Overcoming the sneaky temptations that sabotage your goals without your noticing

Everyday temptations love to hide; they only reveal their insidious nature over time. Luckily, a simple self-control trick can help you tackle these sneaky indulgences.

6 min readJul 29, 2024

Many everyday temptations don’t seem like temptations at all.

You come home from work with a slight headache: I think I’ll skip my upper body workout today. You’re at a party with a bowl of chips right in front of you: Let me have a handful. You’re browsing Netflix on a Sunday night: Maybe I’ll watch one episode of 3 Body Problem.

Social psychologists call these insidious temptations epsilon-cost temptations: “It is only through repeated consumption that the cost of these kinds of indulgences becomes consequential.”¹

One handful of chips won’t clog your arteries. One skipped gym session won’t make your biceps wither away. One Netflix episode won’t ruin your next week’s schedule. But we all know it’s not just one.

“Due to their deceptive nature, epsilon-cost temptations are easy to overlook: If you don’t realize you’re being tempted, why try to resist the action?”

Due to their deceptive nature, epsilon-cost temptations are easy to overlook: If you don’t realize you’re being tempted, why try to resist it?¹ ² No self-control conflict, no need for willpower.

So how can we tackle these sneaky, yet surprisingly common, temptations?

In what follows I’d like to share one of the simplest and most easily accessible self-control strategies out there — one you can apply in the heat of the moment. To back it up, I’d like to introduce you to two quirks of the human mind that shape the way we choose between short-term indulgences and long-term goals.

How sneaky are your temptations? Photo by Ali Kazal on Unsplash

The human quirks that shape our choices between vices and virtues

Behavioral economists have long known that how a choice is presented affects how it’s made.³ Decision-making heuristics (read: mental shortcuts) and biases (read: systematic deviations from rational judgement) abound. But in the context of this story, we’re particularly interested in two of them: the immediacy effect and the diversification heuristic.

The immediacy effect

According to the immediacy effect, we place disproportionate weight on instant gratification.⁴ In one study, about half of the subjects chose a healthy snack when they made the choice one week prior to consumption.⁵ But when the same subjects were offered a chance to reconsider their choice a week later, the majority changed their minds and opted for an unhealthy snack: My future self can be virtuous and have some fruit. But right now. . .? Give me the chocolate bar!

The diversification heuristic

According to the diversification heuristic, we tend to seek more variety when we make multiple choices at once.⁴ For example, one study found that subjects chose a wider variety of snacks when they made the choice at once versus when they made each of the choices individually.⁶ When a subject chose simultaneously, their portfolio of snacks might’ve looked like this: Snickers bar, tortilla chips, Oreos. And when they chose each snack on the day they’d consume it, it might’ve looked like this: Oreos, Oreos, Oreos.

Without context, these decision-making quirks are just curiosities of the human mind. But in the context of epsilon-cost temptations and self-control, they become quite intriguing.

Why not viewing a temptation in isolation can boost self-control

If we’re just choosing for right now, the immediacy effect will most likely dominate our choices: Today I feel too tired to lift dumbbells. But if we consider multiple choices at once — not just for right now, but also for later— the immediacy effect might take a step back and give space to the diversification heuristic. We might choose a wider variety, with a few virtuous choices mixed in.

So if we bundle up our choices, could we end up with more virtues?* A group of behavioral economists decided to find out.⁴

They tested their hypothesis through movie choices. Highbrow movies acted as virtues: something people might not enjoy that much in the moment, but often appreciate having watched (e.g., because they spark conversations and reflection). Lowbrow movies acted as vices: fun in the moment, but soon forgotten.

Here’s how the study was set up:

The researchers asked two groups of students to choose three movies to watch.
All subjects chose from a list of 24 movies including both highbrow movies like Schindler’s List and lowbrow movies like Four Weddings and a Funeral. (Yes, this study is from the 90s.)
The difference between the groups was that one group chose all three movies at once whereas the other chose each movie on the day they would watch it. Since the movies were to be watched at least a few days apart, this meant that the first group was scheduling two movies for the future (the first movie was watched on the day of the choice).

Did the two groups’ choices differ?

Yes, they did. The group which chose all movies at once went for about 60% highbrow movies, whereas the group that chose one by one on separate days went for about 40%.⁴

“The study suggests that when we view choices in isolation, we’re more likely to opt for a vice.”

The study suggests that when we view choices in isolation, we’re more likely to opt for a vice: It’s just one gym session—let me skip it.

So if we want to tackle temptations that seem like one-off cases (like epsilon-cost temptations), we need to widen our frame. We need to zoom out and put the temptation in context.

This can help us understand the width and frequency of the conflict — how the choice relates to our future choices and how often we assume to encounter it — helping us empathize with our future selves and consider the consequences of our behavior.¹ ⁴

So when you come home from work tired and feel the desire to skip the day’s workout, you can ask yourself if it’s really just this one time. If you often feel a bit drained, you may decide to get in the reps nevertheless — you probably won’t be feeling much stronger the next day.

Of course, this widening-the-frame approach rests on one key premise: noticing that you’re facing a temptation in the first place. That’s something I hope this article has helped with.

On Sunday mornings, my friends and I go bouldering in a shopping mall after which we have lunch at the mall’s food court. I often get a bowl of vegan ramen, and one time, I decided to also get a chocolate chip cookie for dessert.

The cookie was delicious (how can they make such perfectly crunchy yet soft vegan cookies?), so the following Sunday, I did it again. And again. And then I did it on a Tuesday night. And on a Thursday.

Soon, eating out didn’t feel complete without having something sweet for dessert. I’d created a bad habit.

Around the time, I was reading about epsilon-cost temptations and realized that I could try to break the cycle by adopting a wider frame. So the next time my mind was like, Chocolate chip cookie! Time for a chocolate chip cookie! I asked myself if it was just this one time.

It clearly wasn’t. And I really didn’t need a chocolate chip cookie or a piece of cake every time I ate out — which could be up to five times a week.

“So the next time you find yourself tempted, pause and ask yourself, ‘If I knew it wasn’t just this one time, would I still do it?’”

With the help of this little mind game, I was able to resist. It wasn’t easy. But I managed to do it. And now that I’ve applied this method for a few weeks, I no longer feel such a strong craving.

So the next time you find yourself tempted, pause, and ask yourself, “If I knew it wasn’t just this one time, would I still do it?”

If you enjoyed this, check out my previous articles on self-control:

References & notes

You can find all the references in this Google Doc.

*I’m using the terms vices for short-term indulgences and virtues for behaviors that promote long-term goals because those are the terms used in the key paper I’m citing⁴ and because they’re shorter.