cognitive strategy. “Humans may be woefully vulnerable to self-control failures,” the authors conclude, “but thankfully, we are sometimes sufficiently far-sighted to circumvent our inevitable shortcomings.” We learn—some of us—not to put ourselves in the path of temptation so readily.


Photo Credit: http://cassandralathamjones.wordpress.com/

What Do We Mean When We Talk About Craving?

An essay on drug addiction and need.

For years, craving was represented by the tortured tremors and sweaty nightmares of extreme heroin and alcohol withdrawal. Significantly, however, the one symptom common to all forms of withdrawal and craving is anxiety. This prominent manifestation of craving plays out along a common set of axes: depression/dysphoria, anger/irritability, and anxiety/panic. These biochemical states are the result of the “spiraling distress” (George Koob’s term) and “incomprehensible demoralization” (AA’s term) produced by the addictive cycle. The mechanism driving this distress and demoralization is the progressive dysregulation of brain reward systems, leading to biologically based craving. The chemistry of excess drives the engine of addiction, which in turn drives the body and the brain to seek more of the drug.

Whatever the neuroscientists wanted to call it, addicts know it as “jonesing,” from the verb “to jones,” meaning to go without, to crave, to suffer the rigors of withdrawal. Spiraling distress, to say the least—a spiraling rollercoaster to hell, sometimes. Most doctors don’t get it, and neither do a lot of the therapists, and least of all the public policy makers. Drug craving is ineffable to the outsider.

As most people know, behavior can be conditioned. From maze-running rats to the “brain-washed” prisoners of the Korean War, from hypnotism to trance states and beyond, psychologists have produced a large body of evidence about behavior change—how it is accomplished, how it can be reinforced, and how it is linked to the matter of reward.

It is pointless to maintain that drug craving is “all in the mind,” as if it were some novel form of hypochondria. Hard-core addicts display all the earmarks of the classical behavioral conditioning first highlighted almost a century ago by Ivan Pavlov, the Russian physiologist. Pavlov demonstrated that animals respond in measurable and repeatable ways to the anticipation of stimuli, once they have been conditioned by the stimuli. In his famous experiment, Pavlov rang a bell before feeding a group of dogs. After sufficient conditioning, the dogs would salivate in anticipation of the food whenever Pavlov rang the bell. This conditioned response extended to drugs, as Pavlov showed. When Pavlov sounded a tone before injecting the dogs with morphine, for example, the animals began to exhibit strong physiological signs associated with morphine use at the sound of the tone alone. Over time, if the bell continued to sound, but no food was presented, or no drugs were injected, the conditioned response gradually lost its force. This process is called extinction.

Physical cravings are easy to demonstrate. Abstinent heroin addicts, exposed to pictures of syringes, needles, or spoons, sometimes exhibit withdrawal symptoms such as runny noses, tears, and body aches. Cravings can suddenly assail a person months—or even years—after discontinuing abusive drug use. Drug-seeking behavior is a sobering lesson in the degree to which the human mind can be manipulated by itself. The remarkable tenacity of behavioral conditioning has been demonstrated in recent animal studies as well. When monkeys are injected with morphine while recorded music is played, the music alone will bring on withdrawal symptoms months after the discontinuation of the injections.  When alcoholics get the shakes, when benzodiazepine addicts go into convulsions, when heroin addicts start to sweat and twitch, the body is craving the drug, and there is not much doubt about it. But that is not the end of the matter.

“Craving is a very misunderstood word,” said Dr. Ed Sellers, now with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto. “It’s a shorthand for describing a behavior, but the behavior is more complicated and interesting than that. It’s thought to be some intrinsic property of the individual that drives them in an almost compulsive, mad way. But in fact when you try to pin it down—when you ask people in a general context when they’re exposed to drugs about their desire to use drugs, they generally give rather low assessments of how important it really is.”

While cravings can sometimes drive addicts in an almost autonomic way, drug-seeking urges are often closely related to context, setting, and the expectancy effect. It has become commonplace to hear recovering addicts report that they were sailing through abstinence without major problems, until one day, confronted with a beer commercial on television, or a photograph of a crack pipe, or a pack of rolling papers—or, in one memorable case of cocaine addiction, a small mound of baking powder left on a shelf—they were suddenly overpowered by an onrush of cravings which they could not successfully combat. “If you put them in a setting where the drug is not available, but the cues are,” said Sellers, “it will evoke a conditioned response, and you can show that the desire to use goes up.” Most people have experienced a mild approximation of this phenomenon with regard to appetite. When people are hungry, a picture of a cherry pie, or even the internal picture of food in the mind’s eye, is enough to cause salivation and stomach rumblings. Given the chemical grip which addiction can exert, imagine the inner turmoil that the sight of a beer commercial on television can sometimes elicit in a newly abstinent alcoholic.

When addicts start to use drugs again after a period of going without, they are able to regain their former level of abuse within a matter of days, or even hours. Some sort of metabolic template in the body, once activated, seems to remain dormant during abstinence, and springs back to life during relapse, allowing addicts to escalate to their former levels of abuse with astonishing speed. This fact, and no other, is behind the 12-Step notion of referring to oneself as a “recovering,” rather than recovered, addict—a semantic twist that infuriates some people, since it seems to imply that an addict is never well, never cured, for a lifetime.

Relapse sometimes seems to happen even before addicts have had a chance to consciously consider the ramifications of what they are about to do. In A.A., this is often referred to as forgetting why you can’t drink. It sounds absurd, but it is a relatively accurate way of viewing relapse. Addiction, as one addict explained, “is the only disease that tells you you ain’t got it.”

Graphics Credit: http://www.aapsj.org/

sciseekclaimtoken-4e72318e6c06c