Letting Good Opportunities Pass Us By: Examining the Role of Mind-Set during Goal Pursuit

Abstract

It is generally accepted that forming an implementation intention promotes goal pursuit and achievement. Forming an implementation intention encourages people to develop a plan, to prepare for events that allow for the execution of the plan, and to efficiently respond to these opportunities. Yet, forming an implementation intention may not be universally beneficial. An implementation intention may encourage the use of means that are part of the plan but may discourage the use of efficacious means that are not part of the plan. Four experiments show that forming an implementation intention decreases the likelihood of responding to goal-directed, out-of-plan behaviors when a person is in a concrete mind-set. Limitations, implications, and directions for future research are discussed. (c) 2010 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc..

Too Much of a Good Thing: The Benefits of Implementation Intentions Depend on the Number of Goals

“…Prior research has found, for example, that people are less able to form if-then plans as the number of cues increases (Cohen et al 2008), suggesting that limits on ability can spoil the benefits otherwise afforded by planning. Even if people are able to form specific plans, the benefits associated with automatic responding may be offset by costs to response flexibility (Bayuk et al 2010;Patalano and Seifert 1997). Thus, planning is not always useful and further research is needed to understand (1) when planning can benefit multiple goals and (2) whether the results of our own investigation would generalize to other settings where goal pursuit is complex.…”

“…Although specific planning was ineffective here, other types of planning might facilitate goal attainment in complex settings. For instance, compared to specific plans, loose plans afford greater flexibility (Bayuk et al 2010). Loose plans might facilitate success if these plans are truer representations of how consumers typically think about multiple goals (Vallacher and Wegner 1989) and might not reduce commitment to multiple goals (just as forming goal intentions did not reduce commitment here).…”

“…Broadly speaking, it contributes to an emerging minority of work that demonstrates conditions where planning fails to benefit goal pursuit (Bayuk, Janiszewski, and LeBoeuf 2010;Cohen, Jaudas, and Gollwitzer 2008;DeWitte, Verguts, and Lens 2003;Ü lkümen and Cheema 2011) and thereby contrasts with traditional approaches that demonstrate the benefits of planning (Locke andLatham 1990, 2002;Parks-Stamm and Gollwitzer 2009). The present studies also make specific contributions regarding the relation between planning and commitment.…”

A Motivational Account of the Question-Behavior Effect

“…Both abstract goals and concrete intentions require shielding from competitive motivational states if they are to be completed (Gollwitzer 1999). Thus Bayuk et al (2010) demonstrate that adopting a plan (e.g., eat fewer eggs to reduce cholesterol) encourages its execution but discourages the execution of alternative, out-of-plan behaviors (e.g., exercise more to reduce cholesterol). Veling and Van Knippenberg (2008) further show that information that competes with intentions gets inhibited.…”

“…For example, Aarts and Dijksterhuis (2000) find that the activation of a goal (e.g., "going to the university") leads to the activation of specific behaviors previously performed to attain that goal (e.g., "take the bus"). It is also possible to activate specific intended behavior directly, which might lead to the activation of a related goal (Bayuk, Janiszewski, and Leboeuf 2010;Kruglanski et al 2002), such as priming Lipton iced tea to activate the goal of quenching thirst (Karremans, Stroebe, and Claus 2006). Along similar lines, this research proposes that responding to an intention question is a subtle manipulation that may engender the activation of an intention.…”