top of page

Article 6 — Self-Control and Commitment Devices in the Behavioral Science of Money

Abstract

Financial decisions frequently reveal a tension between long-run intentions (e.g., saving, debt reduction) and short-run impulses (e.g., discretionary spending). Behavioral models attribute this gap to present-biased preferences and self-control failures, generating time inconsistency and demand for mechanisms that “bind” future behavior. This article synthesizes core theory (quasi-hyperbolic discounting; naïveté vs. sophistication), evidence from field and lab studies (e.g., commitment savings accounts, deposit contracts for smoking cessation, retirement plan defaults and Save More Tomorrow), and design principles for commitment products. We review conditions under which commitment devices raise savings and reduce harmful temptations, why take-up may be low, how failures arise (e.g., circumvention, non-compliance), and what this implies for policy and product design. We close with an agenda for research on dynamic, personalized, and ethical commitment architectures.

 

Introduction

Many households intend to save more, borrow less, and invest steadily, yet their realized financial behavior deviates from plan. Undersaving, revolving high-interest debt, and “lumpy” investing reflect self-control frictions rather than mere ignorance (Laibson, 1997; O’Donoghue & Rabin, 1999). A central idea in behavioral finance is that present bias—the disproportionate overweighting of immediate gratification—undermines intertemporal alignment. If people foresee such lapses, they may demand commitment devices: self-imposed constraints that make future deviation costly or less available (Bryan, Karlan & Nelson, 2010).

In money contexts, commitments can take the form of restricted-access savings accounts, automatic escalation features in retirement plans, deposit contracts that one forfeits upon failure (loss-based incentives), or social/accountability arrangements. Evidence suggests these mechanisms can improve financial outcomes, albeit with heterogeneous effects and important caveats regarding take-up, flexibility, and user circumvention (Ashraf, Karlan & Yin, 2006; Thaler & Benartzi, 2004; Giné, Karlan & Zinman, 2010).

 

Theory: Present Bias, Time Inconsistency, and the Value of Commitment

2.1 Quasi-hyperbolic discounting and self-control

Traditional economic models assume that people value future rewards consistently over time — meaning that if they prefer receiving a certain amount tomorrow rather than today, they will make the same type of decision between any two future dates. Behavioral research, however, shows that people tend to give disproportionate weight to the present moment. This tendency, known as present bias, leads individuals to favor immediate gratification at the expense of long-term benefits.

To explain it bit easier and faster: YOLO! (You only live once)

​

Because of this bias, people often change their plans when temptations become immediate. They may intend to save but end up spending, or plan to pay off debt but delay doing so once short-term desires arise. Such behavior creates time inconsistency, where decisions made for the future conflict with choices made in the moment. The consequences in personal finance are familiar: procrastinating on savings goals, making early withdrawals from investment accounts, overusing credit, or reacting impulsively to marketing cues.

​

2.2 Naïveté vs. sophistication

A key insight in behavioral theory is the difference between individuals who recognize their self-control problems and those who do not. Naïve individuals underestimate their future impulses and wrongly assume they will act rationally later; as a result, they fail to plan for moments of weakness. Sophisticated individuals, by contrast, are aware of their future tendencies and deliberately adopt strategies to constrain themselves — such as setting spending limits or locking funds in savings accounts.

Sophistication increases the potential benefit of commitment mechanisms but also makes their design delicate. If a financial product is too restrictive, people may reject it out of fear of losing flexibility. If it is too lenient, it may not actually prevent impulsive behavior.

​

2.3 Why commitment devices can raise welfare

Commitment devices can improve financial outcomes through several channels. First, they can remove temptations altogether, for example by placing money in accounts that cannot be easily accessed. Second, they can make deviation more costly through penalties, forfeited deposits, or delayed access to funds. Third, they can enhance awareness and accountability by providing regular feedback or social monitoring. Finally, they can link rewards to desired behavior—a principle sometimes called “temptation bundling,” where enjoyable activities or perks are only available when individuals meet their financial goals.

When designed well, and when users’ liquidity needs are not too severe, commitment devices can bring actual behavior closer to people’s long-term intentions. This alignment increases overall welfare by helping individuals act in ways that better match their own goals, even after accounting for the potential inconvenience or loss of flexibility.

3. Evidence from Money Contexts

3.1 Commitment Savings Accounts: The Power of Restriction

When economists Nava Ashraf, Dean Karlan, and Wesley Yin conducted their now-famous experiment in the Philippines (2006), they discovered something profoundly human. They offered people a simple deal: “Would you like to make it harder for yourself to withdraw your own money?”

Surprisingly, many said yes.

The participants chose to lock their savings in an account that could only be accessed after reaching a target date or amount. Against conventional wisdom—which assumes that people always crave flexibility—these individuals voluntarily traded freedom for discipline. The result? Participants who opted in saved significantly more than those in the control group.

As one Filipino participant reportedly put it: “If I keep my money in my pocket, it walks away. But if I lock it up, it grows.”

This experiment demonstrated something deep about human behavior: people often know their weaknesses and seek tools to protect themselves from their future selves. It’s a modern echo of Odysseus tying himself to the mast to resist the Sirens—an image that still resonates in behavioral economics today.

As Benjamin Franklin famously said, “It is easier to prevent bad habits than to break them.” Commitment savings accounts are precisely that: a structured prevention of our worst financial impulses.

 

3.2 Deposit Contracts and Loss-Based Incentives

Sometimes, the strongest motivator isn’t the promise of gain but the fear of loss. In an ingenious field experiment, Xavier Giné, Dean Karlan, and Jonathan Zinman (2010) explored this idea through smoking cessation. Participants voluntarily deposited their own money into an account they would forfeit if they failed to quit smoking.

Only a fraction of people signed up—but those who did were far more likely to succeed. Why? Because the pain of losing their own savings outweighed the pleasure of another cigarette. This taps directly into the principle of loss aversion, famously described by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky (1979): “Losses loom larger than gains.”

The lesson extends beyond smoking. Whether it’s setting a personal penalty for overspending or pledging to donate to an unappealing cause if goals aren’t met, self-imposed stakes can transform intentions into action.

Yet, as Richard Thaler reminds us, “People lack self-control, not self-awareness.” Many know they should bind themselves but hesitate to do so until the pain of inaction exceeds the comfort of freedom.

The same paradox appears in gyms around the world. Stefano DellaVigna and Ulrike Malmendier (2006) found that many gym members overpay for monthly subscriptions—a costly self-imposed nudge to visit more often. Sadly, most don’t. The unused gym membership has become a cultural metaphor for weak self-control: we pay not for the service, but for the hope of a better version of ourselves.

3.3 Social and Group-Based Commitment

Sometimes, we don’t need contracts or penalties—just other people watching.

In Chile, researchers Felipe Kast, Stephan Meier, and Dina Pomeranz (2016) ran an experiment they called “Under-Savers Anonymous.” The idea was simple: small groups of micro-entrepreneurs met regularly, shared savings goals, and publicly reported progress. Think of it as a financial version of a fitness club.

The impact was remarkable. Deposit frequency tripled, and savings nearly doubled compared to control groups. Why? Because social accountability is one of the oldest and cheapest commitment devices. Nobody wants to admit failure in front of peers.

The 19th-century economist John Stuart Mill once observed, “Next to selfishness, the principal cause which makes life unsatisfactory is lack of mental cultivation.” In behavioral finance terms, social cultivation—belonging, reputation, pride—can be stronger than any financial incentive. Group commitments convert abstract goals into shared narratives, making saving feel like solidarity rather than sacrifice.

3.4 Defaults, Payroll, and the “Save More Tomorrow” Revolution

If Odysseus tied himself to the mast, Richard Thaler and Shlomo Benartzi built the ropes for the modern worker. Their Save More Tomorrow (SMarT) program (2004) revolutionized retirement saving by exploiting a simple behavioral insight: people procrastinate less when they can precommit to future actions that start automatically.

In SMarT, employees agree today that part of their future pay raises will automatically go into their retirement accounts. Because the increase happens later, it feels painless—no perceived loss today, but lasting benefit tomorrow.

This innovation built on another behavioral breakthrough: automatic enrollment in 401(k) plans. Studies by Madrian & Shea (2001) show that when saving is the default, participation skyrockets. People rarely opt out, not because they’ve suddenly become more disciplined, but because inertia now works for them instead of against them.

As Thaler quipped, “Make it easy for people to do what they already want to do.” Defaults and payroll-based commitments transform the fight against temptation into a single, one-time decision that runs quietly in the background.

3.5 Heterogeneity, Take-Up, and Failures

Still, even the best-designed commitments face resistance. Despite their proven benefits, take-up rates remain modest. Some people fear they’ll need quick access to money for emergencies; others mistrust financial institutions or simply dislike being “locked in.” Behavioral researchers call this the paternalism problem—people resent mechanisms that feel controlling, even when self-chosen (Bryan, Karlan & Nelson, 2010).

And commitment doesn’t always guarantee success. Individuals may cheat their own systems—borrowing elsewhere, hiding cash, or mentally separating “fun money” from “serious money.” Such behavior underscores the gap between design and discipline.

As Oscar Wilde once joked, “I can resist everything except temptation.” Behavioral economists have spent decades proving how right he was.

What distinguishes successful commitments—like SMarT or the Philippine savings experiment—is that they balance flexibility and firmness. They respect liquidity needs while introducing just enough friction to slow impulsive behavior. When penalties are credible but not cruel, and when the system is simple and visible, people thrive.

Thaler himself summarized it perfectly: “If you want to encourage someone to do something, make it easy. If you want to discourage it, make it hard.”

That single principle underpins nearly every effective commitment device—from the locked savings account to the payroll deduction to the peer savings circle. They all translate good intentions into automatic behavior—and in doing so, help people save themselves from themselves.

 

4. Mechanisms and Design Trade-offs

Designing a commitment device is like tuning a musical instrument: too tight, and the strings snap; too loose, and no sound emerges. Behavioral economists have learned that the best mechanisms walk a fine line between discipline and flexibility, between helping and over-controlling.

4.1 Balancing Binding Strength and Flexibility

Commitments work only when people are willing to adopt them—and stay in them. If a savings contract is too strict, people fear they might need the funds and refuse to enroll. If it is too lenient, their future selves will simply ignore it.

Empirical research shows that “middle-ground frictions”—like modest withdrawal fees, waiting periods, or small penalties—strike this balance well (Bryan et al., 2010). These small design tweaks introduce just enough pain to make impulsive reversals inconvenient, but not catastrophic.

A participant in a Kenyan savings experiment once remarked, “If it’s too easy, I spend; if it’s too hard, I never start.” That single sentence captures the behavioral truth behind effective commitment design.

4.2 Liquidity Insurance and Emergency Access

Real life doesn’t follow economic theory. Unexpected expenses—medical bills, job loss, or family emergencies—can force even the most disciplined saver to break their own rules.

That’s why commitment accounts need emergency valves. Allowing verified hardship withdrawals or partial penalty waivers protects users from welfare losses while preserving the core principle of discipline. Field experiments show that accounts offering limited flexibility attract more cautious users without reducing overall effectiveness.

As economist Dean Karlan put it, “The best commitment is one that bends, not one that breaks.” A humane design—structured but forgiving—turns a rigid contract into a trusted companion.

4.3 Harnessing Loss Aversion and Reference Points

Behavioral science repeatedly finds that people hate losing more than they love winning. Daniel Kahneman famously summarized this as: “Losses loom larger than gains.”

Commitment devices can leverage this bias to motivate change. Deposit contracts that users lose if they fail to meet their goals, or deadlines framed as “keep your money only if you succeed,” exploit this psychological asymmetry (Giné et al., 2010).

The Save More Tomorrow (SMarT) program uses a gentler approach: rather than making saving feel like a loss, it aligns future contribution increases with pay raises (Thaler & Benartzi, 2004). By linking the change to a positive reference point, employees never experience a pay cut—only slower consumption growth.

This principle—reframing change to avoid perceived loss—has become one of the most powerful tools in behavioral finance design.

4.4 Temptation Bundling and Attention Engineering

Self-control doesn’t always mean denying pleasure; sometimes it means redirecting it. Temptation bundling—the strategy of pairing an enjoyable activity with a virtuous one—can increase adherence dramatically (Milkman et al., 2014).

For instance, some fintech apps now let users “unlock” small rewards, such as bonus cashback or entertainment perks, only when they meet savings goals. This turns temptation into reinforcement rather than sabotage.

Equally important is attention engineering: reminders, visual dashboards, and “goal progress” nudges keep objectives at the top of mind. Many failures of self-control are not willful but forgetful—people simply lose sight of long-term goals in the noise of daily life. A well-timed nudge, even a text message, can reignite commitment at critical decision moments.

As behavioral designer B.J. Fogg once said, “What we remember, we repeat.”

4.5 Social Commitment and Accountability Infrastructure

Humans are profoundly social creatures; we care deeply about how others see us. Commitment devices that tap into social norms—pledges, buddy systems, or micro-groups—can dramatically improve follow-through (Kast et al., 2016).

In Chile’s Under-Savers Anonymous experiment, micro-entrepreneurs who met regularly with peers tripled their deposit frequency compared to those who saved privately. The secret ingredient wasn’t money—it was social visibility. Failing in private stings less than disappointing a group.

Digital platforms now replicate this dynamic ethically: shared progress trackers, optional accountability messages, or badges that celebrate milestones. When designed with consent and privacy safeguards, these “social mirrors” amplify commitment without coercion.

As Adam Smith observed more than two centuries ago, “Man naturally desires not only to be loved, but to be lovely.” That desire for social esteem remains one of the strongest motivators in finance today.

5. Applications in Personal Finance

Behavioral insights about commitment devices are not just theoretical—they are already shaping everyday financial tools. From budgeting apps to pension systems, commitment principles help people align their actions with their aspirations.

5.1 Short- and Medium-Term Saving

For goals like building an emergency fund or saving for tuition, restricted-access savings buckets can be highly effective. These accounts unlock only when a specific target or date is reached, introducing a sense of accomplishment while reducing temptation.

Automatic payday transfers combined with small withdrawal frictions—like a 48-hour cooling-off period—help savings grow quietly in the background. In the Philippines experiment by Ashraf et al. (2006), even a minimal lock-in feature produced a measurable rise in balances.

As one participant noted, “If I can touch it, I’ll spend it. If I have to wait, I’ll think.”

5.2 Retirement Saving

Few contexts illustrate behavioral commitment better than retirement plans. Automatic enrollment, contribution escalation, and pre-commitment to allocate part of future pay raises are proven tools (Madrian & Shea, 2001; Thaler & Benartzi, 2004).

The Save More Tomorrow design epitomizes the principle: people agree today that their “future selves” will save more later, turning dozens of small future decisions into one powerful choice. As Thaler wryly noted, “We found a way to get people to save without them even noticing.”

This gentle automation turns procrastination—normally an enemy of saving—into an ally.

5.3 Debt Reduction

Commitment strategies can also support debt repayment. Automated overpayments, self-imposed minimum payment floors, or the voluntary closing of credit lines after repayment are all ways to bind oneself toward financial freedom.

Some programs use pledged deposits that are refunded only when borrowers hit debt milestones. These mechanisms turn repayment into a measurable journey with built-in rewards, though designers must balance motivation with liquidity flexibility.

The key insight: debt reduction works best when people structure success, not just hope for it.

5.4 Spending Control and Micro-Budgets

Not all commitments are about saving—some are about stopping. Apps now let users set spending caps for discretionary categories or introduce a “cooling-off timer” before large purchases. A 24-hour delay between desire and checkout can dramatically curb impulse buys.

Harder versions of such tools can temporarily disable payment options for specific merchant categories—think of it as a “financial airplane mode.” These micro-commitments create just enough resistance to transform reflexive behavior into reflective behavior.

As Oscar Wilde once joked, “I can resist everything except temptation.” Behavioral designers have spent the last two decades building tools to help us prove him wrong—at least some of the time.

6. Why People Don’t Always Demand Commitment

Despite their potential, not everyone wants—or trusts—commitment mechanisms. Even individuals who acknowledge their self-control problems may avoid binding themselves for several rational and emotional reasons:

  1. Liquidity risk: People fear being unable to access money during emergencies.

  2. Self-image concerns: Admitting one needs help managing impulses can feel shameful.

  3. Complexity and mistrust: Opaque fees or fine print reduce perceived fairness.

  4. Anticipated failure: If people expect to break their own contract, the potential penalty feels like a loss in advance.

  5. Alternative coping: Informal loans or family support may substitute for structured commitment.

To overcome these barriers, designers should emphasize transparency, fairness, and choice. Offering small-stakes trials, clear emergency clauses, and low-commitment “on-ramps” can make people more comfortable experimenting with new systems.

As psychologist Albert Bandura once said, “People’s beliefs about their abilities have a profound effect on those abilities.” Commitment design must therefore build confidence, not just constraints.

7. Failure Modes and Ethical Considerations

7.1 Non-Compliance and Circumvention

Even with the best intentions, people sometimes outsmart their own systems. They may open new credit lines, borrow from friends, or create “shadow” accounts to bypass restrictions. True behavioral design acknowledges this and focuses less on surveillance and more on making the good path easier than the bad one.

Automation, defaults, and gentle frictions are more sustainable than policing. As Thaler put it, “Nudge, don’t shove.”

7.2 Over-Restriction and Welfare Loss

Overly rigid commitments can harm those facing unexpected shocks. Ethical design demands proportionality: commitments should guide, not trap. Transparent exit options and informed consent are essential. Some programs now ask for periodic re-consent—a quarterly “are you still in?” moment—to ensure continued autonomy.

A commitment that cannot adapt ceases to be a tool and becomes a cage.

7.3 Distributional and Contextual Impacts

Commitment devices are not universal remedies. They work best for individuals with stable income and predictable expenses, and less well for those living on volatile cash flows. Offering a menu of commitment strengths—from soft nudges to hard locks—allows people to choose their level of discipline.

As Amartya Sen reminds us, freedom includes the freedom to commit. Ethical behavioral design respects that balance—helping people constrain themselves, but never against their will.

​

8. Design Principles — A Practical Playbook for Better Commitment Devices

Designing effective commitment tools is as much art as science. The most successful mechanisms respect human weakness without exploiting it; they make discipline feel like freedom rather than punishment. As Richard Thaler once said, “If you want to encourage someone to do something, make it easy. If you want to discourage it, make it hard.”

Below are ten guiding principles that combine behavioral insight with practical design lessons from decades of research and field experiments.

1. Find the Right Degree of Binding

Commitment is a balancing act. Penalties or withdrawal limits must be strong enough to deter impulsive reversals—but not so severe that people refuse to participate. Think of it as tightening a knot just enough to hold, without cutting off circulation. For example, a moderate early-withdrawal fee works better than total inaccessibility, because it preserves both discipline and dignity.

2. Include Emergency Valves

Life happens. A well-designed system recognizes that true commitment isn’t about blind rigidity—it’s about credible structure with compassionate escape routes. Allow limited hardship withdrawals for verified emergencies, but cap their frequency to keep the mechanism meaningful. As the philosopher Seneca noted, “No wind is favorable to the sailor who doesn’t know where to go.” The goal is to stay on course, not to sink in the storm.

3. Automate Good Decisions

Automation is the unsung hero of behavioral finance. Payroll deductions, autopay on debts, or automatic contribution increases remove the need for constant willpower. Every manual decision is an opportunity for temptation; automation closes that gap. The best systems turn saving into the default and spending into the conscious exception.

4. Add Friction Where It Matters Most

Not all effort is bad—sometimes a little delay is the difference between impulse and intention. Cooling-off periods, 24-hour waiting windows for withdrawals, or small reversal fees can curb spontaneous spending without feeling punitive. Behavioral studies show that even minor friction—like having to click twice—can drastically reduce impulsive behavior.

5. Use Loss-Based Stakes Carefully

Loss aversion is powerful but volatile. Small refundable deposits tied to milestones (for example, a $20 pledge returned only if savings goals are met) can strongly motivate follow-through. But large forfeitures may backfire, discouraging participation or causing shame. As Kahneman reminds us, “The threat of loss is more powerful than the promise of gain.” The art is in harnessing that fear gently.

6. Make Progress Visible and Salient

People thrive on feedback. Dashboards showing accumulated savings, payday reminders, or digital “achievement badges” turn invisible discipline into tangible progress. When effort is seen, it feels rewarding. As the management thinker Peter Drucker said, “What gets measured gets managed.” Commitment succeeds when success is visible.

7. Bundle Temptation With Discipline

Combine pleasure with purpose. Let users access rewards—like lotteries, small perks, or entertainment credits—only when they’ve met savings or payment goals. This “temptation bundling,” popularized by Katy Milkman and colleagues, turns indulgence into reinforcement instead of sabotage. It’s not about denying fun, but earning it consciously.

8. Build Social Scaffolding

We are social creatures. Peer pressure, encouragement, and shared accountability are some of the strongest commitment forces available—if used ethically. Features like buddy commitments, group check-ins, or social progress boards can boost persistence, especially when participation is voluntary and privacy is respected. As Aristotle wrote, “We are what we repeatedly do.” Doing it together just makes repetition easier.

9. Keep It Simple and Transparent

Complexity kills commitment. Rules, fees, and exit options must be easy to grasp at a glance. A one-page summary—“How this binds you, and how you can exit”—builds trust and reduces cognitive load. People commit more readily when they feel informed and in control.

10. Personalize and Review Regularly

Commitment isn’t one-size-fits-all. Let users choose how strict they want to be, and prompt periodic reviews—say, quarterly—to adapt to new goals or life events. Behavioral change is dynamic; the same rope that secures today might restrict tomorrow. Periodic reflection keeps commitment aligned with evolving realities.

Closing Thought

Effective commitment devices don’t coerce—they collaborate with human nature. They make it easier to do what we already want to do, by transforming fleeting motivation into structured follow-through. Or, as James Clear put it in Atomic Habits, “You do not rise to the level of your goals; you fall to the level of your systems.”

A good commitment system, then, is not a cage. It’s a carefully built scaffold—one that helps people climb toward the financial future they actually want.

​

Conclusion

Self-control problems in money are pervasive and costly, but not intractable. The literature shows that well-designed commitment devices—restricted accounts, deposit contracts, automated escalation, social accountability—can move behavior toward stated financial goals. Their success hinges on matching binding strength to user needs, preserving emergency flexibility, and making good behavior easy and salient. For policymakers and providers, the opportunity is to build commitment menus that respect heterogeneity, protect against liquidity risk, and leverage automation and social support to convert intention into durable financial action.

References (with DOIs)

bottom of page