Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:06, 27 January 2013

This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. You can assist by editing it. (January 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

This article is currently undergoing a major edit by the Guild of Copy Editors. As a courtesy, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed. The copy editor who added this notice is listed in the page history. This page was last revised at 22:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC) (11 years ago) by Buster40004 (talk · contribs) (Click here to refresh this time calculation.). Please remove {{GOCEinuse}} from this page as this page has not been edited for at least 24 hours. If you have any questions or concerns, please direct them to the Guild of Copy Editors' talk page. Thank you for your patience.

An implementation intention (II) is a self-regulatory strategy in the form of an "if-then-plan" that can lead to better goal attainment. It is subordinate to goal intention as it specifies the when, where and how portions of goal-directed behavior. The concept of implementation intention was introduced in 1999 by psychologist Peter Gollwitzer. Studies made in 1997 showed that implementation intention can help people work towards the attainment of their goal, and over time, it can help make the process an automatic behavior.

Concept

People generally have good intentions, but often fail to act on them. The question then, is how goal intentions that are once set, will reliably lead to the desired goal-directed behavior and subsequent attainment of those goals.

Achieving one's goals require that certain goal-directed behavior be instituted, but people are often unsuccessful in initiating or maintaining these behaviors. Initiating goal-directed behavior can fail because of distraction that superceed attaining the goal, or if opportunities for attaining that goal are rare. Maintaining goal-directed behavior often fails because the results are not immediate, or if the effort of the goal-directed behavior has a high personal cost (e.g. eating a healthy diet).

The problems of initiating and maintaining goal-directed behavior can be addressed by using the implementation intention process. This if-then-plan does not name a goal in an unspecific form (e.g. goal intentions such as: "I want to reach X") but rather it connects a critical situation (an opportunity for goal attainment) with a specific goal-directed behavior, thereby leading to what could be called automatization in goal attainment. Having formed a concrete plan involving a specific situation, this situation then becomes mentally represented and activated, leading to better perception, attention and memory concerning the critical situation. As a result, the chosen goal-directed behavior (the then-part of the plan) will be performed automatically, without conscious effort. This has several advantages such as having more cognitive resources available for other tasks and avoiding distraction. It is also assumed that an implementation intention, once set, will continue running non-consciously. This process is also called strategic automaticity.

The strength of commitment related to both the plan set and the goal is very important for the implementation intention to have an effect on people´s behavior. Without commitment, an implementation intention will hardly have any effect on goal-directed behavior.

In the phase model of action, the use of implementation intention takes place in the post-decisional phase (implemental mindset, volition is the driving force of action) which follows the predecisional phase (deliberative mindset, motivation is the driving force of setting goals). In the implemental mindset, a person is already committed to a goal and an implementation intention can be a good strategy to reach this goal.

History

Research has indicated that general goal intentions, such as "I strongly intend to reach X", can explain only 20-30% of the variance of behavioral change. After all, past behavior still tends to be a better predictor for a person's future behavior when it is compared to goal intentions.

Several variables will determine goal attainment success. Among those variables is how the goal setting criteria is framed. For example, when a goal that is set in a challenging, specific way, it will lead to a greater success than a goal that is set in a challenging, but vague, way. The strategy of implementation intentions was developed from the basis of these findings.

Implementation Intentions and Goal Shielding

A large amount of research has been conducted on implementation intentions to better understand the questions relating to the initiation of goal striving. Unfortunatly, the prior study of shielding of ongoing goal striving has been neglected in that research.

One study regarding this question was reported by Achziger, Gollwitzer and Sheeran . It was shown in that study that implementation intentions can even assist people to shield goal striving from unwanted thoughts and feelings, such as cravings for junk food and from distracting thoughts. Two field experiments, concerning dieting (Study 1) and performance in sports (Study 2), have shown that there was a significant positive influence of implementation intentions on protecting ongoing goal striving. Participants who formed implementation intentions were more successful with long-term dieting, as well as concentration and performance in a tennis match. The focus on "If-then-plans" is the prevention of distracting thoughts and an efficient accomplishment of cognitive, motivational and emotional barriers of goal striving.

As these studies were run in "everyday" situations outside of an artificial laboratory, they possess a high external validity, and thus display the importance and meaningfulness of implementation intentions for everyday life.

Implementation Intentions and the Strategic Automation of Emotion Regulation

In 2009 Schweiger Gallo, Keil, Gollwitzer, Rockstroh and McCulloch (Schweiger Gallo et al., 2009) published another study that was conducted to address the effectiveness of implementation intentions in regulating emotional reactivity.

The study required that disgust (Study 1) and fear (Study 2) eliciting stimuli were viewed by participants subject to three different self-regulation instructions:

1. The simple goal intention not to experience fright or disgust ("I will not get frightened")
2. The first goal intention, with an additional implementation intention ("And if I see a spider, I will stay calm and relaxed")
3. A no-self-regulation control group

Disgust was selected because it is almost universally considered to be a basic emotion in the literature. Fear was selected because anxiety disorders, such as panic disorders or phobias, are common and affect the life of many people. The participants reported on the intensity of the elicited emotions by rating experienced arousal. Only implementation intention participants succeeded in reducing their disgust and fear reactions compared to the other groups.

These results support the idea that self-regulation by simple goal intentions runs into problems when immediate and strong emotional reactivity has to be down-regulated, whereas implementation intentions appear to be an effective tool of self-regulation.

Critique

As reported by Theodore A. Powers and colleagues, implementation intentions seem to have a negative effect on performance in people high on socially prescribed perfectionism (Powers et al., 2005).

External links

• Implementation Intentions and Procrastination, Psychology Today

References

1. Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493-503.
2. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Brandstaetter, V. (1997). Implementation intentions and effective goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 186-199.
3. Orbell, S., & Sheeran, P. (1998) Regulation of behaviour in pursuit of health goals: Commentary. Psychology and Health, 13, 753-758
4. Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mind-sets. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), The handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 53-92). New York: Guilford Press.
5. Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493-503.
6. Locke, E. A., Latham, G. P., (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. In: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US: Prentice-Hall, Inc. (1990). xviii, 413 pp.
7. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69-119
8. Achtziger, A., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2008). Implementation intentions and shielding goal striving from unwanted thoughts and feelings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 381-393.
9. Schweiger Gallo, I., Keil, A., McCulloch, K. C., Rockstroh, B., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2009). Strategic automation of emotion regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 11-31.
10. Powers, T. A., Koestner, R.,& Topciu, R. A. (2005). Implementation Intentions, Perfectionism, and Goal Progress: Perhaps the Road to Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31 (7): 902–912, doi:10.1177/0146167204272311

• Misplaced Pages articles needing copy edit from January 2012
• Planning
• Intention
• Motivation
• Mental processes
• Action
• Strategy