To plan or not to plan? Goal achievement or interrupting the performance of mundane behaviors

Abstract

The present experiment investigated cognitive and behavioral eects of planning (i.e. forming implementation intentions) on goal pursuit during the performance of mundane behaviors. Participants received the goal to collect a coupon halfway the hall from the lab to the cafeteria. Later, they were also given the task to go from the lab to the cafeteria. Thus participants had to attain a new goal by interrupting a mundane behavior. Some participants enriched their goal with implementation intentions, others did not. Results showed that participants who formed implementation intentions were more eective in goal pursuit than the control group. Importantly, the data suggest that the eects of planning on goal completion are mediated by a heightened mental accessibility of environmental cues related to the goal completion task. Copyright

Conditional or unconditional? The effects of implementation intentions on driver behavior.

“…This difference was approaching a large-sized effect ( d = −0.72), which is a testament to the capacity of implementation intentions to change behavior (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006). This finding is consistent with previous laboratory research (e.g., Aarts et al, 1999; Parks-Stamm et al [2007; Study 1]; Webb & Sheeran, 2004, 2007 and 2008) which has also shown that implementation intentions produce large-sized changes in behavior when participants encounter the situations they specify in the if components of their plans (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006). It is also consistent with previous field research showing that implementation intentions have the capacity to bring about changes in health behaviors generally (e.g., Andersson & Moss, 2011; Arden & Armitage, 2012; Armitage, 2004; Armitage, 2008; Conner & Higgins, 2010; Luszczynska et al, 2007).…”

Mechanisms of implementation intention effects: The role of goal intentions, self‐efficacy, and accessibility of plan components

“…The present findings both replicate and extend those of Aarts et al (1999) and Webb and Sheeran (2007). On the one hand, the findings confirm the importance of heightened cue accessibility as a mediator of implementation intention effects.…”

Supporting Sustainable Food Consumption: Mental Contrasting with Implementation Intentions (MCII) Aligns Intentions and Behavior

“…As a consequence of forming IIs, individuals should easily recognize the anticipated situation when it arises and then initiate the linked action immediately, efficiently, and without requiring a conscious intent to act in the critical moment (e.g., II effects are still evident when the critical cue is presented subliminally or when the respective goal is activated outside of awareness; Sheeran et al, 2005 ; Bayer et al, 2009 ). In line with these assumptions, studies confirmed that the mental representation of the anticipated situation becomes highly accessible ( Aarts et al, 1999 ; Wieber and Sassenberg, 2006 ; Webb and Sheeran, 2007 ; Achtziger et al, 2012 ) and the link between situation and action is strengthened ( Brandstätter et al, 2001 ; Webb and Sheeran, 2007 , 2008 ; Bayer et al, 2009 ; Mendoza et al, 2010 ). These cognitive consequences of forming IIs are rather stable over time ( Papies et al, 2009 ).…”