or future-oriented thinking; in those cases, we would predict that the identity-relevant low-level manipulation would lead to greater changes in self-regulation than the identityirrelevant, high-level one. The Role of Social Context Another important aspect of identity that commentators considered to be highly relevant to the IVM is the social self. We fully agree: Identities are, to a large extent, socially and/or culturally constructed (Maranges & Baumeister, this issue), so in considering the role that identity plays in shaping self-regulation, it becomes very important to consider the role that social contexts and roles, as antecedents to and possibly authors of identity, play in doing the same. Moreover, as the research literatures on empathy and close relationships have made clear, the values of the self are often represented to some degree in others, just as the values of others are represented in the self (Fitzsimons, Finkel, & vanDellen, 2015; Nicolle et al., 2012), so the IVM must address how not only social norms but also close others can influence identity and self-concept. However, as some commentators note, the strong influences of social context on identity complicate our argument that identity is a promising candidate process to consistently influence self-regulation across time and context precisely because of its stability. As Hackel and Zaki (this issue) highlight, the assumption that identity has a consistent impact on choice across situations may not hold for aspects of identity related to social identification, such as self-construal (e.g., independent vs. interdependent) and self-categorization (e.g., political or regional identities), both of which are largely subject to contextual social influences. A similar notion was raised by Oyserman et al. (this issue), stating that situational cues (and perhaps social cues) about the contents of identity can shape behavior, an idea that builds off the working self-concept as presented in the IVM. We agree with the commentators that substantial changes in goal-relevant identity could potentially undermine the role of identity as a consistent contributor to self-regulation. However, this concern is mitigated for several reasons. First, as suggested by other commentators, it may be the case that the hierarchical nature of identity allows abstract, stable aspects of self to influence which lower level (e.g., contextually determined) aspects of the self become salient and how strongly they influence behavior. Second, even as social identities and contextual influences change over time and situations, we hold that core values and goals are stable across time because of their inherent abstract and diachronic nature (Northoff, this issue; Sklar & Fujita, this issue). Contextual cues are important, but they do not trigger the same behavior in all people; the meaning of situations and social identities are different across individuals, in part because they interact with stable, within-person attributes such as personality, core values, and long-term goals. Third, as Oyserman et al. (this issue) note, situations themselves can be a source of stability: People are not randomly assigned to situation but instead end up in similar ones repeatedly and often by their own choosing. To the extent that any aspects of identity, such as core values, are stable, they might also promote temporal stability in situations. In this way, we agree that stable contextual cues can facilitate successful self-regulation. We also add that the flexibility of social identities may provide a particular advantage when designing identity-based selfcontrol interventions. Although the stability of the self seems to provide the greatest source of value for motivating goal-oriented behavior change, it’s less clear how susceptible the stable nature of the self is to manipulation. As Molden et al. (this issue) note, if identity is stable and well-rooted in established values, then it might be difficult to change (although goal-promoting aspects of a stable identity could be primed or otherwise activated). Alternatively, flexible elements of identity, such as social identification, that tap into core underlying values may be more effective for targeted interventions. In addition, just because some or many aspects of identity are stable across time and place doesn’t imply that a person’s identity always influences behavior in the same way in a given situation. Another explanation for apparent changes in identity over time—and potential avenue for intervention—is variability in the accessibility or salience of different aspects of identity. Ultimately, the IVM predicts that the contents of the “working self-concept” (Markus & Wurf, 1987; see also McConnell, 2011) at the time of choice will influence the subjective value of the options, regardless of whether those contents are chronically accessible (stable) or were made temporarily salient by situational influences such as the social context or an intervention. The Neural Computations Involved in Identity and Valuation Northoff grapples with the tricky question of how the brain might represent a stable, diachronic identity. His points that identity is essentially (and necessarily) abstract and likely represented in cortical midline structures such as the medial prefrontal cortex fit well with the IVM and its assumptions about the content and neural underpinnings of identity. His commentary substantially advanced our broad starting points on these topics by adding mechanistic specificity of the neural processes, such as infraslow frequency oscillations in the medial prefrontal cortex, that give rise to identity diachronicity. We are encouraged that the very notion of stable identity seems plausible at the level of the brain and eager for further research to uncover exactly how these oscillations interact with the more rapid value accumulation process that occurs at the time of self-control choice. As described earlier, Shenhav notes that there is now strong evidence that value accumulation occurs not only in the vmPFC but also in regions such as the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC). Critically, evidence to date suggests that different accumulators might operate simultaneously at separate locations for various choice attributes, and possibly in interaction (Polania, Krajbich, Grueschow, & Ruff, 2014). For example, the value of mental effort appears to be accumulated in dACC (Shenhav et al., 2016), whereas the value of choice options is accumulated in vmPFC (Rangel & Hare, 2010). The idea that multiple value accumulation processes correspond to different points in the action control hierarchy and operate in parallel is fundamental to the process model of self-regulation (Duckworth, Gendler, & Gross, 2016; Gross, 2015; O’Leary et REPLY 161

中文翻译：

---

自我调节的身份-价值模型：整合、延伸和开放问题

或面向未来的思维；在这些情况下，我们会预测与身份相关的低级操纵将导致自我调节的变化比身份无关的高级操纵更大。社会背景的作用 评论家认为与 IVM 高度相关的身份的另一个重要方面是社会自我。我们完全同意：身份在很大程度上是由社会和/或文化构成的（马朗吉斯和鲍迈斯特，本期），因此在考虑身份在塑造自我调节中的作用时，考虑以下角色变得非常重要社会背景和角色，作为身份的前因和可能的作者，也在做同样的事情。此外，关于移情和亲密关系的研究文献已经清楚地表明，自我的价值观通常在其他人身上得到某种程度的体现，就像其他人的价值观在自我中体现一样（Fitzsimons、Finkel、& vanDellen，2015 年；Nicolle 等人，2012 年），因此 IVM 必须解决如何不只有社会规范和亲密的他人才能影响身份和自我概念。然而，正如一些评论家指出的那样，社会背景对身份的强烈影响使我们的论点变得复杂，即身份是一个有希望的候选过程，正是因为它的稳定性，它可以在时间和背景下持续影响自我调节。正如 Hackel 和 Zaki（本期）所强调的那样，身份对跨情境选择的一致影响的假设可能不适用于与社会认同相关的身份方面，例如自我建构（例如，独立与相互依赖）和自我分类（例如，政治或区域身份），这两者在很大程度上都受到背景社会影响。Oyserman 等人提出了类似的观点。（本期），指出关于身份内容的情境线索（可能还有社会线索）可以塑造行为，这种想法建立在 IVM 中提出的工作自我概念的基础上。我们同意评论员的观点，即与目标相关的身份发生重大变化可能会破坏身份作为自我调节的一致贡献者的作用。然而，由于几个原因，这种担忧得到了缓解。首先，正如其他评论者所建议的那样，身份的等级性质可能允许自我的抽象、稳定方面影响较低级别（例如，情境决定的）自我的各个方面变得突出，以及它们对行为的影响程度。其次，即使社会身份和环境影响随着时间和情况而变化，我们认为核心价值观和目标在时间上是稳定的，因为它们具有内在的抽象和历时性（Northoff，本期；Sklar & Fujita，本期）。上下文线索很重要，但它们不会在所有人中触发相同的行为；情境和社会身份的含义因人而异，部分原因是它们与稳定的人内属性相互作用，例如个性、核心价值观和长期目标。第三，正如 Oyserman 等人。（这个问题）注意，情况本身可以是稳定的来源：人们不是随机分配到情境中的，而是经常由他们自己选择反复进入相似的情境。如果身份的任何方面（例如核心价值观）是稳定的，它们也可能会促进情况下的时间稳定性。通过这种方式，我们同意稳定的上下文线索可以促进成功的自我调节。我们还补充说，在设计基于身份的自我控制干预时，社会身份的灵活性可能会提供特殊的优势。虽然自我的稳定性似乎为激励以目标为导向的行为改变提供了最大的价值来源，但不太清楚自我的稳定本质是如何容易受到操纵的。正如莫尔登等人。（这个问题）注意，如果身份是稳定的并且根植于既定的价值观，那么它可能很难改变（尽管可以启动或以其他方式激活稳定身份的目标促进方面）。或者，利用核心潜在价值的灵活的身份要素，例如社会认同，对于有针对性的干预可能更有效。此外，仅仅因为身份的某些或许多方面在时间和地点上是稳定的，并不意味着一个人的身份在给定情况下总是以相同的方式影响行为。身份随时间明显变化的另一种解释——以及潜在的干预途径——是身份不同方面的可及性或显着性的可变性。最终，IVM 预测“工作自我概念”的内容（Markus & Wurf，1987；另见 McConnell，2011) 将影响选项的主观价值，无论这些内容是长期可访问的（稳定的）还是由于社会背景或干预等情境影响而暂时突出。涉及身份和估值的神经计算 Northoff 努力解决大脑如何代表稳定、历时身份的棘手问题。他的观点认为，身份本质上（并且必然）是抽象的，并且可能在皮质中线结构（例如内侧前额叶皮层）中表现出来，这与 IVM 及其关于身份内容和神经基础的假设非常吻合。他的评论通过增加神经过程的机械特异性，大大提高了我们对这些主题的广泛起点，例如内侧前额叶皮层的次低频振荡，导致身份历时性。我们感到鼓舞的是，稳定身份的概念在大脑层面似乎是合理的，并渴望进一步研究以揭示这些振荡如何与自我控制选择时发生的更快速的价值积累过程相互作用。如前所述，Shenhav 指出，现在有强有力的证据表明，价值积累不仅发生在 vmPFC 中，而且还发生在背侧前扣带回皮层 (dACC) 等区域。至关重要的是，迄今为止的证据表明，不同的累加器可能会在不同的位置同时运行以实现各种选择属性，并且可能会相互作用（Polania、Krajbich、Grueschow 和 Ruff，2014 年）。例如，脑力劳动的价值似乎在 dACC 中累积（Shenhav 等，2016），而选择选项的价值在 vmPFC 中累积（Rangel & Hare，2010）。多个价值积累过程对应于动作控制层次结构中的不同点并并行运行的想法是自我调节过程模型的基础（Duckworth、Gendler 和 Gross，2016 年；Gross，2015 年；O'Leary 等回复 161