ARTICLE SUMMARIES
WEEK 2: MOTIVATION
ARTICLE 7: The Interplay(взаимодействие) Between Goal Intentions and Implementation (осуществление,
выполнение) Intentions– Sheeran, Gollwitzer and Webb
Two studies tested whether action control by implementation intentions is sensitive to the activation and
strength of participants’ underlying goal intentions.
In Study 1, participants formed implementation intentions (or did not) and their goal intentions
were measured. Findings revealed a significant interaction between implementation intentions and the strength
of respective goal intentions. Implementation intentions benefited the rate of goal attainment when
participants had strong goal intentions but not when goal intentions were weak.
Study 2 activated either a task relevant or a neutral goal outside of participants’ conscious
awareness and found that implementation intentions affected performance only when the relevant goal had
been activated. These findings indicate that the rate of goal attainment engendered by implementation
intentions takes account of the state (strength, activation) of people’s superordinate goal intentions.
Goal intentions (GI) specify what one wants to achieve (I intend to achieve X)
Implementation intentions (II) involve specifying the behavior one will perform in the service of the goal
and the situational context in which one will enact it (If situation Y arises, then I will initiate goal
directed behavior Z)
Forming II increase the likelihood of attaining one’s objective compared to the formation of a goal intention on
its own. However, II have costs for self-regulation which is the fact that behavior is elicited by situational cues in
a mechanistic fashion: when a person encounters the opportunity to act that was specified in his or her
implementation intention, behavior is initiated automatically and in the manner that is not consistent with
underlying goal intention. e.g. one finds oneself selecting the low-fat meal at lunchtime as specified in one’s
plan despite a weak goal intention to diet.
Goal of research: to test whether the rate of goal attainment (достижения) engendered (вызывает) by
implementation intentions is sensitive to the presence and absence of a superordinate goal intention.
Implementation Intentions: Effects and Processes
Numerous studies attest to the benefits of implementation in promoting goal achievement. e.g. how, when the
women would make appointment for cervical cancer screening; these women who thought how to do this, were
much more likely to be screened than were women who did not form implementation intentions (rates were
(2% and 69%)
Implementation intentions are effective in:
(a) Infrequently performed behaviors such as cancer screening and behaviors that are performed daily
(b) Self-report and objective measures of performance
(c) Behavioral performance among student, general public, and clinical samples
Impl. Intent. have significant effect on goal achievement, but why? Two processes are important:
(1) The critical situation (specified in the if component of the plan) becomes highly accessible when people
form an implementation intention
(2) The initiation of the intended behavior (specified in the then component of the plan) becomes
automated when people form implementation intention
Also, awareness and feminineness of the situation/context is not required for the effective operation once the
implementation intention is formed. E.g. participants who formed II to tell an unfriendly experimenter what
they thought of her exhibited slower responses to positive adjectives and faster responses to negative
objectives, this was not obtained when participants formed only goal intentions.
, In sum, forming an implementation intention promotes goal achievement because the person is perceptually
ready to encounter the situational cues specified in the if component of his/her plan. These cues evoke the
specified then response in a manner that does not require conscious awareness of effort on his/her part.
Action Control by Situational Cues Versus Goal Intentions ????
Once II is formed, it implies that one decided in advance what one will do (initiate behavior Z) and the conditions
under which one will do it (if situation Y arises), so as soon as specific situation/cues encountered – behavior
elicited automatically, without the need for conscious awareness. The question is whether the situational
control of behavior engendered by implementation intentions is sensitive or indifferent to the state of
underlying goal intention. Whether people’s goal intentions moderate automatic action initiation by
implementation intentions?
- Idea that II gives rise to certain behavior irrespective of underlying goal intention BY HABITS: e.g man
who want to buy magazine in a newspaper stand and he imagines himself how he would be going
through the shelves to find the article that he needs, then as he walks to work and passes the stand he
finds himself standing in front of the newspaper stand with a desire to buy, but the he remembers that
he decided to postpone the decision by the end of the day, so he doesn’t buy the newspapers.
The relationship between intentional (Implementation Intention) and situational control (habit) of behavior can
be illuminated by examining the parallel between II and habits, similarities are:
- Automatic response
- Strong associations have developed particular situational cues and particular behavioral responses
Differences:
- Habit: strong links had developed between cues and behavior
- II: participants form association mentally in an act of will
Situational Control: Habits (because were performed in real life) provide much better prediction of behavior
than did intentions. Behavior is either controlled by habits or by goal intentions goals have no role in
explaining the environmental control of action that characterizes habits.
The Present Research
There are two approaches:
(1) People act accordingly to their plans regardless of their goal intentions because the respective
situational cues elicit behavior in a mechanistic fashion.
(2) Forming an implementation intention engenders action control that respects actors’ underlying goal
intentions. Thus, strong behavioral effects of implementation intentions are obtained only when this
type of planning is supported by relevant goal intentions.
Studies investigate: whether implementation intentions respect people’s goals (goals strength and goal
activation):
Study 1: tests whether strong implementation intention effects occur only when people posses strong
respective goal intentions.
Study 2: tests whether II effects depend on whether the respective goal intention is activated in the
given
situation
Study 1: Implementation Intentions and Engaging in Independent Study
Goal for students, the number of hours of independent study they undertake. Number of hours – measure
behavior and operationalize the strength of participants goal intentions in terms of the number of hours of
study that they intended to undertake.
Hypothesis: Strong effects of implementation intentions will only emerge when participants have strong goal
intentions to study
WEEK 2: MOTIVATION
ARTICLE 7: The Interplay(взаимодействие) Between Goal Intentions and Implementation (осуществление,
выполнение) Intentions– Sheeran, Gollwitzer and Webb
Two studies tested whether action control by implementation intentions is sensitive to the activation and
strength of participants’ underlying goal intentions.
In Study 1, participants formed implementation intentions (or did not) and their goal intentions
were measured. Findings revealed a significant interaction between implementation intentions and the strength
of respective goal intentions. Implementation intentions benefited the rate of goal attainment when
participants had strong goal intentions but not when goal intentions were weak.
Study 2 activated either a task relevant or a neutral goal outside of participants’ conscious
awareness and found that implementation intentions affected performance only when the relevant goal had
been activated. These findings indicate that the rate of goal attainment engendered by implementation
intentions takes account of the state (strength, activation) of people’s superordinate goal intentions.
Goal intentions (GI) specify what one wants to achieve (I intend to achieve X)
Implementation intentions (II) involve specifying the behavior one will perform in the service of the goal
and the situational context in which one will enact it (If situation Y arises, then I will initiate goal
directed behavior Z)
Forming II increase the likelihood of attaining one’s objective compared to the formation of a goal intention on
its own. However, II have costs for self-regulation which is the fact that behavior is elicited by situational cues in
a mechanistic fashion: when a person encounters the opportunity to act that was specified in his or her
implementation intention, behavior is initiated automatically and in the manner that is not consistent with
underlying goal intention. e.g. one finds oneself selecting the low-fat meal at lunchtime as specified in one’s
plan despite a weak goal intention to diet.
Goal of research: to test whether the rate of goal attainment (достижения) engendered (вызывает) by
implementation intentions is sensitive to the presence and absence of a superordinate goal intention.
Implementation Intentions: Effects and Processes
Numerous studies attest to the benefits of implementation in promoting goal achievement. e.g. how, when the
women would make appointment for cervical cancer screening; these women who thought how to do this, were
much more likely to be screened than were women who did not form implementation intentions (rates were
(2% and 69%)
Implementation intentions are effective in:
(a) Infrequently performed behaviors such as cancer screening and behaviors that are performed daily
(b) Self-report and objective measures of performance
(c) Behavioral performance among student, general public, and clinical samples
Impl. Intent. have significant effect on goal achievement, but why? Two processes are important:
(1) The critical situation (specified in the if component of the plan) becomes highly accessible when people
form an implementation intention
(2) The initiation of the intended behavior (specified in the then component of the plan) becomes
automated when people form implementation intention
Also, awareness and feminineness of the situation/context is not required for the effective operation once the
implementation intention is formed. E.g. participants who formed II to tell an unfriendly experimenter what
they thought of her exhibited slower responses to positive adjectives and faster responses to negative
objectives, this was not obtained when participants formed only goal intentions.
, In sum, forming an implementation intention promotes goal achievement because the person is perceptually
ready to encounter the situational cues specified in the if component of his/her plan. These cues evoke the
specified then response in a manner that does not require conscious awareness of effort on his/her part.
Action Control by Situational Cues Versus Goal Intentions ????
Once II is formed, it implies that one decided in advance what one will do (initiate behavior Z) and the conditions
under which one will do it (if situation Y arises), so as soon as specific situation/cues encountered – behavior
elicited automatically, without the need for conscious awareness. The question is whether the situational
control of behavior engendered by implementation intentions is sensitive or indifferent to the state of
underlying goal intention. Whether people’s goal intentions moderate automatic action initiation by
implementation intentions?
- Idea that II gives rise to certain behavior irrespective of underlying goal intention BY HABITS: e.g man
who want to buy magazine in a newspaper stand and he imagines himself how he would be going
through the shelves to find the article that he needs, then as he walks to work and passes the stand he
finds himself standing in front of the newspaper stand with a desire to buy, but the he remembers that
he decided to postpone the decision by the end of the day, so he doesn’t buy the newspapers.
The relationship between intentional (Implementation Intention) and situational control (habit) of behavior can
be illuminated by examining the parallel between II and habits, similarities are:
- Automatic response
- Strong associations have developed particular situational cues and particular behavioral responses
Differences:
- Habit: strong links had developed between cues and behavior
- II: participants form association mentally in an act of will
Situational Control: Habits (because were performed in real life) provide much better prediction of behavior
than did intentions. Behavior is either controlled by habits or by goal intentions goals have no role in
explaining the environmental control of action that characterizes habits.
The Present Research
There are two approaches:
(1) People act accordingly to their plans regardless of their goal intentions because the respective
situational cues elicit behavior in a mechanistic fashion.
(2) Forming an implementation intention engenders action control that respects actors’ underlying goal
intentions. Thus, strong behavioral effects of implementation intentions are obtained only when this
type of planning is supported by relevant goal intentions.
Studies investigate: whether implementation intentions respect people’s goals (goals strength and goal
activation):
Study 1: tests whether strong implementation intention effects occur only when people posses strong
respective goal intentions.
Study 2: tests whether II effects depend on whether the respective goal intention is activated in the
given
situation
Study 1: Implementation Intentions and Engaging in Independent Study
Goal for students, the number of hours of independent study they undertake. Number of hours – measure
behavior and operationalize the strength of participants goal intentions in terms of the number of hours of
study that they intended to undertake.
Hypothesis: Strong effects of implementation intentions will only emerge when participants have strong goal
intentions to study
