<center><h1>Overcoming Momentary Temptation</h1></center> Temptation beats out willpower when it reorients attention to the present moment rather than the long-term. We try to circumvent these shifts in attention by creating environments that align with our goals. We build habits that minimize the number of temptations we face each day and [[Momentary Control vs Preparation|create plans]] for when we do encounter them. When those steps fail, what are we left with? Researchers from the University of Groningen, advocate for the explicit-zero framework. Which looks just slightly different from our usual decision frameworks. Often, self-control dilemmas take a rudimentary "this or that" question. Many studies will offer participants a simple choice $10 today or $100 a year from now. Participants then need to choose what is in their best interest. You make similar choices every day; a bowl of ice cream or a better summer body, a night out or a few extra bucks toward you annual vacation. Here's how an explicit-zero framework would augment these decisions, 1. $10 today and $0 a year from now **OR** $0 today and $100 a year from now 2. Ice cream today and less physical confidence **OR** no ice cream and greater physical confidence 3. A night out and less money for a vacation **OR** ... The purpose of the explicit-zero framework is to shift your regulatory scope back to a baseline or better. Regulatory scope is akin to your present moment attention. When you face a temptation your regulatory scope contracts honing in on immediate gratification. Its counter, an expansive scope encompasses a world where all possibilities are open to us. A contractive scope is inherently short-term while expansive is long-term. Explicit-zero helps our brains account for short-term gains vs long-term pains. By drawing out the tradeoffs your mind is better informed before making a decision. Research shows that, on longer time horizons, humans grow more risk-averse. We like to have certainty about our future. Increasing the prominence of future loss insures we better weigh the choices we make in the short term under a contracted regulatory scope. To enhance the effectiveness of this method it is imperative you have a well established view of your future self and the reasons why you want to achieve it. A tight connection with the person you want to be will increase the salience of your delayed gratification. The next time you're met with a temptation, give yourself an explicit zero alternative. Tie your instant gratification to its long-term outcomes rather than momentary pleasures. ## Thoughts while writing How does temptation falter under the influence? Not just of drugs and alcohol, but any shortened scope of temptation? If you've already allowed yourself to get one cookie, what's to stop you from getting the second? You've already allowed yourself the pleasure of one and made some justifications toward it. How would stress impact our salience? Stress is none to make us more habitual, not necessarily less inclined toward long-term goals. If our habits, align with the temptation increasing salience will likely get us back to baseline but may not overcome our desire to make deals with the future self. Of course, there are augments to all of these. We make deals with ourselves all the time under the guise that we'll finally follow through on what we promise our future selves. Our ability to exert self-control is dominated by our limited cognition. Our short-term preferences and our long-term goals constantly battle one another for our attention. We can't simultaneously think of both and it's this reason that encountering temptation can overwrite the best intentions no matter what our plans might look like. Regulatory scope framework argues that as our attention focuses on temptation it becomes impossible for us to maintain an expansive scope where a world of possibilities is open to us. Under temptation we enter a restrictive scope and our minds eye cannot resist the pull of short-term gains. People have a tough time understanding or acknowledging opportunity costs. This failure makes it difficult for them to choose ideal outcomes.