Stop and Start Control Scales

1. Abstract

The Stop and Start Control Scales represent a psychometric advancement in the multidimensional conceptualization and measurement of self-control. Developed by Brenda J. de Boer, Edwin A. J. van Hooft, and Arnold B. Bakker (2011), the instrument operationalizes self-regulation not as a single global inhibitory capacity, but as two distinct, functional behavioral regulatory dimensions: Stop Control (inhibitory self-control) and Start Control (initiatory self-control). Stop control reflects an individual’s volitional capacity to inhibit, withhold, or discontinue undesirable, impulsive, or counter-normative behaviors that offer immediate gratification but undermine distal goals. In contrast, start control reflects an individual’s capacity to overcome behavioral inertia, initiate goal-directed action in the absence of intrinsic motivation, and sustain effort and attention toward demanding, tedious, or aversive tasks.

The scale consists of 17 self-report items evaluated on a 7-point Likert response scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). Stop control is measured through 9 items (with items 1, 3, 5, and 9 reverse-scored), and start control is assessed through 8 items (with items 11 and 12 reverse-scored). Initial and subsequent validation studies across diverse student, organizational, and community samples demonstrate robust psychometric properties. Confirmatory factor analyses consistently validate that the two-factor model demonstrates superior empirical fit relative to a unidimensional baseline. Both subscales demonstrate adequate internal consistency reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients reported at α = .73 for Stop Control and α = .72 for Start Control in primary validation cohorts. Criterion-related validity assessments confirm that Stop Control differentially predicts impulsive spending, rule adherence, counterproductive work behavior, and health-risk actions, whereas Start Control uniquely predicts academic achievement, proactive work performance, perseverance under cognitive fatigue, and timely goal initiation.

2. Keywords

Stop Control, Start Control, inhibitory control, initiatory control, self-regulation, behavioral regulation, executive function, conscientiousness, psychometrics, ego depletion

3. Authors

The Stop and Start Control Scales were conceptualized, developed, and empirically validated by a team of organizational and personality psychologists based in the Netherlands:

• Brenda J. de Boer, Ph.D. — Institute of Psychology, Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Dr. de Boer conducted foundational research on the behavioral facets of self-regulation and inhibitory versus initiatory processes during her doctoral dissertation at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
• Edwin A. J. van Hooft, Ph.D. — Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Dr. van Hooft is a Professor of Work and Organizational Psychology specializing in self-regulation, job search behavior, motivation, and goal achievement dynamics.
• Arnold B. Bakker, Ph.D. — Center of Excellence for Positive Organizational Psychology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, and Extraordinary Professor at North-West University, South Africa. Dr. Bakker is an internationally recognized expert in organizational behavior, work engagement, the Job Demands-Resources model, and performance regulation.

4. Purpose

Historically, psychological research on self-regulation has been dominated by an “inhibitory bias.” Prominent instruments, such as the Brief Self-Control Scale (BSCS; Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004), conceptualized self-control predominantly as the willpower to restrain impulses, resist temptation, interrupt unwanted behavioral sequences, and abstain from detrimental indulgences. Although inhibition is an essential component of psychological functioning, self-regulation inherently requires an equally vital complementary capacity: the ability to initiate and execute necessary, effortful, and tedious actions in pursuit of long-term objectives. De Boer, Van Hooft, and Bakker (2011) designed the Stop and Start Control Scales to rectify this theoretical and empirical imbalance by providing distinct, psychometrically validated measures of inhibitory (“stop”) and initiatory (“start”) control.

The primary clinical, educational, and organizational rationale of the instrument is to clarify the differential mechanisms through which individuals achieve success or encounter self-regulatory failure. In clinical and counseling settings, dysfunctions of self-control rarely manifest identically across both behavioral axes. For example, substance abuse disorders, pathological gambling, and impulsive aggression are defined primarily by deficits in stop control (an inability to suppress dominant reward-seeking impulses), whereas conditions such as major depressive withdrawal, avolition, severe procrastination, and chronic task avoidance are characterized by deficits in start control (an inability to overcome behavioral inertia and initiate sustained effort). By measuring these dimensions separately, clinicians and behavior analysts can pinpoint specific executive dysfunctions, tailor cognitive-behavioral interventions (e.g., stimulus control and impulse inhibition strategies vs. implementation intentions and behavioral activation), and monitor intervention outcomes with greater diagnostic fidelity.

In occupational and educational psychology, the scales serve as predictive tools for performance outcomes, task completion, counterproductive behavior, and work engagement. Prior empirical studies indicate that stop control and start control account for unique incremental variance in performance beyond broad personality taxonomies such as the Big Five framework (particularly Conscientiousness and Neuroticism). Stop control reliably predicts compliance with organizational safety protocols, low counterproductive work behavior (CWB), and ethical conduct, whereas start control uniquely predicts organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB), project completion rates under cognitive fatigue, proactive problem solving, and academic exam performance. Consequently, researchers employ the scales to unpack the nuanced behavioral architecture that governs human agency.

5. Psychological Construct

The Stop and Start Control Scales operationalize self-control as a dual-faceted construct grounded in the functional demands of goal realization. Human goal pursuit requires both the avoidance of disruptive temptations and the active mobilization of mental and physical resources toward challenging tasks. De Boer et al. (2011) delineated the theoretical boundaries of these two constructs as follows:

Stop Control (Inhibitory Self-Control)

Stop Control is defined as the deliberate self-regulatory capacity to suppress, terminate, or withhold dominant, short-term hedonic impulses, temptations, urges, and automated habits that conflict with normative standards or long-term personal goals. Individuals endowed with high stop control exhibit superior resistance to immediate gratification. When confronted with environmental affordances that elicit spontaneous, hedonically rewarding behaviors — such as spontaneous retail purchases, rule-breaking thrill-seeking, or continuing an engaging leisure activity that carries negative consequences — high stop-control individuals apply conscious inhibitory restraint.

This dimension mirrors neurocognitive constructs of behavioral response inhibition and conflict monitoring. Stop control requires an individual to pause between impulse generation and motor execution, review prospective consequences, and execute cognitive braking mechanisms. Conversely, low stop control manifests as impulsivity, susceptibility to immediate gratification, lack of premeditation, and behavioral disinhibition.

Start Control (Initiatory Self-Control)

Start Control is defined as the volitional capacity to initiate, sustain, and direct effortful, goal-directed behavior toward tasks that are subjectively evaluated as tedious, uninteresting, physically draining, or intimidating. Unlike behaviors governed by stop control, which are inherently appealing and require suppression, the activities governed by start control are typically characterized by an immediate lack of intrinsic reward and high perceived effort. Consequently, start control represents the capacity to overcome psychological resistance, task-related aversion, and behavioral inertia.

Start control encompasses sustained attention, executive persistence, and attentional refocusing. It enables individuals to continue working under conditions of severe fatigue, maintain concentration in distracting or chaotic environments, recover attentional focus when the mind wanders during reading, and re-engage with complex tasks that unexpectedly require revision. Individuals low in start control frequently succumb to behavioral procrastination, task abandonment, attentional drifting, and difficulty mobilizing energy when tasks fail to provide immediate affective enjoyment.

Conceptual Independence and Interplay

Although stop and start control operate collaboratively within the overarching self-regulatory system, they are conceptually independent and functionally distinct. An individual may possess high levels of stop control — effectively avoiding reckless spending, adhering strictly to institutional rules, and abstaining from substance abuse — yet exhibit severe deficits in start control, suffering from chronic procrastination, task avoidance, and an inability to study or perform work under conditions of fatigue or distraction. Conversely, an individual may demonstrate formidable start control — exhibiting high academic and professional persistence and focusing intently through fatigue — while struggling with impulse inhibition regarding dietary temptations, impulsive shopping, or spontaneous risk-taking. Distinguishing between these two operational modalities provides a comprehensive assessment of self-regulatory functioning.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual infrastructure of the Stop and Start Control Scales is derived from several foundational paradigms within personality psychology, cognitive neuroscience, and motivational science:

Dual-System Models of Self-Regulation

The scale integrates principles from cognitive dual-process theories (e.g., Strack & Deutsch, 2004; Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). Dual-system frameworks posit that human behavior is governed by the dynamic interaction between an automatic, fast, associative “impulsive/hot” system and a reflective, deliberate, slow “reflective/cool” system. Within this conceptualization, stop control operates primarily as a reflective gatekeeper that inhibits automatic behavioral schemata triggered by impulsive reward-seeking. Start control, however, acts as an active energizing system that recruits reflective processing to override behavioral paralysis, apathy, or avoidance responses elicited by unpleasant task characteristics.

The Strength Model of Self-Control

Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, and Tice (1998) introduced the ego depletion or strength model of self-control, positing that all acts of volitional regulation draw upon a shared, limited cognitive resource. De Boer et al. (2011) advanced this model by questioning whether the depletion of this finite resource affects all self-regulatory behaviors symmetrically. By differentiating between stop control (holding back impulses) and start control (mobilizing action), researchers can investigate whether certain depleting manipulations selectively impair inhibitory versus initiatory capacities, or whether individuals recruit distinct compensatory strategies depending on whether the regulatory demand requires active initiation or passive withholding.

Action Control Theory and Regulatory Focus

The framework also aligns with Julius Kuhl’s (1992) Action Control Theory, which distinguishes between action orientation (the capacity to initiate intended actions and maintain focus despite obstacles) and state orientation (ruminative fixation, hesitation, and volatility). Start control aligns closely with Kuhl’s notion of initiative and disengagement from hesitation. Furthermore, E. Tory Higgins’ (1997) Regulatory Focus Theory provides theoretical parallels: stop control corresponds to a prevention focus (emphasizing duties, safety, adherence to rules, and avoidance of negative outcomes), whereas start control corresponds to a promotion focus (emphasizing advancement, accomplishment, proactive task execution, and goal attainment).

7. Validity

Empirical validation of the Stop and Start Control Scales has established comprehensive evidence supporting construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity across several field and laboratory investigations:

Construct and Structural Validity

In the seminal psychometric validation study conducted by De Boer, Van Hooft, and Bakker (2011), exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported the hypothesized two-dimensional structural topology. Competing measurement models — including a single-factor general self-control model — exhibited poor fit to empirical data across independent validation samples. The two-factor model demonstrated superior structural stability, confirming that Stop Control and Start Control represent distinct, correlated latent constructs rather than a singular unidimensional continuum.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity has been evaluated against established self-regulation and personality inventories:

• General Self-Control: Both Stop Control and Start Control correlate moderately to strongly with Tangney et al.’s (2004) Brief Self-Control Scale (correlations typically ranging between r = .45 and r = .65), confirming that both scales sample from the broader self-regulatory domain while capturing distinct operational variance.
• Conscientiousness: In relations with the Big Five personality traits, Start Control displays strong positive correlations with the Achievement Striving and Dutifulness facets of Conscientiousness, whereas Stop Control demonstrates higher correlations with the Deliberation, Cautiousness, and Impulse Control facets.
• Impulsivity and Neuroticism: Stop Control correlates negatively with measures of trait impulsivity (such as the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale, particularly urgency and lack of premeditation), sensation seeking, and risk propensity. Start Control exhibits negative correlations with depressive withdrawal, procrastination scales (e.g., Lay’s General Procrastination Scale), and trait fatigue.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

The primary utility of the instrument lies in its differential predictive validity across varied behavioral criteria:

• Financial and Hedonic Behaviors: De Boer et al. (2011) demonstrated that Stop Control exclusively predicted self-reported financial restraint, lack of compulsive shopping, and adherence to savings goals, whereas Start Control was largely unassociated with spontaneous retail spending.
• Academic Performance and Task Initiation: In student samples, Start Control emerged as a significant unique predictor of GPA, exam completion times, and academic persistence, whereas Stop Control exhibited negligible direct effects on academic achievement once Start Control was entered into hierarchical regression equations.
• Organizational Behavior: In workplace cohorts, Stop Control significantly predicted lower rates of counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs), rule violations, and interpersonal conflict. Start Control, conversely, accounted for unique variance in organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), proactive work engagement, and project execution under high cognitive demands.

8. Reliability

The psychometric evaluation of the Stop and Start Control Scales confirms adequate internal consistency and stability across diverse operational contexts:

Internal Consistency

In the foundational validation samples reported by De Boer et al. (2011), the internal consistency coefficients met standard psychometric thresholds for short research instruments:

• Stop Control Subscale (9 items): Initial validation revealed a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .73. Across subsequent organizational and academic replications, alpha coefficients have generally ranged between .71 and .78. Corrected item-total correlations for the 9 stop control items range from .32 to .54, indicating adequate item homogeneity.
• Start Control Subscale (8 items): The initial validation study established a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .72. Subsequent investigations across international working and student populations have observed alpha values ranging between .70 and .80. Corrected item-total correlations span from .33 to .56, confirming that the items cohesively reflect initiatory and sustained regulatory effort.

Test-Retest Stability

Longitudinal and multi-wave investigations evaluating temporal stability over intervals ranging from 4 to 8 weeks have demonstrated test-retest reliability coefficients ranging from r = .68 to r = .76 for Stop Control, and r = .65 to r = .74 for Start Control. These values confirm that the scales measure relatively enduring behavioral dispositions, while retaining sufficient sensitivity to detect genuine changes resulting from targeted self-regulatory interventions or prolonged environmental stressors.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural topology of the Stop and Start Control Scales was evaluated through both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across multiple independent cohorts:

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During initial item development, principal axis factoring with oblique rotation (e.g., Oblimin) yielded a distinct two-factor solution based on scree plot examination and eigenvalues exceeding 1.0. Items reflecting the restraint of impulses, rule adherence, and monetary discipline loaded cleanly onto the first factor (Stop Control), with factor loadings generally ranging from .38 to .71. Items reflecting persistence despite fatigue, task execution despite lack of motivation, and attentional focus amid distractions loaded robustly onto the second factor (Start Control), with loadings ranging from .36 to .68. Cross-loadings across the two primary factors were minimal, demonstrating clear structural separation between inhibitory and initiatory operational definitions.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analyses conducted by De Boer et al. (2011) tested several competing models to substantiate structural dimensionality:

• One-Factor Model: A baseline model specifying all 17 items loading onto a single general “self-control” latent factor demonstrated unacceptable fit indices across all validation datasets (e.g., χ²/df > 3.50, RMSEA > .085, CFI < .80, TLI < .77).
• Two-Factor Orthogonal Model: Specifying Stop Control and Start Control as completely independent, uncorrelated latent variables improved fit over the one-factor model, but failed to capture the natural covariance between complementary self-regulatory dimensions.
• Two-Factor Correlated Model: The hypothesized two-factor model with correlated latent constructs exhibited the best fit to the data across samples. Typical goodness-of-fit parameters reported in the validation literature include: comparative fit index (CFI) ≥ .91 to .94; Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) ≥ .89 to .92; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) ≤ .048 to .062 (with 90% confidence intervals within standard acceptance limits); and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) ≤ .055.

The latent correlation between the Stop Control factor and the Start Control factor typically ranges between r = .30 and r = .45. This moderate correlation confirms that while both dimensions share common variance attributable to an overarching executive self-regulatory system, they retain substantial unique variance (> 75% unshared variance), justifying their separate operationalization and scoring.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Stop and Start Control Scales constitute a standardized self-report psychometric instrument. Structural specifications and operational parameters include:

• Instrument Type: Standardized self-report rating scale / multidimensional personality inventory.
• Target Population: Adults and adolescents aged 16 and older; applicable in organizational, educational, experimental, and clinical research settings.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or computerized/online survey administration.
• Completion Time: Approximately 4 to 6 minutes.
• Total Item Count: 17 items.
• Subscale Breakdown:
  • Stop Control: 9 items (Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)
  • Start Control: 8 items (Items 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert response format scored from 1 to 7:
  • 1 = completely disagree
  • 2 = disagree
  • 3 = somewhat disagree
  • 4 = neither agree nor disagree
  • 5 = somewhat agree
  • 6 = agree
  • 7 = completely agree
• Scoring Rules:
  • Reverse-Coded Items: Six items are negatively worded and must be inverted prior to subscale score computation. The formula for reverse scoring on a 1-to-7 scale is: Item_Reversed = 8 - Item_Raw.
    • Stop Control reverse-coded items: Item 1, Item 3, Item 5, Item 9.
    • Start Control reverse-coded items: Item 11, Item 12.
  • Subscale Mean Scores: Calculate the arithmetic mean of the items corresponding to each subscale after reverse coding. Subscale scores range from 1.00 to 7.00, with higher values reflecting superior control.
    • Stop Control Mean = Sum(Item 1_R, Item 2, Item 3_R, Item 4, Item 5_R, Item 6, Item 7, Item 8, Item 9_R) / 9
    • Start Control Mean = Sum(Item 10, Item 11_R, Item 12_R, Item 13, Item 14, Item 15, Item 16, Item 17) / 8
  • Global Score Consideration: Although an overall mean across all 17 items can be calculated to reflect global self-control, empirical findings strongly caution against collapsing the subscales, as the unique predictive validity of each dimension is obscured when merged into a single composite index.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Stop and Start Control Scales were developed and published in 2011 by Brenda J. de Boer, Edwin A. J. van Hooft, and Arnold B. Bakker in the European Journal of Personality, with preliminary psychometric validation detailed in Dr. de Boer’s 2011 doctoral dissertation at Erasmus University Rotterdam.

Licensing and Academic Usage: The instrument is in the public scientific domain for non-commercial academic research and educational purposes. Researchers are permitted to administer the scale in empirical investigations without paying licensing fees or obtaining explicit formal permissions, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution is accorded to the original authors by citing the primary 2011 validation article. For commercial assessments, proprietary executive coaching platforms, or employment screening deployments, users should consult the authors and relevant publishing copyright holders regarding commercial licensing policies.

12. References

• Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. 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
• De Boer, B. J. (2011). Stop and start control: A distinction within self-control (Doctoral dissertation, Erasmus University Rotterdam). Erasmus University Research Repository (RePub). https://repub.eur.nl/pub/31131/
• De Boer, B. J., Van Hooft, E. A. J., & Bakker, A. B. (2011). Stop and start control: A distinction within self-control. European Journal of Personality, 25(5), 349–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.815
• Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280
• Kuhl, J. (1992). A theory of self-regulation: Action versus state orientation, self-discrimination, and some applications. Applied Psychology, 41(2), 97–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1992.tb00688.x
• Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.1.3
• Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of human behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 220–247. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_1
• Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x

13. Items of the Scale