Don’t rely on fragile willpower

Instead, try identifying with the person you aim to become, expert advises

A lack of willpower may seem frustrating, but it is crucial to human evolution, scientists believe, proving people should not despair too much about their slip-ups.

Dr. Ian Taylor, a psychologist and expert in human motivation from Loughborough University, claims that a breech of willpower allowed for our ancestors to explore unchartered avenues, and seek out new experiences.

“Willpower can be thought of as the ability to override, to resist the temptation in favour of valued goals,” said Taylor, speaking at the Cheltenham Science Festival.

“Most people think that willpower is amazing. But you don’t want to rely on it. If you are relying on willpower, then there are going to be problems.

“When you need to use willpower it doesn’t feel very nice. It’s fragile, it will break. Evolutionary speaking, it is good for it to break. When willpower breaks you explore different things, so our ancestors wouldn’t want to keep using the same habitats, using the same food stores, using the same mates.

“It’s good to be tempted to explore and seek new habitats and be tempted by new mates, evolutionary speaking.”

Instead, Taylor argued that to resist temptation, people should not focus on the thing they were trying to avoid, but rather identify with the person they are hoping to become.

A person on a diet should not think of themselves as a “dieter” but rather a healthy eater to be successful, while a person struggling to make it to the gym should think of themselves as an “exerciser” rather than someone needing to get in shape.

“Nobody wants to be associated with a negative identity,” Taylor said. “If you are trying to do something, you can describe it to yourself as trying to trigger a positive identity.

Similar psychological motivation was proved in a 2008 Californian election when the electorate was sent a survey asking them either “how important is being a voter?” or “how important is voting?”

It was found that 95 per cent primed by the “voter” survey eventually voted, compared to just 75 per cent of the “voting” group.