Commitment contracts are an increasingly popular self-control strategy in which individuals bind their behavior to monetary penalties when they act in an undesired way (such as skipping a visit to the gym or breaking a dieting regime). Despite evidence that commitment contracts improve self-control outcomes, they are relatively underused. Across five experimental studies, we find that decision makers are more likely to select commitment contracts with more severe penalties (i.e., anti-charity contracts) for others than for themselves. Decision makers view commitment contracts as entailing an effectiveness-appropriateness trade-off, and this self-other difference in contract choice arises because decision makers believe anti-charity contracts will be more effective for others than for themselves. Our results suggest that people recognize the effectiveness of using aggressive commitment contracts to overcome self-control problems, but view themselves as an exception to that general rule.