Whether exerting self-control on one task impairs performance on a subsequent self-control task — the ego-depletion effect — is one of the most contested questions to emerge from psychology's replication crisis. A two-site registered report (Primoceri, Ramer, Ullrich, and Job, 2021) showed that the answer depends on task similarity: consecutive tasks sharing underlying executive functions produced facilitation rather than depletion, while the most dissimilar pairs showed no conclusive depletion, leaving the existence, magnitude, and boundary conditions of pure depletion unresolved. Multisite tests with short computerized paradigms find null effects (d = 0.06; Vohs et al., 2021), whereas a new 14-sample consortium (Dang et al., 2025) reports robust depletion (d = 0.31–0.35) under a long, intense manipulation — but with two inhibitory (functionally similar) tasks and no manipulation of similarity, so the intensity and similarity accounts have never been crossed. The open problem is the sign-and-boundary question for sequential self-control aftereffects: existence and magnitude of pure depletion, its joint determination by task similarity and manipulation properties, validated depletion measures, and the disentangling of adaptation, fatigue, and motivation.

Background

Ego depletion is the claim, formalized in the strength model of self-control (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, and Tice, 1998), that self-control draws on a limited regulatory resource, so that exerting self-control on one task temporarily impairs performance on a later task that also requires self-control. The standard test is the sequential-task paradigm: participants first complete either a depleting task (one that requires overriding dominant responses) or a matched non-depleting control, and then perform a second self-control task; poorer second-task performance after the depleting task is the ego-depletion effect. Early meta-analytic syntheses suggested a medium-sized effect, but the phenomenon became a centerpiece of psychology's replication crisis: a 23-laboratory preregistered Registered Replication Report — a format in which many labs run a jointly designed, preregistered replication — found an effect indistinguishable from zero (Hagger et al., 2016), and a 36-laboratory multisite test with standardized computerized tasks found a standardized mean difference of d = 0.06, with Bayesian evidence about four times more likely under the null hypothesis than under a small-effect alternative (Vohs et al., 2021). Reviewers concluded that the accumulated evidence was inconclusive and that both new empirical work and better theory were required (Friese et al., 2019).

An older, smaller line of work shows the opposite sign: when two consecutive tasks share their cognitive demands, performing the first can improve performance on the second, an effect attributed to cognitive adaptation — the tuning of control settings to the demands of a task, which then carries over to a similar successor (Dang, Dewitte, Mao, Xiao, and Shi, 2013; Dang, Xiao, and Dewitte, 2014). This raises the possibility that the sign of sequential aftereffects depends on what the two tasks share.

Primoceri, Ramer, Ullrich, and Job (2021) formalized this intuition in a registered report (a two-stage publication format in which the design and analysis plan are peer-reviewed and accepted before data are collected). They proposed a taxonomy that orders pairs of self-control tasks by the transferability of executive functions between them, building on the latent-variable distinction between two inhibitory subfunctions (Friedman and Miyake, 2004): prepotent response inhibition, the ability to withhold a dominant response (indexed by the stop-signal task, in which one must cancel a key press when a stop signal appears, and by the Stroop task, in which one names the ink color of a color word while ignoring its meaning), and resistance to distractor interference (indexed by the Eriksen flanker task, in which one responds to a central target while ignoring flanking distractors). Four transfer levels were defined: modality transfer (same task, different stimulus modality, e.g., visual to auditory stop-signal), near transfer (same underlying function, different task domain), far transfer (different inhibitory subfunction), and meta-cognitive transfer (different context altogether, e.g., from inhibition to initiatory/persistence control, indexed by persistence on unsolvable anagrams). In a preregistered pilot (N = 80) and a high-powered two-site registered replication (N = 300), a depleting visual stop-signal task (relative to a non-depleting lexical categorization control) was followed by one of four secondary tasks of decreasing similarity. The preregistered crossover interaction — an interaction in which the effect of the first task reverses direction across levels of the second — was confirmed: performance facilitation appeared for the most similar pairs (auditory stop-signal; Stroop) and declined with decreasing similarity, but the most dissimilar pairs (flanker; unsolvable anagrams) showed no statistically reliable depletion (pairwise p = .320 and p = .230, with Bayes factors — ratios of evidence for the alternative hypothesis over the null — numerically favoring the null). In other words, the paradigm that was meant to demonstrate depletion instead produced facilitation, with depletion at best inconclusive at maximal dissimilarity.

The paper's discussion therefore leaves a coherent set of open issues: whether a pure ego-depletion effect exists at all, and of what size; whether unsolvable anagrams and similar persistence tasks are reliable and sensitive measures of it (independent work had already failed to find anagram-persistence depletion in the Many Labs 3 multi-lab dataset and had meta-analytically questioned anagram measures generally; Vadillo, Gold, and Osman, 2018); the taxonomy is instantiated only for inhibitory subfunctions and a single baseline task, and its extension to initiatory self-control and to other task families is untested; the relationship between short-timescale cognitive adaptation and longer-timescale mental fatigue — the performance decline emerging during prolonged demanding tasks, studied with much longer and simpler tasks in a separate literature — remains undefined; and if facilitation and depletion processes co-occur, their additive or interactive contributions, and the task properties (such as duration and intensity of the initial manipulation) that tip the balance between them, are unquantified.

Problem Statement

The open problem is the sign-and-boundary question that Primoceri et al. (2021) leave open: under what conditions does prior self-control exertion impair, improve, or leave unchanged subsequent self-control performance? The question decomposes into:

(1) Existence and magnitude. Whether a genuine ego-depletion effect is present once facilitation from task overlap is excluded — that is, for task pairs at the far/meta-cognitive transfer level of the executive-function taxonomy, measured with dependent variables whose reliability and sensitivity have been demonstrated — and, if so, its typical effect size under realistic, adequately powered designs.

(2) Governing task properties. How the sign and size of the aftereffect are jointly determined by (a) task similarity, as ordered by the overlap of executive functions between the two tasks (modality, near, far, and meta-cognitive transfer), and (b) properties of the initial manipulation such as its duration and intensity. This includes whether facilitation and depletion processes co-occur within the same pairing, whether their contributions combine additively or interactively, and which task properties tip the balance from facilitation toward depletion.

(3) Measurement. Which dependent measures validly and reliably index depletion of initiatory/persistence control, given the meta-analytic doubts about unsolvable-anagram persistence; candidate measures must be developed and validated rather than assumed.

(4) Mechanism. How short-timescale cognitive adaptation (including proactive control), longer-timescale mental fatigue, and motivation-based shifts can be experimentally disentangled as sources of sequential aftereffects.

These components serve one scientific objective — a validated account of sequential self-control aftereffects that specifies when prior exertion helps, hurts, or does nothing, and why. They are also logically linked: the existence question (1) cannot be settled without valid measures (3), and the similarity/intensity question (2) cannot be interpreted without the mechanism disentangling (4). The account sought is not tied to one paradigm, sample size, or task family.

References

  1. Primoceri, Pierpaolo; Ramer, Nicolas; Ullrich, Johannes; Job, Veronika (2021). The role of task similarity for ego depletion: A registered report. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 95, 104133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104133
  2. Baumeister, Roy F.; Bratslavsky, Ellen; Muraven, Mark; Tice, Dianne M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252
  3. Hagger, M. S.; Chatzisarantis, N. L. D.; Alberts, H.; Anggono, C. O.; Batailler, C.; Birt, A. R.; Brand, R.; Brandt, M. J.; Brewer, G.; Bruyneel, S.; Calvillo, D. P.; Campbell, W. K.; Cannon, P. R.; Carlucci, M.; Carruth, N. P.; Cheung, T.; Crowell, A.; De Ridder, D. T. D.; Dewitte, S.; … Zerhouni, O.; Zwienenberg, M. (2016). A multilab preregistered replication of the ego-depletion effect. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(4), 546–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616652873
  4. Vohs, Kathleen D.; Schmeichel, Brandon J.; Lohmann, Sophie; Gronau, Quentin F.; Finley, Anna J.; Ainsworth, Sarah E.; Alquist, Jessica L.; Baker, Michael D.; Brizi, Ambra; Bunyi, Angelica; Butschek, Grant J.; Campbell, Collier; Capaldi, Jonathan; Cau, Chuting; Chambers, Heather; Chatzisarantis, Nikos L. D.; Christensen, Weston J.; Clay, Samuel L.; Curtis, Jessica; … Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan; Albarracín, Dolores (2021). A multisite preregistered paradigmatic test of the ego-depletion effect. Psychological Science, 32(10), 1566–1581. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797621989733
  5. Friedman, Naomi P.; Miyake, Akira (2004). The relations among inhibition and interference-control functions: A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(1), 101–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.101
  6. Dang, Junhua; Dewitte, Siegfried; Mao, Lihua; Xiao, Shanshan; Shi, Yucai (2013). Adapting to an initial self-regulatory task cancels the ego depletion effect. Consciousness and Cognition, 22(3), 816–821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.05.005
  7. Dang, Junhua; Xiao, Shanshan; Dewitte, Siegfried (2014). Self-control depletion is more than motivational switch from work to fun: The indispensable role of cognitive adaptation. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 933. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00933
  8. Friese, Malte; Loschelder, David D.; Gieseler, Karolin; Frankenbach, Julius; Inzlicht, Michael (2019). Is ego depletion real? An analysis of arguments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(2), 107–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318762183
  9. Vadillo, Miguel A.; Gold, Natalie; Osman, Magda (2018). Searching for the bottom of the ego well: Failure to uncover ego depletion in Many Labs 3. Royal Society Open Science, 5(8), 180390. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.180390
  10. Englert, Chris; Bertrams, Alex (2021). Again, no evidence for or against the existence of ego depletion: Opinion on 'A multi-site preregistered paradigmatic test of the ego-depletion effect'. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15, 658890. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.658890
  11. Zhang, Shilei; Shi, Rui; Ma, Gaoxiang; Peng, Jiaxi; Wang, Zhenhong (2025). The interaction between measurement and individual difference in ego depletion: Task type, trait self-control and action orientation. Psychological Reports, 128(5), 3796–3824. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941231198054
  12. Carruth, Nicholas P.; Ramos, Jairo A.; Miyake, Akira (2023). Does willpower mindset really moderate the ego-depletion effect? A preregistered replication of Job, Dweck, and Walton (2010). PLOS ONE, 18, e0287911. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287911
  13. Forestier, Cyril; de Chanaleilles, Margaux; Boisgontier, Matthieu P.; Chalabaev, Aïna (2022). From ego depletion to self-control fatigue: A review of criticisms along with new perspectives for the investigation and replication of a multicomponent phenomenon. Motivation Science, 8, 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000262
  14. Baumeister, Roy F.; André, Nathalie; Southwick, Daniel A.; Tice, Dianne M. (2024). Self-control and limited willpower: Current status of ego depletion theory and research. Current Opinion in Psychology, 60, 101882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101882
  15. Pessiglione, Mathias; Blain, Bastien; Wiehler, Antonius; Naik, Shruti (2025). Origins and consequences of cognitive fatigue. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 29(8), 730–749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2025.02.005
  16. Francis, Zoë; Inzlicht, Michael (2023). Expecting tasks to help or hurt subsequent cognitive performance: Variability, accuracy, and bias in forecasted after-effects. European Journal of Social Psychology, 53(3), 531–551. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2921
  17. Xu, Yi; Chan, Hugo; Ran, Zhiye; Xu, Jianping (2025). Depletion or activation? Challenging linear models of ego depletion. Acta Psychologica, 259, 105346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105346
  18. De Luca, Alberto; Zhang, Chenyan; Verschoor, Stephan; Hommel, Bernhard (2025). Ego does not deplete over time. Experimental Psychology, 72(2), 100–113. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000644
  19. Zerhouni, Oulmann; Morgado, Nicolas; Urdapilleta, Isabel; Hagger, Martin S. (2026). Demand and experimenter bias and the ego-depletion effect. Current Psychology, 45(6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-08841-5
  20. Dang, Junhua; Xiao, Shanshan; Mao, Lihua; Liu, Xiaoping; Baumert, Anna; Bonneterre, Solenne; Cai, Shiyu; Chen, Xiaoxi; de Chanaleilles, Margaux; Ding, Ning; Fan, Wei; Feng, Yi; Gao, Dingguo; He, Xiaoqing; Huang, Wanting; Ismail, Ismaharif; Jia, Lile; Li, Haijiang; Li, Ruijing; Li, Zhenhua; Lim, Chunhui; Linke, Laura; Nie, Yangang; Qiao, Zhihong; Ren, Mengmeng; Seviner, A. Timur; Tan, Jingbin; Wang, Ziyi; Wu, Song; Zerhouni, Oulmann; Zhong, Yiping; Zhu, Yalin; Zinkernagel, Axel; Schiöth, Helgi B. (2025). Revisiting ego depletion: Evidence from multi-lab collaborations. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 19, 18344909251386084. https://doi.org/10.1177/18344909251386084