Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T02:37:00.629Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Stress and imagining future selves: resolve in the hot/cool framework

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2021

Janet Metcalfe
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, [email protected]://psychology.columbia.edu/content/janet-metcalfe
William James Jacobs
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ85721. [email protected]://psychology.arizona.edu/users/w-jake-jacobs

Abstract

Although Ainslie dismisses the hot/cool framework as pertaining only to suppression, it actually also has interesting implications for resolve. Resolve focally involves access to our future selves. This access is a cool system function linked to episodic memory. Thus, factors negatively affecting the cool system, such as stress, are predicted to impact two seemingly unrelated capabilities: willpower and episodic memory.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Creative Commons
The target article and response article are works of the U.S. Government and are not subject to copyright protection in the United States.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Eich, T. S., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Effects of the stress of marathon running on implicit and explicit memory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16, 475479.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frazier, L. D., & Hooker, K. (2006). Possible selves in adult development: Linking theory and research. In Dunkel, C. & Kerpelman, J. (Eds.), Possible selves: Theory, research and applications (pp. 4159). Nova Publishers.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. D., Schwartz, B. L., & Metcalfe, J. (2021). The MAPS model of self-regulation: Integrating metacognition, agency, and possible selves. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09255-3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hershfield, H. E. (2019). The self over time. Current Opinion in Psychology, 26, 7275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance distinct self-regulatory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 276286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hooker, K. (1992). Possible selves and perceived health in older adults and college students. Journal of Gerontology, 47, 8595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacobs, W. J., Brown, S. D., & Nadel, L. (2017). Trauma and disorders of memory. In Byrne, J. H. (Ed.), Learning and memory: A comprehensive reference (pp. 325336). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leondari, A., Syngollitou, E., & Kiosseoglou, G. (1998). Academic achievement, motivation and future selves. Educational Studies, 24, 153163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metcalfe, J., Brezler, J. C., McNamara, J., Maletta, G., & Vuorre, M. (2019). Memory, stress and the hippocampal hypothesis: Firefighters’ recollections of the fireground. Hippocampus, 29, 11411149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Metcalfe, J., & Jacobs, W. J. (1996). A “hot-system/cool-system” view of memory under stress. PTSD Research Quarterly, 7, 18.Google Scholar
Metcalfe, J., & Jacobs, W. J. (1998). Emotional memory: Effects of stress on “cool” and “hot” memory systems. The Psychology of Learning & Motivation, 38, 187221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metcalfe, J., & Jacobs, W. J. (2000). “Hot” emotions in human recollection: Towards a model of traumatic memory. In Tulving, E. (Ed.), Memory, consciousness, and the brain: The Tallinn conference (pp. 228242). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106, 326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mischel, W. (2014). The marshmallow test. New York: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Oettingen, G., & Mayer, D. (2002). The motivating function of thinking about the future: Expectations versus fantasies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 11981212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oettingen, G., Sevincer, A. T., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2018). The psychology of thinking about the future. Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
Okuda, J., Fujii, T., Ohtake, H., Tsukiura, T., Tanji, K., Suzuki, K., … Yamadori, A. (2003). Thinking of the future and past: The roles of the frontal pole and the medial temporal lobe. NeuroImage, 19, 13691380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oyserman, D., Destin, M., & Novin, S. (2015). The context-sensitive future self: Possible selves motivate in context, not otherwise. Self and Identity, 14, 173188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oyserman, D., & Markus, H. (1990). Possible selves in balance: Implications for delinquency. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 141157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schacter, D. L., Addis, D. R., Hassabis, D., Martin, V. C., Spreng, R. N., & Szpunar, K. K. (2012). The future of memory, remembering, imagining and the brain. Neuron, 76, 677694.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stokes, V. (2019). Self-efficacy and the future selves construct: Strategies in support of adult learners’ academic performance. In Strohschen, G. I. E. & Lewis, K. (Eds.) Competency-based and social-situational approaches for facilitating learning in higher education (pp. 136163). IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tulving, E. (1985). Memory and consciousness. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 26, 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tulving, E. (2002). Chronesthesia: Conscious awareness of subjective time. In Stuss, D. T. & Knight, R. T. (Eds.), Principles of frontal lobe function (pp. 311325). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urminsky, O. (2017). The role of psychological connectedness to the future self in decisions over time. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 3439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar