 28. Self‑Regulation and Personality  619
Impulsivity
Impulsivity as a trait has been defined in a 
number of different—  often inconsistent— 
ways (De  Young, 2011). At its core, the con -
struct refers to the frequency and strength 
of impulses, and the ability to override them 
when acting on them would be problemat -
ic. Despite its relevance for self-  regulation, 
the general tendency to experience frequent 
and strong impulses has received little at -
tention (cf. Tidwell & Eastwick, 2013). 
Nearly all accounts focus on the general 
tendency to act impulsively, that is, without 
forethought or planning (e.g., Whiteside & 
Lynam, 2001). Given the centrality of fore -
thought and planning to self-  regulation, it 
is not surprising that higher trait impulsiv -
ity is associated with a variety of behaviors 
that threaten adaptive goal pursuit, includ -
ing substance use, sexual risk taking, and 
aggressive behavior. Despite the seemingly 
obvious detrimental effects of impulsivity 
on self-  regulation, it bears noting that, on 
occasion, acting without thinking can im -
prove rather than undermine self-  regulation. 
For example, one path by which self-  control 
leads to positive goal-  consistent outcomes is 
through its effect on beneficial habits, which 
are enacted without forethought or planning 
(Galla & Duckworth, 2015). Thus, acting 
without thinking can be functional when 
it involves habitual behaviors that serve 
important goals. Individual differences in 
functional impulsivity  reflect the ability to 
act quickly, with little or no thought, when 
quick decision-  making is required in order 
to stay on track in goal pursuit (Dickman, 
1990). On balance then, impulsivity, with 
respect to both the frequency and strength 
of impulses and the ability to override them 
when they are contrary to an active goal, gen -
erally undermines efforts at self-  regulation 
(Duckworth & Steinberg, 2015), though oc -
casionally it promotes efficient and effective 
self- regulation by limiting deliberation and 
choice.
Causality  Orientation
Self- determination theory offers a general 
account of human motivation and personal -
ity, with a focus on the implications of dif -
ferent types of motivation for performance and well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The 
theory identifies three general tendencies 
toward the regulation of behavior. People 
who are autonomy- oriented self- regulate 
by considering their own interests and the 
behaviors and choices that would serve 
them. People who are control- oriented self-  
regulate by considering the social and ma -
terial consequences of their behaviors and 
choices. Finally, people who are impersonal  
in their orientation generally do not feel as 
if they control their behaviors and choices. 
Although individual differences in causality 
orientation reflect the people’s typical means 
of self-  regulation, circumstances may push 
any person in the direction of more autono -
mous or controlled self-  regulation. As such, 
even people who tend toward controlled self- 
regulation may self-  regulate autonomously 
in autonomy-  supportive environments. 
People who operate from an autonomous 
orientation are generally more effective at 
self- regulation, because their goal-  relevant 
behaviors are more easily initiated, better 
maintained, and more thoroughly performed 
(Converse, Juarez, & Hennecke, 2019; Ryan 
& Deci, 2000). Thus, to the extent that the 
goals people pursue are adaptive, we would 
expect people who typically self-  regulate 
from an autonomous orientation to be 
healthier and happier. Indeed, autonomous 
self- regulation predicts physical and mental 
health, as well as more satisfying and stable 
relationships (for a review, see Ryan & Deci, 
2006).
Action  Control
Action control theory proposes a set of vo -
litional processes that contribute to effective 
goal pursuit (Kuhl, 1985). For an intention 
to act in a goal-  consistent manner to be 
translated into action, it must be protected 
from alternative action tendencies within the 
person and in the immediate environment. 
Action control processes such as selective 
attention, motivation control, and control 
of the environment provide the protection 
needed to ensure that goal-  consistent inten -
tions produce goal-  consistent actions. Ac -
tion control theory posits two motivational 
orientations that manifest as states and, 
relevant to our review, characterize general 
tendencies that influence self-  regulation. 