Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:37:49.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The complex nature of willpower and conceptual mapping of its normative significance in research on stress, addiction, and dementia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2021

Veljko Dubljević Open the ORCID record for Veljko Dubljević [Opens in a new window]  and
Shevaun D. Neupert Open the ORCID record for Shevaun D. Neupert [Opens in a new window]
Veljko Dubljević
Affiliation:
Departments of Philosophy and Religious Studiesveljko_dubljevic@ncsu.edu; https://sites.google.com/view/neuroethics-group/home
Shevaun D. Neupert
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC27695. shevaun_neupert@ncsu.edu; https://sites.google.com/a/ncsu.edu/wellbeinglab/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Willpower (as suppression, resolve, and habit) has ramifications for autonomy and mental time-travel. Autonomy presupposes mature powers of volition and the capacity to anticipate future events and consequences of one's actions. Ainslie's study is useful to clarify basic autonomy in addiction and dementia. Furthermore, we show how our study on coping with stress can be applied to suppression and resolve.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 44 , 2021 , e36
Check for updates
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

Bauer, W. A., & Dubljević, V. (2019). AI assistants and the paradox of internal automaticity. Neuroethics, 13, 303–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-019-09423-6. [VD]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubljević, V. (2013). Autonomy in neuroethics: Political and not metaphysical. American Journal of Bioethics – Neuroscience, 4(4), 44–51.Google Scholar
Dubljević, V. (2019). Neuroethics, justice and autonomy: Public reason in the cognitive enhancement debate. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubljević, V. (2020). The principle of autonomy and behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 17(2), 271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neupert, S. D., & Bellingtier, J. A. (2019). Daily stressor forecasts and anticipatory coping: Age differences in dynamic, domain-specific processes. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 74, 17–28. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gby043.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neupert, S. D., Desmarais, S. L., Gray, J. S., Cohn, A., Doherty, S., & Knight, K. (2017). Daily stressors as antecedents, correlates, and consequences of alcohol and drug use and cravings in community-based offenders. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 31, 315–325. doi: 10.1037/adb0000276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neupert, S. D., Neubauer, A. B., Scott, S. B., Hyun, J., & Sliwinski, M. J. (2019). Back to the future: Examining age differences in processes before stressor exposure. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 74, 1–6. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gby074.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearman, A., Hughes, M. L., Smith, E. L., & Neupert, S. D. (2020). Age differences in risk and resilience factors predicting COVID-19-related stress. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 76(2), e38–e44. Advance Online Access. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbaa120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polk, M. G., Smith, E. L., Zhang, L.-R., & Neupert, S. D. (2020). Thinking ahead and staying in the present: Implications for reactivity to daily stressors. Personality and Individual Differences, 161, 109971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reisberg, B. (1988). Functional assessment staging (FAST). Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 24, 653–659.Google Scholar